2019 saw the implementation of the World Test Championship. Its purpose was to put the top nine Test-playing nations against each other over a two-year cycle of home-and-away fixtures to determine the best side in the world.
Recently the honour of the inaugural championship went to New Zealand after overcoming India in a rain-affected match that required the use of a sixth reserve day.
It was the culmination of years of hard work and team building for the Kiwis and it was quite a spectacle to see the perennial plucky underdogs overcome cricket’s powerhouse.
While the inaugural season had its challenges, overall it is a brilliant concept. It brings meaning to the bilateral Test series that have been the staple for international cricket for decades.
Australia’s international schedule in the past had swung from marquee series like the Ashes to the Border-Gavaskar tours. For the players, any time they got the opportunity to don the baggy green was special.
For the idle spectators back home that were left watching Australia take on battlers like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the West Indies, they enjoyed watching the cricket but were often left wondering what relevance these series had on the big picture.
A tour to Sri Lanka was often looked at as a measuring to see if the Australian batsmen could face spin without choking on their own tongues and either fill us with hope or leave us dreading the next trip to India.
Now there are no more wasted tours, no more wasted matches, all of them having points up for grabs as teams strive to accumulate enough to finish in the top two and play for the mace at the end of the two-year cycle.
This cycle certainly had its challenges. COVID-19 threw the back end of the cycle into disarray with a number of tours being cancelled. Overall though the concept is fantastic and properly breathes life into the best format of cricket, which unfortunately is coming under attack from the shorter, more lucrative formats.
(Photo by Adam Davy/PA Images via Getty Images)
The second instalment of the World Test Championship, much like the first, kicks off in England on August 4. Rather than an Ashes series, it will be a series between India and England. Hopefully this time around there will be as few disruptions as possible and it will allow the tournament to come to its natural conclusion.
Moving forward, there are a number of additions to the tournament that would improve not only the tournament but Test cricket as a whole.
Points system
In the first WTC the points system was a bit of a mess. Each series regardless of length had a total of 120 points on offer and the points awarded for a win were scaled down depending on the length of a series.
For example, a five-Test series was awarding 24 points for a win and a two-Test series had 60 points for a win. Understandably this was put in place to even the playing field between smaller nations and the big teams like England, Australia and India that play many more Tests.
However, at the end of the first two series of the WTC – England versus Australia and New Zealand versus Sri Lanka – New Zealand had one win and one loss against a Sri Lankan side, that with all due respect has severely struggled since the departures of long-time stalwarts Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, and New Zealand came out ahead of both England and Australia, who had two wins and a draw at the conclusion of the Ashes.
On the face of it a result like that is farcical, especially when you consider how close the race was for the top two at the back end of the tournament.
The ICC has recognised the shortcomings with the current points system and has revamped it for the second running.
(Photo by Patrick Hamilton/AFP via Getty Images)
Now the points will be 12 for a win, six for a tie and four for a draw. They have instituted a penalty of one point per over you are behind in an attempt to curb the slow over rates that have plagued the Test game for a number of years.
Teams will be ranked on a percentage system of available points they won from the matches they have played to even out the field between the nations that play many matches and the ones that do not.
Taking that one step further an additional change to the scoring in future versions of the tournament could be a bonus point system for winning series and attempting to reward sides that perform well away from home, something along the lines of five bonus points for winning a series and ten bonus points if you win an away series.
As it stands at the moment few sides travel well and the extra incentive to perform overseas hopefully will alleviate that shortcoming.
Multi-tiered format
Currently there are 12 Test-playing nations and only nine in the World Test Championship. Zimbabwe and newly appointed Test members Afghanistan and Ireland are the nations not included in the Championship.
The only way to grow the Test format is to ensure as much Test cricket as possible and have these members continue to improve.
They should run a parallel tournament between Afghanistan, Ireland and Zimbabwe with the aim of the two highest finishers playing off for a promotion to the main tournament. Similarly, the two lowest place finishers in the WTC play off to avoid relegation.
Simply put, win in the associate tournament and you get elevated to the World Test Championship, finish at the bottom of the World Test Championship and you get relegated to the second-tier competition.
This move would add extra stakes to the tournament but also gives incentive for those teams outside the tournament to concentrate on their first-class and Test systems.
Playing in the World Test Championship and having to take part in six Test series, three home and three away, would be incredibly lucrative and gaining a promotion would be a huge financial boon to the cricket boards playing in the second tier.
(Photo by Mark Brake – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
In addition to having a parallel tournament, WTC members would also be required to partake in one tour of a second-tier nation and host a second-tier nation during a two-year cycle in an attempt to help second-tier nations develop and in general grow the game.
Understandably time constraints with ODI and T20 matches will make additions to the calendar difficult so some out-of-the-box thinking may be required.
For example Australia may be able to host matches in Darwin during the winter that would allow them to free up time in their calendar. Tours of England could start or finish with some matches against Ireland.
These nations have shown flashes of promise. Afghanistan has already beaten a top-tier nation, Bangladesh. Ireland have a host of players with previous county cricket experience and nearly toppled England at Lord’s in 2019.
Zimbabwe have been the battlers for quite a while but have an infusion of young talent coming through. Young quick bowler Blessing Muzarabani, who recently completed a Kolpak stint in county cricket, is one such talent and he has begun to rack up some impressive stats at the international level and Wesley Madhevere looks to be a promising all-rounder in the shorter formats.
Further exposure to the Test level will force these teams to invest in their first-class systems to make a push for promotion, which will improve their Test teams, which in turn improves the Test format in general.
Expanding the number of teams
This proposal is the least likely to be achieved in the short term and that is for the USA to be developed and eventually included as a Test nation. An extra nation in the second-tier competition would only serve to strengthen the competition.
There is a definite push recently for cricket to establish a foothold in America and it is easy to see why. With a population around 330 million people and one of the richest advertising markets on the globe, even a fraction of market share would be incredibly lucrative.
Over the last few years USA cricket have made a decided effort to improve their side by recruiting foreign-born players to naturalise them and make them a part of the national side. Corey Anderson, the former Kiwi who once held the fastest ODI hundred, has played all three formats before falling out of favour with the Kiwis and looked to move to America.
Sami Aslam is a former Pakistan opener who has a more than respectable international and domestic record. Shehan Jayasuriya is a Sri Lankan batsman who has made the move. While his international record isn’t glittering he does have a very good domestic record with bat and ball in first-class and List A cricket.
English quick Liam Plunkett and South African spinner Dane Piedt have also taken up the opportunity to don the red, white and blue. Players with dual citizenship have been targeted. Hayden Walsh Jr, who tormented the Australians in the recent T20 series against the West Indies, was once part of the USA set-up.
Australian quick Cameron Gannon has pledged allegiance to the flag through his mother. A host of other players have also made the move.
(Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
To go along with an influx of experienced international talent, moves are underway to strengthen the game within the country. A recent study shows that America has over 200,000 participants across 6000 teams and that there could be up to 15 million fans, mostly from ex-pats from the sub-continent and the Caribbean.
USA cricket it also working with a commercial partner called American Cricket Enterprises to start the Major Cricket League, a franchise-based T20 competition with its start scheduled for 2023.
The Red Chillies Entertainment conglomerate, who are the backers of the Kolkata Knight Riders and Trinbago Knight Riders, are also backing a franchise in the proposed tournament.
A minor league tournament is about to commence at the end of July and will consist of 24 franchises playing over 200 T20 games across 21 different cities. So concerted efforts are being made to grow the game across America and in a recent AGM for USA cricket, they have outlined plans to be a full ICC member by 2030.
There is no doubt that if cricket became even a semi-mainstream sport in the USA, they could become a powerful cricketing entity. Its collegiate sports system is a perfect way to reach as many potential young cricketers as possible and create a pipeline to future professional competitions and eventually the national set-up.
With America’s massive market share, if cricket reaches something resembling MLS popularity, it would rival England and Australia in terms of its financial weight.
Overall the World Test Championship is a fantastic concept and it was great to see the nations really get behind it. Indian captain Virat Kohli even called for the final to become a three-Test series.
The success of the championship could determine the viability of Test cricket as a format in the future. So far it has been a troubled but promising start and hopefully the ICC uses this as an opportunity to grow not only the Test format but cricket itself.
They have already shown flexibility to troubleshoot the format as problems arise. Hopefully that remains the attitude and they embrace the chance to allow the game to grow and flourish.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I've lived in the UK and got pretty keen on the EPL, I always though the lack of a final was a huge dissapointment. I'd go for a three test series to decide the winner
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Because if they don't do something, all we're going to have in ten years is T20.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I've been off cricket for the last couple of years, probably since sandpaper gate really, I went to the last test at the MCG between India and Australia, but it was a shocker, the flattest pitch ever, I think I just got fed up after that, CA took a heap of my money and served up a cold pie that test. T20 has destroyed the game for me, cricket boards chasing money over the purity of the game, pitches just being roads so as not to upset the more precious countries. I feel completely abandoned by today's administrators, creating pitches to go for 5 days, prioritising the giggle cricket over shield cricket, it's meaningless and allows the BCCI to basically control world cricket with IPL money (which will never be a good thing), I dunno about you guys, but I don't really tune in to watch off spinners play cricket, boooooring. Spinners are just blokes like me that can't bowl fast.......If you can't bowl, bowl spin This test championship is a great idea when they get it right, I'm going to tune into the tests again this year and give Cricket another go, hopefully this gives it a little spice and meaning, although it's the Ashes so it probably doesn't need it. Against the lesser sides though, it will definitely help.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
West Indies and Pakistan, even South Africa despite the ban have a long and proud history of test cricket. So do Sri Lanka, if a little shorter. I'm sure their fans value the rivalries with other nations. They don't need a larger goat to enjoy the game.
Two Slips and a Gully
Roar Rookie
I understand your argument fine. I just don’t think it’s correct. You’re opposed to a team to risk a win and lose the game because of WTC points when a draw would have sufficed to secure a series win. Rewarding the mindset of playing for a draw is such backward thinking. Denouncing a change to the game that encourages teams to play positively because of some misguided sense of tradition would be like turning the game off because they stopped bowling under arm. Honestly if this is your reasoning that people like me have a low IQ for enjoying what the WTC brings. All the WTC has done has taken those bi-lateral series and have them amount to something. So instead of pumping your chest that you got a draw in a relatively meaningless Pakistan v England test series you now can pump your chest that your performances have propelled you towards a higher goal. We are spoiled here in Australia that we have series like the Ashes that engross the whole country and the exploits become folklore but could you honestly tell me the history of West Indies v Sri Lanka or Pakistan v South Africa? Most nations don’t have that history with test cricket to give those test series long lasting relevance. They play them because their supposed too. Despite Test cricket falling in popularity and being the most expensive match to prepare for. Without a larger goal to amount to you run the risk of Test cricket losing its relevance all together as the smaller nations stop seeing the point in spending so much money to compete.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
I'm in favour of teams playing to whatever is in their best interests for the current series they are involved in, as they have for 150 years of test cricket. Not to be influenced by outside concerns like WTC. There is nothing at all incorrect in my reasoning, you appear not to have understood my argument. Another quick example. Team 'A' leads series 2-1. Final test. A draw will obviously do to secure series win, but they need to win the test to stay in reckoning for WTC. Hence they make a bold declaration and lose a test they would otherwise have easily drawn if they were not been influenced by the need for WTC points. I just object to that kind of distortion of test cricket!
Two Slips and a Gully
Roar Rookie
So you’re not in favour of teams playing to win? You’re in favour of a system that encourages teams to play negatively? I have to say your reasoning to disprove the idea of a points systems is flawed at best
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
How would scoring points and winning the series ever conflict? Simple. Take the Ashes for example. We know that the team that holds the Ashes automatically retains it in the event of a drawn series. In fact the last series in England was actually drawn even though it is regarded as a successful Aussie defence of the urn! Scenario. Series tied 1-1. Last test. Team 'A' needs only to draw the last test to retain the Ashes. But they need to win to stay in the WTC reckoning. A conflict, obviously!
Micko
Roar Rookie
I get what you're saying Basil, but I think the theory is to promote positive cricket in pursuit of test victories at risk of losing.
Two Slips and a Gully
Roar Rookie
How would scoring points and winning the series ever conflict? You get points for winning tests and winning tests allows you to win the Ashes and B-G trophy. I don’t see a scenario where the pursuit of WTC points would clash with the desirable outcome of a test series. Teams already play to win or fight to save a test to secure a draw, which is all they can do with the WTC points. It’s is possible to enjoy the history of test cricket and realise that there need to be changes to the game to make it relevant. In short form cricket teams are playing to win World Cups. What do Test nations play for other than the sake of it? Bi-lateral series that in essence don’t mean anything. We hold the Ashes on a pedestal because it’s Australia v England. But when Sri Lanka play South Africa what are they really invested in? Most nations don’t have any marquee series to build towards. The WTC gives a semblance of relevance to all the test series.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
anyone who does not appreciate the wonderful history of test cricket does indeed have a low IQ! Having points assigned will only distort test series. Anyway, for the important series such as Ashes or B-G, teams are not going to put scoring points for the WTC ahead of securing the outcome of the series.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
do the math, win=12 draw=4, hence WLL =DDD? for your second point, there is no need to determine a world test champion. Test cricket has been played for nearly 150 years, why do we need one now?
Sedz
Guest
Really? Whom do you think are deserved to be WTC Champions? They played their best of capability and deserved to be WTC winners. To me there is no clear team dominating like the Windies(1980's era) or Aussies (of 2000 era). At some point of time Aussies followed by South Africa and then India were dominating the ICC Test Rankings from then on. Yes there are flaws but you dare to call all the authors and reviewers on short IQ's! Better start from here, stop being "self-righteous" and "judgmental".
Sedz
Guest
In an ideal world, 3 match series played in three different conditions would be perfect to test WTC winner. With the crowded cricket schedule along with the different seasons(winter in England is summer in Australia and vice versa). Can we really have this scheduled in a period of 30 days with a three test series final? Just have one game and assume it to be a lottery. In the future if the WTC finals takes place in India, any of the teams SL/Pak let alone India will take this one final game as a piece of cake.
Sedz
Guest
Have the game scheduled anywhere except NZ/Eng its India which would be favorites. Be it Aus/SA/WI/sub continent pitches. But is there a real solution to it? cricket is complicated than most other games and conditions favour one team to other isn't it? If they have to schedule a 3 match final as many has suggested, you got to find a window for a period of 1 month.
Two Slips and a Gully
Roar Rookie
For starters a drawn test series isn’t worth the same as a lost series in the current system. Points are accrued per game and if you lose tests you aren’t awarded any points. And how would you go about determining the World Test Champions differently if this setup is so flawed? It’s not a perfect setup but it does give a relatively timely way of working it out.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
the new point system is stupid. A draw is a result in test cricket, the greatest form of the game. A lost series should not be equal to a drawn one. But lets be honest, the WTC is a gimmick for those with short attention spans, and lower IQs. No one cares who won the last WTC. NZ was it, I'm already having trouble recalling? No one genuinely regards NZ as world test champions, except maybe the Kiwis themselves, and a few patronising virtue signaling ockers pretending to care.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Or at the very least they could have shared the points from that cancelled series just like a world cup match that gets rained out without a ball being bowled.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
What it should be is a three test final series. First played in the country of the team at top of table, second played in country of other finalist and third played in a neutral country only if needed.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
You know Paul I just had an idea. If the points allocated were calibrated to allow for one series being two tests, another three, another four, and another five, then it would surely have been logically fairer to recalibrate the number of series played as percentages to allow for extenuating circumstances of a cancelled series such as our tour to the veldt. No idea whether it would have made a difference to Australia making it or not but it would have been more consistent. As some wise person said in any case, we prolly would have lost the final anyway for a number of important reasons.