World Test Championship 2019-2021

[corbies]

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.

 

[Park cricketer]

India vs Australia, World Test championship final, Lords 2021.

Pen it down!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

England are on the board. No deductions for over rates yet. That's a surprise in one respect, but I'm sure the allowances for time lost are more than generous.

 

[Park cricketer]

India are on board. Pakistan, South Africa and Bangladesh are yet to play.

 

[cricketnut14]

India vs Australia, World Test championship final, Lords 2021.

Pen it down!

well the aussies just blew 24 points.

 

[Mateyman]

This whole format is really average in how much it depends on who your opponents are

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The format is pretty poor, but without waiting five years to crown a champion and with money being more important than sporting integrity, perhaps the most viable.

 

[Mateyman]

The format is pretty poor, but without waiting five years to crown a champion and with money being more important than sporting integrity, perhaps the most viable.

Surely you'd only need one more year to fit in 3 more series per team?

 

[melanChronic]

Surely you'd only need one more year to fit in 3 more series per team?

I guess ideally you'd want home and away series against all parties. 5 years is too long a period though.

 

[Mateyman]

I guess ideally you'd want home and away series against all parties. 5 years is too long a period though.

Yeah I do agree, but I think just a home or away series would suffice. Certainly more fair than current setup

 

[Cainozz]

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]

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

 

[The Speaker]

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.

 

[Bwillow11]

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]

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.

 

[ButteredBun]

What's the update on the points table? Can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Park cricketer]

What's the update on the points table? Can't seem to find it anywhere.

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]

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...

 

[The Speaker]

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]

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....

 

[The Speaker]

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]

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]

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.

 

[The Speaker]

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.

So Australia better be good enough to win the 2 match series against Pakistan and Bangladesh 2-0.

 

[Pykie]

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.