Ever since the Ancient Greeks tussled and battled for the acquisition of olive leave wreaths and crowns in their holy city of Olympia, societies have longed to discover who is the best of the best.
Michael Jordan, Lionel Messi, Sachin Tendulkar, Haile Gebrselassie – the list goes on, and much like the Greek legends, their influence extends far greater than simply within the sports they occupy.
For the Greeks, displaying physical prowess earnt one the right to political command. Although that collaboration, theoretically speaking, ceases to exist now, one cannot trivialise the power those who dominate in sport have.
They alone become marketing products and extract outrageous amounts of revenue for sponsors and their very sports. Their voice, when publicly projected, appears to silence all and shape the way others think and operate.
Followers abound yearn to replicate even a mere ounce of this preeminent performer’s achievements, often on a subconscious level. They are simply put on a pedestal, which they remain affixed to right up until they die, no matter how senile or obstinately dogmatic they become.
So how does this sentiment apply to sporting teams, where the individual often goes unnoticed in and among the entire collection of exceptional performances his teammates execute?
Well quite frankly, the implications are far greater and perpetually heavier.
Complete domination by an individual in a particular sport often does little for the country the athlete hails from.
Spectators and fans will adore their hero over the course of their career and barrack for him against his opponents, but that is the extent of the attachment from the perspective of the fan.
Team success engenders a level of passion among the people they represent whether it is within a community, region or nation.
In the latter case, patriotism is cultivated, inspiring even the least rambunctious of onlookers to get behind their nation as though they were fighting dear life.
If you support the Blues in the state of Origin, you despise every Queenslander and it is rocks or diamonds for the majority of the state’s inhabitants by the time the final whistle is blown.
A loss is a disaster that sits with you until the next match affords you with a chance of redemption and a victory enables you to cavort around with your chest protruding so far out in front that any number of cockroaches or cane toads would go unnoticed beneath you.
If you barrack for Manchester united then an Arsenal fan is what a German was to an Englishman some 70-odd years ago.
There is no question pride is at stake for the fans just as much as the players. As William Hazlitt put it, “pride erects a little kingdom of its own and acts as sovereign in it.”
To get to the point, with a 5-0 trouncing of the old enemy complete, how do we know where we stand in world cricket?
Barely four months ago, it was the English who were prancing around bellowing ‘God save the Queen” with half a dozen pints of Carlsberg in their bellies.
The Proteas have just recently accounted for the Indians by the skin of their teeth in their own backyard, but ones gets the impression that should a return series take place next week in the subcontinent the overall spoils would be similarly shared.
With the home ground advantage now seemingly having a pronounced effect on the outcome of a series, how can we ever determine who is the best?
As we know, an ICC rankings system does exist but the shortcomings of its function can perhaps be best outlined by the fact Pakistan sat above Australia until recently.
And let’s face it, a systematically designed point feature just isn’t convincing enough for spectators. They need evidence, something a World Cup provides.
The Spaniards have cast aside their economic woes, for they toppled the world in 2010 and have been able to bask in the glory of that feat for the past four years.
You might argue that we already have an equivalent in cricket, being the limited overs World Cup held every four years. But this is no comparison for what has always been, in many people’s eyes, the only form of the game, Test cricket.
Ask any member of the record breaking Australian team of the turn of the century, or any fan for that matter, what their proudest moments were – three consecutive World Cup victories or having twice registered 16 successive Test victories in the midst of dominating the world of Test cricket for the best part of a decade?
It would be a landslide victory for the latter alternative.
But when things aren’t as clear-cut, and the game is more closely fought, how can we demarcate where the leading sides stand on the podium?
After entertaining a few ideas myself – including one in particular, which I regarded to be so cunning I could have pinned a tail to it and called it a fox – I discovered the ICC had already accounted for this ongoing impasse.
It was perhaps the best kept secret in world sport since the caterers at the luxurious hotel in Johannesburg conveniently dished up salmonella and steamed vegetables on the eve of the Rugby World Cup final in 1995.
Even I, an avid cricket follower, was oblivious to the measures that had been taken by the ICC.
As I am now aware, there will be a Test cricket world championship held in England in 2017.
The tournament will only concern those nations ranked from one to four by the time business closes on December 31, 2016 and these will each play three games before a final is decided.
It seems a little scant for a duel of such proportions but at least we will have something to go by when it comes to establishing the credibility of one’s bragging rights.
I like the idea of a World Cup. For one they are generally memorable moments in time that become stored in our memories eternally and are fondly recollected every time another four years rolls around.
Whenever footage of a classic World Cup match is shown or music from the tournament is played, a strong level of nostalgia is aroused, stimulating even the most apathetic of characters.
The rugby union and football World Cups are prime examples of this, not to mention the Olympics, which although deals primarily with individual athletes, has the same everlasting effect upon those who witness the timeless battles.
Whether or not this format can replicate the success of the aforementioned, or even the 50 over World Cup for that matter, lends itself to debate.
Although, with four teams and a tight three week schedule, it is unlikely it would have the same broad scale effect.
An extension to six teams would be more suitable, allowing talented line-ups like Sri Lanka or Pakistan to stage an upset or two while also providing the tournament with a little more depth.
Yet, as one of those fans that covets the knowledge of who the best of the best is, I await the day of the opening ceremony with uncontrollable eagerness and remain optimistic it can deliver what we have always yearned for.
Ret
Guest
Actually 44 years. Biltong, as much as I get sick of our media talking up the test side, i think they actually have a real reason for it now. You mention SA winning their first series in Aus in 2008, but they failed to back it up at home several months later. SA seem to be a most unusual test team, that is better away from home. Anyway, virtually every series between these teams since SA's readmission, have been absolute crackers. My favourite match up by a mile.
Deccas
Guest
two words chris. illegal streams.
LD151
Guest
Look, India played really well and have some fantastic batsmen coming through. I believe Australia are very familiar with this with Pujara breaking all sorts of records against you! Something that also needs to mentioned are the pitches prepared for the two tests. One in Joburg, the other in Durbs. Both tracks were certainly not green tops and offered far less to seamers than the tracks seen in the Ashes. This obviously suited India. Why you ask? Well I don't know. Perhaps the BCCI's grubby fingers reach further than we think! They chose the two test venues after-all! All I read from it is that SA played India on two subcontinental type wickets and won. That's pretty good. Dale Steyn also broke his rib on day one of the second test. Did he retire hurt? No... He bowled one of the better spells of fast bowling you're likely to see and netted the Man of the match award too. This man is class. Legendary. Australia are playing well. They look confident again. It's going to be a great series and will surely bring the best out of both teams.
danuk
Guest
A bit arrogant and one eyed? Under statement of some proportions Maybe Australia should pop the champagne after white washing SA in SA ...
John Hamilton
Roar Pro
Wasn't this exact article published a week ago as well? I know it was. Here is my response to that thread copy/pasted. I think the idea of a test world cup could work but it has to be implemented correctly to work. I reckon only four nations should qualify. They then play a round robin against each other with the two highest placed teams going to the final. Each match should be given 6 days (in order to reduce likelihood of draws) with 4 days off between games (5 before the final). This would mean the tournament would be over within 6 weeks. Perhaps having too much back to back cricket may provoke some injury concerns but perhaps testing the depth of talent from each nation is not a bad thing. Qualifying for the tournament would be hard to do. All test nations (including Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) deserve a shot at qualifying for the tournament. Perhaps the 10 test playing nations can be split into two pools of qualifying. The qualifying period would go for 2-3 years and the top two teams from each pool go through to the tournament. I think India, England and Australia are the only countries that would be able to host such a tournament and make money out of it.
ozinsa
Guest
TB, I agree completely that somebody deserves to be slammed for approving the two test series in SA recently but I suspect you have the wrong acronym in your sights. Without obviously being privy to all negotiations, I suspect that the ICC and CSA were pawns in something dictated by the a-holes who really run cricket - BCCI.
Jo M
Guest
Yep, no-one is counting chickens yet, from either team, and nor should they be. The SA team is the best and is favourite, rightly so. But, the good thing is that while it is so intense on the field, afterwards these two teams get on way better than any others. Players from both teams have some very good friendships with each other outside of the game and you won't get that with any of the other teams I don't think.
gire
Guest
If you subscribe to pay tv you get to watch most matches around the world for a year which is cheaper than going to watch 5 days of a test match live ...just saying
pim
Guest
LT- you really are a bit of a Jack Russel (albeit a blind one) with a bone he just will not let go. Your if & buts are a bit tiring. Who won the series-Tests & one dayers in SA ? Not India Period.
You're all welcome here mate, I haven't seen many South Africans counting any chickens....
Bluebag
Guest
Don't count your Sth African chickens too early chaps. We're coming to get you!
SamAus
Guest
Its comments like these that make the Aussies to look a bit arrogant and one eyed. A team that dominates for 4 days and then almost loses the test is playing against a pretty impressive opponent that can make you pay if you don't capitalize when youre on top. There were a lot of ifs, buts and maybes with that first match but at the end of the day it was a draw. Kallis also had a dubious decision given to him which could have swung the match more in SAs favour, but this is test cricket. The final match was a walloping but 10 wickets. That's not a close series in my book. You can throw in the 2-0 one day series for good measure. Skin of their teeth? I think not The great Ozzie side of the 90's where also dominated for parts of test matches but their skill and self belief allowed them to either draw these matches or win them somehow. When they were on top, they crushed the opposition. We used to call this "what a winning side is all about". We can't change our tune now that a different country is no 1 and doing the very same thing
Louis, sorrybmate, but you are nitpicking. There was no DRS, and Kallis was on a run a ball when he was given out LBW off an inside edge. I do agree India was in cbtrol for most of the test, and setting a record score for a target should hav seen them win the first test. However their inability to take 20 wickets was their ultimate downfall.
Luke Smyke
Roar Pro
LD- i take it you are a passionate protea but i think you will find that the indians dominated 4 of the 5 days of the 1st test and were it not for a mammoth partnership that should've been broken on a number of occasions the indians would have run away with an unassailable 1-0 lead heading into durban. Also i wasn't factoring in one day results.
Luke Smyke
Roar Pro
I think youll find that India were in the drivers seat for the first 4 days of the first test- if it were not for a huge partnership that endured a fair amount of luck with drop catches and a dubious DRS decision the Indians would have comfortably got up and taken a 1-0 into the 2nd and final test...I would call that a closely fought series.
Ret, these groups of players weren't around 40 yeas ago. Also 22 of those forty years we were not playing international sport. Up to 2008 and had never won in OZ either.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The idea has a lot of merit if we are serious about having a Test Championship because as it stands not every Test playing nation has the same schedule, i.e. amount of Tests and against the same opposition. The reality is that with such a crowded schedule we will never play Bangladesh, New Zealand, Pakistan and the West Indies as much as we play England, India and South Africa. This means it will always be hard for these other teams to increase there ranking as they play few games against poorer opposition. To be honest, if the ICC was serious about promoting Test Cricket they would require proper tours for all teams. The fact that India and South Africa, the top 2 nations in the world, didn't play at least a 4 Test series over this summer is a disgrace and clearly shows how Test cricket is viewed by everyone but Australian and England.
Ret
Guest
How many home Test series have S.A. won against Aus in the last 40 years? That's "much needed perspective."
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
If the current system remains I'd agree with you Bush. If Australia go to South Africa and knock them over then they'd be the best in the World for my money regardless of what the rankings say.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
It's a never ending debate and I think a lot it gets wrapped up in the wider issue about the competitivenss of test cricket and its' longer term future. When I was down at the WACA, my mate from Perth had an interesting idea where rather than just playing series which are like a couple of months at a time, instead to make it more like a league where you play as many guys as is possible home and away each year. So say during the Aussie summer, you'd play one test against SA, one against England, against India and so on and so forth, you could zip over to SA, play them there and then come the winter go play say England and then India etc. I have no idea how feasible it would be in terms of financing and certainly I guess the ACB and everyone else associated makes a pile of money when there is an Ashes tour, BUT it is only once every four years. This way you'd have far more fluctuations in the rankings as it would effectively be a rolling league table. Probably totally impractical and a non starter for the money men but I thought it was an interesting suggestion and might shake up Test attendances in other nations.