The ICC has been working on various ways to promote the growth of Test cricket. Setting up the World Test Championship (WTC) format is one such move.
The first edition of the WTC is coming to a close, with India taking on New Zealand in Southampton in the grand finale.
Why is the WTC relevant?
Test cricket is deemed as the pinnacle of our sport. Most cricket players echo this sentiment and target a place in the international Test team as their primary career goal.
However, over the years, most of the Test matches have been played in context-less bilateral series without a set frequency. The Ashes has been an exception to this rule, historically.
Over the past two decades, the Border-Gavaskar Trophy has reached a certain level of pride of place. The Frank Worrell Trophy used to be a coveted one in yesteryear but has lost its sheen due to the permanent decline of the West Indies.
To counter this lack of global context and to set a larger goal for teams to aim for, the WTC is a much-needed fillip to the game.
The quote from Umesh Yadav, who said that he looks at the WTC as the World Cup for Test-only players like him, adds to the role that the WTC has started to play in players’ ambitions.
What do I feel about the first edition of the WTC?
The first edition of the WTC has been hit and miss concerning the rules and the format. The COVID interruption added more confusion to the format and resulted in the ICC changing the formulae for the final ranking.
The format is also marred by the difference in the number of Tests played in each series. For example, the Ashes had five Test matches while the India-New Zealand series had only two.
(Photo by Surjeet Yadav/Getty Images)
Adding to this inequity is that some teams played more at home than away, some teams did not meet each other during the first cycle, and some teams played bottom-ranked teams more than the other teams. So the list of complaints is a bit long.
Despite all its shortcomings, the first edition is an excellent first iteration. Many cricket fans are looking forward to seeing who is crowned the champion at the Ageas Bowl in Southampton.
How can we better this format?
First, the ICC will need to standardise the number of Tests in each bilateral series. Three Tests in each series is a fair number to decide who was better in the series.
The apparent opposition to this will come from the Ashes, the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the India-England series, where teams play four or five Tests in each series. One way to get around this problem will be to let the touring team pre-select the three Tests among the four or five that they want to be counted in the WTC table.
In addition to bringing uniformity of Test matches per series, this could also help reduce the home advantage a tiny bit. For example, England might want to prevent the Gabba or the Perth Test match from being counted in the WTC.
Second, the currently prescribed length of two years for each cycle is too short to address the problem of all teams not facing each other in a cycle. There are two ways to get around this problem.
One way could be to divide the teams into two groups and let the top two teams from each group play the finals. This kind of format has been used in the one-day international World Cup many times.
The other way could be to have two league levels based on ICC Test rankings at the start of a cycle and get only the teams in the top league to play each other for the WTC finals.
The two-league structure should not prevent bilateral series between teams belonging to the different leagues, only that such a series will not be counted in the WTC.
Even though I have argued that the two-year cycle is tight for the current format, I prefer the cycle for only two years for different reasons.
First, this time window gives a good chance for squads to be relatively constant and provides time enough for rotating players.
Secondly, I have given some options to make the contest an equitable one over the two-year timeframe. So, a fairer format played over two years is the way forward.
Reddy
Roar Rookie
Won't happen but probably should happen for the future of test cricket micko. Unless we only want Australia, India,England,New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa to play test cricket and nobody else. That's the way its heading.
Jack
Guest
I like the idea of an FA cup knock out style comp. Meaning a randomised draw when anyone could draw anyone. We really need 16 test teams which may not be as far off as you think (Nepal is virtually there). It would be great first round Australia could draw nambia in Windhoek. India could draw png in Port Moresby ! England in Zimbabwe. I don’t think it’s fair to expect nations to play Zimbabwe Ireland and co in bilateral series if not economically viable but an fa cup style compe would make all games very interesting and allow the test game to grow . Just for fun my next 4 test nations 1. Nepal 2. Scotland 3. Png - would need help getting their 4. Nambia
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Sure, has merit, but I reckon for hosting and transport purposes a series in a neutral host country fits the bill, as the finalists all had to play in those different conditions to qualify in the first place. Not to mention play against those that should know those conditions best. Either way, I'm with you, a series is the most appropriate otherwise it's like choosing the best ODI side by playing a T20!
Micko
Roar Rookie
That's not going to happen ever Reddy! :stoked:
Micko
Roar Rookie
Just a bit of sour grapes from some aussie fans I think. My opinion was everyone knew what was required, so no excuses.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
I have liked the format.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
It's only logistics, and only once every few years. It can be managed if a longer term view is taken. Problem seems to be that everything is looked at in short term 12-24 month timescales. I'm talking about a plan for 5-25 years from now. The month-long IPL window was put in place almost immediately a few years ago. It's up to the ICC members ultimately as to what extent they value Test cricket; if they do, it is achievable. If not, then that's a good indication as to where Test cricket will be in a couple of decades from now.
NZ should be playing India and Australia in regular 5 match test series, not England. They are the three power houses of Test Cricket. England are rubbish, and if you guys don't whip them five nil and a few of those by an innnings, then something is wrong.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I agree, but getting nations to cut a month out of their calendar for a series they probably won't be taking part in is probably not going to happen.
Andy J
Roar Rookie
It’s pretty fair and the two best teams are in the final. Or is it only fair if australia make it?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Agreed. What I was suggesting is longer term, post-covid. I'm happy with 3 Tests also. I would just like the "pinnacle" to determine the Test champion, to represent what Test cricket has always been about re success - a series of matches which allows variables from game-to-game to be captured and smoothed out, as it were (again, think the recent India tour of Australia). Playing those "finals" matches in a variety of conditions (i.e. different countries) would be a bonus, but also truly "test" the credentials of the participants and ensure the winner is is truly representative of playing in various conditions. Plus it allows the concept to be showcased and embraced by a broader audience. The concept of having one of the matches in Dublin, for example, would be great for growth of the game. It may take some time for the concept to take root, but that's ok IMO - Test cricket has been around for a long time and evolved slowly. If we are going to have a WTC "finals event", the ICC should think big and make it a showpiece.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes, let’s no go there re that determinant. — The ODI/T20 4-6 week tournament approach of one-off matches within a condensed period of time is completely different to the WTC multi-year concept based on bilateral series of multiple Tests per series. — We don’t determine the various bilateral encounters between Test nations on a single Test – rather it’s a test of multiple Test matches – so why determine the “final” on that basis, given the WTC finalists are determined by the preceding series’ “qualifying”. — Or perhaps to look at in a different way, The ODI WC is actually a ” final series” of matches between those that qualified for the WC from a multiple of qualifying series (the “super league” – acknowledging the qualification process is flawed at present, being weighted towards the more established full ICC members). — But again, ODI/T20 is a completely different concept to Test cricket. So trying to draw these together is inappropriate IMO. Perhaps the Eng-NZ series should have been a one-Test venture, in which case NZ would have failed to win in England – the opposite of what will almost certainly occur before the lunch break today.
Targa
Roar Rookie
Why? The ODI and T20 champions will be decided from 1 final. (Well the ODI champions were decided on boundaries last time, but let's not go there).
I think it should be a 1 in 4 years type comp...World cup type of time frame and if they like to maybe a 3 test series to decide it.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
I'm pretty pleased about NZs returns in the tournament, but I always felt the ICC Rankings were enough to determine nr. 1 status in Tests..... Limited overs it's fine.. But not Tests tho..
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Has some merit, but unachievable for the foreseeable future as covid lockdowns and international travel continues to be forced into long term commitment rather than FIFO. Who knows how long after vaccinations addicted politicians will keep those bans in place! I much prefer your idea, Jeff of a series (best of 3) to determine the champion of a comp played in series. I also can't see why that shouldn't change every time. Let's face it, the ICC is just a bureaucracy, they can announce the 3 countries, in order, to host the finals at the beginning of the series and if 2 are in the final, then the 3rd gets it whether 1st or last on the list. Or better still, hold it in Ireland as promotion until such time as the ICC allows them to actually be a full Test playing nation!
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
The current system is that each Test in a 4 or 5 Test series has lower assigned values than those in a 3 Test series so that at the end of the comp the points for win/ loss are the same ensuring that countries who don’t play series of more than 3 Tests aren’t disadvantaged in the points race. It’s convoluted, but approximates fairness. What worries me is when people start proposing ludicrous things like having touring teams saying we’ll play this series in YOUR country, but fully under our terms! India’s already got CA agreeing to not playing series that best suit Australian conditions, having previously refused a night Test, not wanting to start tours in Perth, despite that wicket being nothing like it was in the past. If that becomes the criteria for a Test Championship then the so called final is nothing more than a publicity exercise. It’s ridiculous. Not to mention not including Ireland and Afghanistan, that’s tantamount to patronising them by saying yes, yes, you’re a Test nation, but WE’LL decide what ‘type’ and when we think you’re playing ok, we’ll let you play in the real comp! How the hell do they improve if they’re pushed to the periphery of ‘a crowded schedule’ where games MUST be played for WTC, but not required to be played against them?
It’s going to feel a bit strange if NZ win the championship after being thrashed 3-0 by Australia. Not saying that Australia deserve to be there instead but the Kiwis were completely out of their depth in that series and certainly didn’t look like the champions of this cycle. read it again
Fracktobunt
Roar Rookie
Yep that’s exactly what I said. No mention of NZ not deserving to be in the final, right?
It’s going to feel a bit strange if NZ win the championship after being thrashed 3-0 by Australia. Not saying that Australia deserve to be there instead but the Kiwis were completely out of their depth in that series and certainly didn’t look like the champions of this cycle.