The World Test Championship

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

Zaltzman has also made a decent point on twitter in that bowlers would be disadvantaged more by longer days (for four day tests), teams would approach matches differently and that they would be more susceptible to rain (as I said above). He says that 4 day tests seem to be the wrong answer to a valid question.

People acting like a four day game is completely unheard of in cricket before. Nathan Lyon, one of the biggest critics of this suggestion, just took four wickets in the final innings of a four day match

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

People acting like a four day game is completely unheard of in cricket before. Nathan Lyon, one of the biggest critics of this suggestion, just took four wickets in the final innings of a four day match

I happen to agree with some of the scepticism. I happen to watch four day domestic cricket too. Just think that there needs to be some more careful consideration re issues such as weather, i.e. a reserve day etc before making such a change etc.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

I happen to agree with some of the scepticism. I happen to watch four day domestic cricket too. Just think that there needs to be some more careful consideration re issues such as weather, i.e. a reserve day etc before making such a change etc.

That's kind of where we are already. However, binning the fifth day entirely would mean back to back tests could be held closer together, shortening tours or allowing host countries to schedule in more income generating limited overs matches.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

That's kind of where we are already. However, binning the fifth day entirely would mean back to back tests could be held closer together, shortening tours or allowing host countries to schedule in more income generating limited overs matches.

The back to back element of tests is a bad enough factor already. As I said already, I agree with less test matches albeit I doubt Ashes series would be reduced because they are worth more money usually. Otherwise there is usually a decent scope for reducing tests and expanding a few t20s. I rather loathe 5 match ODI series. Three was always enough.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

The back to back element of tests is a bad enough factor already. As I said already, I agree with less test matches albeit I doubt Ashes series would be reduced because they are worth more money usually. Otherwise there is usually a decent scope for reducing tests and expanding a few t20s. I rather loathe 5 match ODI series. Three was always enough.

Ashes will always likely be 5 tests, and it seems we're kinda obliged to do the same with India. No reason why we play 4 v South Africa, 3 v West Indies. Those series could be permanently played on a basis of either 3 or 2 matches.

[Sir Coolerking]

Truly astonished that not one player in the celebrations mentioned the 30 WTC points!!

[1000yardstare]

@LePinchHitter

Current totals and remaining points available in the World Test Championship:

India 360 - 240 to play for
Australia 296 - 360
New Zealand 180 - 360
England 146 - 480
Pakistan 140 - 420
Sri Lanka 80 - 480
South Africa 24 - 480
West Indies 0 - 600
Bangladesh 0 - 540

[Sir Coolerking]

Surely the points to play for should be in increments of 120?

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Surely the points to play for should be in increments of 120?

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...hip-final-race

[Steveh]

Thanks for the link. This shows the merit of the test championship, with everything to play for and every test counting. If England can win in SL, they will be very handily placed.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Steveh

Thanks for the link. This shows the merit of the test championship, with everything to play for and every test counting. If England can win in SL, they will be very handily placed.

Unlikely. England won't win a match in India, while Australia must be strong favourites in all three remaining series.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Surely the points to play for should be in increments of 120?

Are they mid series though?

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Are they mid series though?

If you call playing one Test in one country and the second in another mid series, (and it seems the ICC do) then yes.

It's still nailed on an India/Aus Final.

[Steveh]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Unlikely. England won't win a match in India, while Australia must be strong favourites in all three remaining series.

Well, yes, England will absolutely have to find a way to beat India, although that would be assumed to be necessary in order to finish in the top 2. Still, that's what you want, a final series to play and all to play for.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by Steveh

Well, yes, England will absolutely have to find a way to beat India, although that would be assumed to be necessary in order to finish in the top 2. Still, that's what you want, a final series to play and all to play for.

Totally mythical scenario, but it would be quite interesting if England found themselves say 2-1 up with one Test to play. Set 300 to win on the last day, they can bat out the draw to win the series, or go for the win with the extra points meaning qualification for the Test Championship Final.

What would you do?

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Totally mythical scenario, but it would be quite interesting if England found themselves say 2-1 up with one Test to play. Set 300 to win on the last day, they can bat out the draw to win the series, or go for the win with the extra points meaning qualification for the Test Championship Final.

What would you do?

If it was to get to the final then go for the win and risk the loss.

[1000yardstare]

Ind 9 matches (4 series) 360
Aus 10 (3) 296
Eng 14 (4) 279
NZ 7 (3) 180
Pak 7 (4) 153
SL 4 (2) 80
WI 5 (2) 40
SA 7 (2) 24
Ban 3 (2) 0

This year ?
1 Test Eng v WI
3 Tests Aus v India

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

Zaltzman has also made a decent point on twitter in that bowlers would be disadvantaged more by longer days (for four day tests), teams would approach matches differently and that they would be more susceptible to rain (as I said above). He says that 4 day tests seem to be the wrong answer to a valid question.

Not sure the point is that strong, I mean a) you don't have to bowl all day, being 4 days should mean you can still bowl sides out cheaply, and b) if you are still bowling after 90 overs (in a day) it means you haven't bowled the opposition out and so are likely to be less effective anyway.

What it might bring in is more tactics, sides playing a fifth bowler, perhaps a change in pitch preparation as you'll be aiming for it to last 4 days not 5.

They wouldn't be more susceptible to rain, just means less time would be left to force a positive result and if anything for me that may not be such a bad thing.

Instead of playing out usual scenarios, eg side A bats and posts 400+ and ends up with 100+ runs 1st innings lead, add to it and declares setting side B 300-400 or more to win, and other not many particularly varied scenarios leading to day 5 coming into play, sides wanting to win may actual be put to the TEST and have to do a little more than take advantage of say good batting conditions or whatever, they might have to accelerate rather than spend say 5+ sessions posting 500+

I say give it a go, I'd ideally like to see limited overs eg 100 per innings and bowler allocations of 20 max, but too many 'traditionalists' come dinosaurs like the old fashioned trudgery of Tests.


What makes me laugh is so much fuss about bad light from the 2nd Test when it was clear to anyone with an IQ that there was never going to be enough play due to RAIN not light. And laughable to start half an hour early if the previous day was affected by light, they should anyway but that would only add a maximum of 2 hours!! How much could have been added to the 2nd Test in TWO HOURS.............!!!?!?!?!


Like VAR in football, and possibly DRS in cricket, some will not want to see change and imagine worst scenarios, make them public and try to persuade others it won't work. And with 4 day Tests much the same, bottom line is you won't know until you try

[gmdf]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

And with 4 day Tests much the same, bottom line is you won't know until you try

Well, it's pretty easy to see which Tests this (or any other) year would have ended as boring draws rather then exciting victories/defeats thanks to the 5th day.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

Not sure the point is that strong, I mean a) you don't have to bowl all day, being 4 days should mean you can still bowl sides out cheaply, and b) if you are still bowling after 90 overs (in a day) it means you haven't bowled the opposition out and so are likely to be less effective anyway.

What it might bring in is more tactics, sides playing a fifth bowler, perhaps a change in pitch preparation as you'll be aiming for it to last 4 days not 5.

They wouldn't be more susceptible to rain, just means less time would be left to force a positive result and if anything for me that may not be such a bad thing.

Instead of playing out usual scenarios, eg side A bats and posts 400+ and ends up with 100+ runs 1st innings lead, add to it and declares setting side B 300-400 or more to win, and other not many particularly varied scenarios leading to day 5 coming into play, sides wanting to win may actual be put to the TEST and have to do a little more than take advantage of say good batting conditions or whatever, they might have to accelerate rather than spend say 5+ sessions posting 500+

I say give it a go, I'd ideally like to see limited overs eg 100 per innings and bowler allocations of 20 max, but too many 'traditionalists' come dinosaurs like the old fashioned trudgery of Tests.


What makes me laugh is so much fuss about bad light from the 2nd Test when it was clear to anyone with an IQ that there was never going to be enough play due to RAIN not light. And laughable to start half an hour early if the previous day was affected by light, they should anyway but that would only add a maximum of 2 hours!! How much could have been added to the 2nd Test in TWO HOURS.............!!!?!?!?!


Like VAR in football, and possibly DRS in cricket, some will not want to see change and imagine worst scenarios, make them public and try to persuade others it won't work. And with 4 day Tests much the same, bottom line is you won't know until you try

Anytime with an IQ would realise that people's frustration about the players being off for bad light in the last test was because it was squandering the limited opportunity to play in between the rain showers.

Originally Posted by gmdf

Well, it's pretty easy to see which Tests this (or any other) year would have ended as boring draws rather then exciting victories/defeats thanks to the 5th day.

Not really relevant as unlikely those matches would've played out the same had they been 4, rather than 5, days.