World Test Championship 2019-2021

corbies

Spec Moderator
Jul 31, 2010
4,225
5,942
Newcastle
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
S'roos, New Jets, WHam, Cronulla
How come England are ranked 2? They should be down the bottom after that loss.
The tie-breaker (after series won) is runs per wicket ratio. That being runs scored per wicket lost, divided by, runs conceded per wicket taken. In Englands case this comes to 0.573 which is obviously higher than everyone elses which is 0.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cainozz

Club Legend
Feb 6, 2015
1,700
2,541
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Is 5 years too long though? We wait every 4 years for a 50 over World Cup winner. I'd feel pretty good about a side after a solid 5 year stint and how they would compare to other teams before them. All the best teams in test cricket have always had a golden 5 year period that determine their success and how we talk about them today.
 

Mateyman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 16, 2012
10,332
6,810
AFL Club
Collingwood
Is 5 years too long though? We wait every 4 years for a 50 over World Cup winner. I'd feel pretty good about a side after a solid 5 year stint and how they would compare to other teams before them. All the best teams in test cricket have always had a golden 5 year period that determine their success and how we talk about them today.
Also it's not like 2 years makes the action really immediate. We're already aware were waiting a long time to determine a winner
 
Mar 5, 2011
32,286
25,051
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
The point of it isn't to find the best team of the era. It's a championship. If anything, it should be shorter, but politically it can't be smaller at the moment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bwillow11

Team Captain
Sep 16, 2016
536
331
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars
Ultimately, it’s the best format possible, in order to satisfy all parties. England and Australia want to play 5 matches in their series, the ICC has accomodated that. India and Pakistan don’t want to face each other, ICC allowed for that too. It’s more a league than a tournament, most leagues only go for one year, so if anything 2 years is too long.
 

Howard Littlejohn

Brownlow Medallist
May 30, 2006
15,463
8,573
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I guess ideally you'd want home and away series against all parties. 5 years is too long a period though.
I think you can keep the points over a longer period, bur still hold a final (series preferably, but no way will boards put everything on hold for that) more regularly.
It isn't ideal, as the teams may bear no resemblence to the points earned 4-5 years ago; but it does allow for full home and away.
 

Park cricketer

Club Legend
Nov 29, 2018
1,274
1,751
AFL Club
Adelaide
What's the update on the points table? Can't seem to find it anywhere.
Screenshot_20190909-094020__01.jpg


Australia just made England's chances of making the final at Lords all the more difficult with this Ashes performance. An Australian win at the Oval would even more dent England's chances as England face SA and India away while they face Pakistan at home who generally do well in England.
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
17,227
34,765
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
I like the concept, but the scoring looks stupid.

No additional points for series wins is ridiculous.

There should be weighted points for away wins vs home wins or some sort of coefficient, this should be the tie breaker.

I understand the difference between games and needing to apportion points, however:

How the hell does a 2 game away series in the West Indies equal the same amount of points as a 5 match series in England? If we won the Ashes 5-0 we'd only win 120 points...
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2011
32,286
25,051
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
I like the concept, but the scoring looks stupid.

No additional points for series wins is ridiculous.

There should be weighted points for away wins vs home wins or some sort of coefficient, this should be the tie breaker.

I understand the difference between games and needing to apportion points, however:

How the hell does a 2 game away series in the West Indies equal the same amount of points as a 5 match series in England? If we won the Ashes 5-0 we'd only win 120 points...
Because the bigger nations agreed to it. If it was more points for more games, it would be massively unfair for smaller nations who never get to play long series.
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
17,227
34,765
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
Because the bigger nations agreed to it. If it was more points for more games, it would be massively unfair for smaller nations who never get to play long series.
It actually advantages teams like NZ who play reduced tests only because their cricket board don't really want to.

They will generally play the minnow sides like WI, Pakistan more often because India, Aus, SA and England always play on fixed rotations.

So they will be playing weaker opposition at maximum points values.

As an example, NZ's opponents are:

Sri Lanka (A) x 2
Australia (A) x 3
India (H) x 2
Bangladesh (A) x 2
West Indies (H) x 3
Pakistan (H) x 2

Australia plays:

England (A) x 5
Pakistan (H) x 2
New Zealand (H) x 3
Bangladesh (A) x 2
India (H) x 4
South Africa (A) x 3


Every side doesn't play 2 sides.



It will be a real fizzer if it's New Zealand vs Sri Lanka or someone at Lords....
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2011
32,286
25,051
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
It actually advantages teams like NZ who play reduced tests only because their cricket board don't really want to.

They will generally play the minnow sides like WI, Pakistan more often because India, Aus, SA and England always play on fixed rotations.

So they will be playing weaker opposition at maximum points values.
And all the boards agreed that they were okay with that (and NZ already drew 1 series against 'weaker opposition').
 

Park cricketer

Club Legend
Nov 29, 2018
1,274
1,751
AFL Club
Adelaide
I like the concept, but the scoring looks stupid.

No additional points for series wins is ridiculous.

There should be weighted points for away wins vs home wins or some sort of coefficient, this should be the tie breaker.

I understand the difference between games and needing to apportion points, however:

How the hell does a 2 game away series in the West Indies equal the same amount of points as a 5 match series in England? If we won the Ashes 5-0 we'd only win 120 points...
Are you saying points should be allocated based on the quality of the opposition or it should be allocated based on the number of matches?

If it's the former, how would you justify England as being a tougher opposition than the Windies when England were routed by the Windies in their home just a few months ago. You need to come up with a specific algorithm based on the actual ICC ranking in that case.

If it's the latter, you are not going to give equal opportunities to all sides because the bigger sides play more number of tests. I'm not sure why you think NZ making the final at Lord's would be a real fizzer. They play less number of matches yes, but consequently, their risk reward ratio is also higher. For example, they tour Bangladesh for two matches and even a single loss would see them losing 60 points in a 2 match series as opposed to losing 24 points in a 5 match series, and Bangladesh are no pushovers at home despite their average showing right now vs Afghanistan.
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
17,227
34,765
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
And all the boards agreed that they were okay with that (and NZ already drew 1 series against 'weaker opposition').
I understand they accepted it.

Yes, but because it's a 2 match series NZ roughly the same points for a 1-1 drawn series than Australia winning an away Ashes outright.
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
17,227
34,765
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
Are you saying points should be allocated based on the quality of the opposition or it should be allocated based on the number of matches?

If it's the former, how would you justify England as being a tougher opposition than the Windies when England were routed by the Windies in their home just a few months ago. You need to come up with a specific algorithm based on the actual ICC ranking in that case.

If it's the latter, you are not going to give equal opportunities to all sides because the bigger sides play more number of tests. I'm not sure why you think NZ making the final at Lord's would be a real fizzer. They play less number of matches yes, but consequently, their risk reward ratio is also higher. For example, they tour Bangladesh for two matches and even a single loss would see them losing 60 points in a 2 match series as opposed to losing 24 points in a 5 match series, and Bangladesh are no pushovers at home despite their average showing right now vs Afghanistan.
No you can't grade it based on the quality of opposition as it's irrelevant like you said.

The championship should run until each side has played the same amount of matches, alternatively if sides are only playing 7 or 8 tests a year, they need to up their output if they wish to compete for the championship.
 

Top Bottom