- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,490
- 6,046
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Was excited about this concept but it's definitively a fail if it has ushered in numbers on the backs in tests. Disgrace.
World Test Championship 2019-2021
- Thread starter 90N90S
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,490
- 6,046
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Haha I was fairly pissed and fairly taking the piss last night. But it is weird and annoying that they're trying to add context to the traditional format, and concurrently making it look cheap and tacky in line with limited overs cricket. They need to be focusing on distinguishing the product from the short form.
Just when England had gone to a classy cream and returned to the knit vest over the rubbish they'd been wearing for the last 10 years. Speaking of the vests, it particularly ruins the spectacle when half the players out there don't even have their number visible anyway. Looks very park cricket.
Yeah it doesn’t bother me too much, I think we will all get used to it in the next few months and won’t even think about it bit after a while
Following in from this, should we have a thread for drunken posters?
They're not trying to make it look cheap and tacky, they're trying to make it more accessible. It's a massive help to casual viewers, new viewers and in fact any time you see someone new. There are some players it's easy to pick out on the field, but for others, having a number and a name there helps a lot.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,490
- 6,046
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Yep, fair enough I can see why they would bring it in, still looks naff though and unless you are at the game with binoculars I don't think you even get much of a look at a fielder's name on the back. If the player is batting or bowling then their name is on screen at all times.
I will say that England executed it a lot better than Australia, so if it must stay I hope that Australia look at toning down the bold-face italic monstrosity factor.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
It might help the casual viewer but for the purist the numbers on the back of the whites look like complete ass
I barely noticed the number to be honest. On TV at least you mostly only see the bowler's back, maybe the non-striker, everyone else is front or side on for the bulk of the action. And its handy for distinguishing fielders. Not the disaster more sponsorship logos would be, and unlike big bats and day-night games it doesn't impact the way the game is played. Keep them, remove them, makes very little difference.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27295281/new-world-test-championship-playing-conditions
A quirk of this is that teams playing longer series are at more risk.
A win in a longer series is worth less points (the same number of points are available across a series but laid out on a match by match basis).
A team that wins a match in a three match series, receives 40 points but loses two per lost over.
In a five match series, those two deducted from 24 points. Along with there 40% more chances to offend in the longer series.
It rewards short series by reducing risk.
A quirk of this is that teams playing longer series are at more risk.
A win in a longer series is worth less points (the same number of points are available across a series but laid out on a match by match basis).
A team that wins a match in a three match series, receives 40 points but loses two per lost over.
In a five match series, those two deducted from 24 points. Along with there 40% more chances to offend in the longer series.
It rewards short series by reducing risk.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,490
- 6,046
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
So having bowled 88 overs on day 2, do Australia already cop two of these penalty overs? England were also laughably behind the over rate on day 1. Will be interesting to see if the loss of points system actually results in teams addressing slow over rates.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
negative points coming up then... guessing some allowances to be made for DRS?
Apparently an allowance is given for DRS, but if you can't get in 90 with the extra half hour you deserve the fine and points loss IMO. That time is supposed to cover those types of delays, not be a standard part of the day's play.
Umpires will do calculations across both innings, which I guess means a faster over rate in the second innings could wipe off the deficit in the first. I would still prefer 30 overs a session, cut into lunch and tea if needed (one benefit this series being the Nine crew in the studio would be on less), but that's another issue.
This whole thing just comes off as a gimmick. How can you determine a champion off a one off test match? And why predetermine where that final will be? Why not just give the final to the top of the table team? That's an insane advantage to England. Could you imagine a scenario where you had Australia and New Zealand play off in a final and the final was somewhere like in India? There would barely be anyone in the crowd. How embarrassing would that be?
And a format that stretches across multiple years and you don't have all the teams play each other at least once? Joke
Really comes off as a pathetic attempt to keep test cricket relevant.
And a format that stretches across multiple years and you don't have all the teams play each other at least once? Joke
Really comes off as a pathetic attempt to keep test cricket relevant.
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I quite like the idea of a predetermined venue which allows for the possibility of a neutral venue in test cricket which I think would be cool.
Imagine India and Australia battling it in the inaugural test championship final at Lords. Although I agree that England will get a huge advantage if they make the final.
But imagine if it was someone like New Zealand and South Africa at lords though. They'd be struggling to get crowds at that one. Test Cricket isn't a popular enough spectator form of the game to have two teams playing away at a neutral venue. It's just really silly imo
I take it the ICC are banking on India finishing in the top 2 because of their home form to make sure there are decent crowds there.
I take it the ICC are banking on India finishing in the top 2 because of their home form to make sure there are decent crowds there.
TV matters much more than live crowds.
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Decent crowds where?
There was hardly any Indian crowd in the test matches vs India in England last summer. It's a different story for the LOIs though.
Peter Bixley
Club Legend
- Jul 7, 2019
- 1,535
- 2,644
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Television suffers when the spectacle is characterised by empty seats. The casual viewer switches off when nobody is in the stands.
Agreed but it will be pretty embarrassing if you have a world championship final and the ground is half full at best. At least with the one day world cup finals they have always been sell outs.
Good point, the Indian fan base definitely are more keen on going to odi's than tests but you would still get a better crowd with them than most.
What happens if England doesn't qualify for the 2021 final? And I still can't get my head around a one off test match. If the home team gets in won't they just completely cook the pitch to their advantage? They really thought this out.
I'm no fan of the one-off, predtermined, venue.
Hopefully it will change, and I'm guessing to some extent its forced by the seasons. If England were be on top, they can't play in February and more than New Zealand could in August. Unfortunately there is no way the boards would allow a month to aside for a proper series, or three months or whatever for varying contingencies.
Starburns_
Moderator
- Mar 30, 2011
- 49,590
- 96,689
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Colts, Stars, The Exers
- Moderator
- #48
Take any test not played in Australia or England and the crowds are sparse at best. There's some decent arguments against it, but this isn't one.
