Well that’s not correct. There have been plenty of Aus born All Blacks, and Marnus is more Ocker than any of the Saffers playing for NZ are Kiwi.

I’m tempted to call BS on this, but I’d like to see the mathematics behind it. As far as I can tell Aus beat both NZ and Eng last time they played each other?

actually it’s the other way round, Aus provide many NZ players! I think where you are confused is that you seem to think that anyone with NZ heritage must be a KIwi, even if they are actually born in Aus, which many are. As a self proclaimed republican you need to be more aware of this aspect of diversity!

I am bewildered by the popularity of this bloke., and laughing at ones own jokes in not a good sign.

I really don’t think Chapelli should be issuing such personal assessments of players. Especially since he probably is just talking off the cuff and hasn’t actually done much research to back up his pronouncement. Checking the cricinfo statsguru, Usie averages 40 odd in test cricket, 42 in ODIs, and 27 in T20. These are impressive figures across the board and makes one wonder why he has not been given the same opportunities as other players with inferior records seem to have been given.

Before the World Test Championship there was the ICC Test Championship, which Aus won 2003-2009, and also in 2016. I believe a trophy in the form of a mace was awarded to the winning team!
https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/183357

I think you might have missed the point, of course Eng would bat differently going first on that track. The conditions were clearly a little tricky for batting at the start of play, I believe as a result of both the way the pitch actually played and because of the timing of the start of the game. That was clearly evident in both games if you watched closely. The stats regarding winning batting second back up what I have claimed.

a demolition job by NZ, but big advantage for the team batting second, puts the Aus-Eng result in a little more context.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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?

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.

my point precisely Jacko. I’m just a little bemused that white Aussie league fans are so captured by the idea that league players of Pacific heritage (and the vast majority would be born in Aus or NZ) would rather play for their nation of heritage over the place where they were in most instances born and raised. No AB fan would be happy with a born and bred Kiwi of PI heritage choosing his heritage ahead of the mighty ABs. Of course they would accept it if that were to happen, but they would not be pleased. OTOH it appears Aussie league fans welcome PI players born and raised in Aus rejecting the Kangaroos in favour of their nation of heritage. It’s just an interesting difference in attitude.

An unnecessary and degrading spectacle for Tongan rugby. I can’t help but wonder how much stronger Tongan rugby could be if every player in Aus or NZ eligible for Tonga actually committed to playing for their nation of heritage. This may seem an unrealistic, but I could not help but notice over in the rugby league department of the roar there are entire articles with 100s of agreeing comments devoted to the prospect of Pacific Island players playing for their nation of heritage in rugby league. Mind you it does seem to be pushed almost entirely by white Aussies, so make of that what you will!

The origin eligibility rules are backward and outdated for an allegedly multi cultural country like Aus. It is really a shame that the code is run by a bunch of out of touch dinosaurs who lack any sense of seemliness. The thing is under the rules Mulitano could never qualify no matter what he does. Even if he lived for the next 50 years in Qld. So much for wokeness and inclusivity.

you say you knew it was coming sheek, yet you apparently had no qualms in writing it anyway. It reads terribly, I have to tell you. The idea that origin dominated by Pacific heritage players will turn viewers off is absurd. People love the Pacific Island passion for the game. They want to see the best players, regardless of heritage. BB fans in the USA have become used to black dominated teams, maybe the same needs to happen in Aus league!

The fact is the origin eligibility rules are contrived and embarrassing. There is no getting around this inconvenient fact. I actually cringed upon reading in another article on the roar website an author claim that people born in Qld would have more passion about playing for their state than outsiders. Who thinks like that? Perhaps Mulitalo might have more passion because of what he has had to sacrifice to get where he is? In the end it boils down to this. A young bloke came to Aus at age 13, with his parents presumably, in search of a better life. He attended school in Ipswich Qld as far as I can tell. This surely must be enough. Why exclude the kid? What message does it send to other immigrants? In these woke times I would have hoped rugby league would want to promote inclusion rather than exclusion. It’s a truly awful look for the game.

Another terrible take on this. This has ugly reminders of the us and them ‘we grew here, you flew here’ nonsense. Fact is the majority of players who come to Aus to further their career are of Pacific heritage. As an NZer I have noted that Aussies (white ones anyway) do seem to worry a lot more about peoples origins than NZers. They make arguments about not wanting to steal players from other countries but I suspect this is just a red herring. Just look at our NZ black caps cricket team full of white South Africans disgruntled with the quota system in their own country. Kiwis do not seem to have the same hang ups when it comes to foreigners.

I’m not sure what your point is? Test cricket is a complex and sometimes inexplicable game for sure. But if we look at recent (and not so recent) history, Ind have performed well below par in both NZ and Eng, despite at the time often being ranked 1 or 2 in the world. This is just a fact. They have also been nigh on invincible at home (as has NZ). It is then no coincidence that there 2 teams would be the ones to make the final. Clearly then to play a final in Eng conditions, which are the closest to NZ conditions than any other nation, is a huge advantage to NZ. What part of that do you not understand? It seems very basic to me.

I don’t think any batter looked entirely comfortable in the conditions. Williamson did well, but he was up against an attack less attuned to the conditions compared to the Indian batters. Actually I thought Gill and Sharma looked good also, until they got out. I suspect a sign of lack of match prep. Conway looked good in the first innings. I wouldn’t read too much into Tendulkar’s comments, it’s usual to praise the best player in the winning side. Your mention of the recent Indian performances in Aus conditions actually proves my point. They clearly have difficulty adapting to Eng conditions, batting especially. I’m amused that you are actually attempting to argue that the venue played no part in the result. Clearly it did. Just as if the venue were in Sri Lanka or Bangladesh (leaving out Pak for obvious political reasons!) it would have favoured the Indian side.

that’s just plain rubbish. Last time Indians toured Eng they lost the test series 1-4, the series before that in Eng it was 0-4 I think. A typical Eng pitch was always going to be a huge advantage to NZ as it is far more similar to typical NZ conditions than Indian. Added to that the warm up series and the advantage is huge. The fact that Indian seamers were difficult to play in the conditions is hardly a surprise, any half decent bowler would be.

I would think a test in each country of the finalist (NZ and Ind in this case) would be the fairest method. Also would mean more a passionate crowd. As you said having it in Eng really favoured NZ, and the warm up series was a bit unfair too I reckon. Imagine if the final was played instead on a Lankan spinner friendly wicket, with the Indians and Lankans arranging a warm up series before the final. I don’t think the Kiwis would stay as quiet as the Indians have about it!

I don’t think the game really captured the imagination of the rest of the world, apart from NZers and Indian fans, and I don’t believe most admirers of test cricket would consider a one off test a true measure of who is the best side in the world. But I suspect it might have appeal for the T20 and ODI crowd, even if they might not follow the points situation until just before the finalists are determined. It’s also very fanciful thinking from those who believe the WTC can lessen the importance of long standing series such as Ashes or BG!