SA Footy

From the Big Bash thread - My idea for a cricket championship.

I've been offering this to friends for thought.

Every international tour consists of the following :

3 Test matches
2 ODI's
1 T20

Max 15 players on the tour.

Test matches 4 points for a win, 1 for a draw, ODI's 2 points for a win, T20 1 point for a win.

So 17 points available with one Test win being worth the same as the two ODI's.

You could win one Test (4), draw 2 (2) lose both one dayers (0) and win the T20 (1) and get 7 points. The opposition would have got 2 draws (2), 2 ODI's (4) and no T20 points for 6 point. Meaning they won two matches ( 2 x ODI ) and you won two matches ( One Test T20 ) but the weight of points for the Test mean you win the series.

Teams could earn points over a 12 month ( or 24 month ) period to be named the best cricketing nation of the year(s) or a table just rolls with the top nation.. With tours being as short as this you could have two nations come and go each summer. Would mean you play 4 series per year.

BUT it will never happen as all the boards who control the game are only looking after themselves.

What's wrong with the current system? Gives more opportunities to blood young exciting players in the ODI and T20 formats rather than being limited to a 15 man squad. Those days are gone a long time ago where your test side was your ODI side as well.

I like it - minus the squad restrictions.

What incentive (apart from being best) for countries though? Financial incentive of sorts?

Could you have each nation "buy in" into an international season and have part of that allocated to prizes - and then open up the opportunities to any nations that which to compete e.g. Ireland, Afghanistan, USA etc.

If they can afford to buy in and are willing then why not.

Afghanistan, interestingly, is currently attempting to gain full member status of the ICC.

MW wrote:What's wrong with the current system? Gives more opportunities to blood young exciting players in the ODI and T20 formats rather than being limited to a 15 man squad. Those days are gone a long time ago where your test side was your ODI side as well.

The current system gives no indication to who is the strongest nation. It's only an idea and could be tinkered with to make the format work for everyone.

The squad number could easily be changed.

Just food for thought.

A couple of thoughts

I like the idea of separate one day and test championships.

That way the series can be played independently as they often are (ie NZ earlier this summer)

Also allows an easier pathway for other nations to be admitted for either T20 or odi only.

I also think it should be done over a 4 year period.

Then you can play each team home and away

The finals of the 50 over format then becomes the revamped World Cup. Same for T20. Have a finals series for test matches too.

The only issue is the boards will want to play more tests against nations that make more money, ie India England Australia.

I think you could still have these series, just dilute the amount of points on offer. Ie for a 5 test series each test is only worth 3/5 of the points of a test in a 3 game series.

We could make use of cairns and Darwin in winter to get games against the lower ranked nations.

I wouldn't be against heavily rotated squads for these games either if it means more games can be played

Dogwatcher wrote:Afghanistan, interestingly, is currently attempting to gain full member status of the ICC.

They have a regular First Class standard competition??

heater31 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Afghanistan, interestingly, is currently attempting to gain full member status of the ICC.

They have a regular First Class standard competition??

However, it is not the best place for batting, their pitches can be a bit of a minefield.....

Should see the running between wickets, suicidal at times.

heater31 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Afghanistan, interestingly, is currently attempting to gain full member status of the ICC.

They have a regular First Class standard competition??

Not yet. They have just instituted a four-day tournament, for which they hope to attain a first class ranking. From there, that opens up full member opportunities.

good luck to them. they have performed well at international level, you could see them overtaking zimbabwe pretty quickly

I like it except for the squad restrictions, i think most people want to see the best of the best playing in each format and this may not happen by having squad restrictions.

Test cricket without doubt needs a CHAMPION, whether that be over 1 year, 2 year, 3 years not fussed it needs an eventual WINNER.

Could there be a test GRAND FINAL?

Unfortunately as others have said this will never happen as the powerhouse countries are all about money and this would mean countries like Australia, India, England couldn't play one another as much as they would like.

Bit of personal bias here but i would love to see Ireland playing test cricket, we need as many nations playing test cricket as possible, yes they may struggle at first but over time they will improve especially if by having test cricket it gives them extra exposure, participation, sponsorship etc.

Could even create a second division of test cricket and include Ireland and Afghanistan, and have two divisions of 6 - and then you play teams in your own division in 3 or 4 test series and in the other division say once.

That may satisfy the England Australia and indias of the world whilst still expanding the game?

Boon's idea sounds good, although I'd probably prefer a higher weighting for winning test matches, relative to the shorter versions.

I find the current schedule set-up of Test cricket to be all over the place, so a thought for the structure of Test cricket:

Eight teams in Test division, then eight teams in next division which would be counted as first class games. WI and Zimbabwe are not, and have not been for too long, up to sufficient test standard. Bangladesh are improving, so they'd stay.

Piss off four, two and one test series, only five and three.

Rankings determine how and where you play over the next five years.
Over the course of five years you would play one home and one away series, against all teams. Those ranked in the top four would play 5-test series against the other three teams, and 3-Test series against the bottom four. Those ranked 5-8 would play H&A 3-test series against all 7 teams.
For a top-four ranked team, this would be 54 tests over five years, probably too many to play year-in-year-out to have the cycle over four years.

Could put in a special proviso that Ashes series will always be five test series.

Points accrued on all tests, with some sort of trending or weighting methodology so the last couple years of the cycle are more important but so that the early ones still matter.
Test championship series could be played between the top and second team after the five years.
Fifth team would have the opportunity to come into the top four, and the fourth down, if certain criteria were met, including the formers wins against top four opponents.
Similarly the eighth ranked team might go down if the first-ranked second division team met criteria, or perhaps won a three test series against each other.

Downsides might be that the game drops away in the WI and Zimbabwe or whichever team goes down after five years. Also, would space out the Ashes.

Upsides include playing five test series against the best, ie India, South Africa, and not playing the same team twice in 12 months and then not for a few years.

No doubt there will be plenty of holes in this idea.....

Booney wrote:From the Big Bash thread - My idea for a cricket championship.

I've been offering this to friends for thought.

Every international tour consists of the following :

3 Test matches
2 ODI's
1 T20

Max 15 players on the tour.

Test matches 4 points for a win, 1 for a draw, ODI's 2 points for a win, T20 1 point for a win.

So 17 points available with one Test win being worth the same as the two ODI's.

You could win one Test (4), draw 2 (2) lose both one dayers (0) and win the T20 (1) and get 7 points. The opposition would have got 2 draws (2), 2 ODI's (4) and no T20 points for 6 point. Meaning they won two matches ( 2 x ODI ) and you won two matches ( One Test T20 ) but the weight of points for the Test mean you win the series.

Teams could earn points over a 12 month ( or 24 month ) period to be named the best cricketing nation of the year(s) or a table just rolls with the top nation.. With tours being as short as this you could have two nations come and go each summer. Would mean you play 4 series per year.

BUT it will never happen as all the boards who control the game are only looking after themselves.

I got to the second line & knew he was taking the piss...

Some interesting ideas above.

The one thing I would definitely do if the ICC put me in charge is get rid of two or four test series.

It shits the living daylights out of me that we're playing four tests in India. Four. Because three tests clearly wouldn't be enough yet five would be way too many.

You wouldn't have best of four sets in tennis, or four judges hearing a court case, etc., so why have a best-of-four test series? I'd much rather three than four. Three against the lesser nations and five against England, India, Seth Efrica etc.

Four &%$@ing tests. Four!

<bangs head against wall>

RB wrote:Some interesting ideas above.

The one thing I would definitely do if the ICC put me in charge is get rid of two or four test series.

It shits the living daylights out of me that we're playing four tests in India. Four. Because three tests clearly wouldn't be enough yet five would be way too many.

You wouldn't have best of four sets in tennis, or four judges hearing a court case, etc., so why have a best-of-four test series? I'd much rather three than four. Three against the lesser nations and five against England, India, Seth Efrica etc.

Four &%$@ing tests. Four!

<bangs head against wall>

If every test was worth points towards some sort of championship, individual series results would mean less and therefore 2 and 4 tests would not be as bad.

May even be an option to fit into the wider schedule - 4 tests against a good team and 2 against a bad team each summer

bennymacca wrote:good luck to them. they have performed well at international level, you could see them overtaking zimbabwe pretty quickly

Add the west indies to the list aswell

Reckon it fails to recognise the difference between the formats. West Indies are a darn good T20 side but a rubbish test side. Even if they had their T20 players available to tests, Sammy, Pollard, Bravo aren't test class. Even Narine I don't think would be a hit in tests. Would also have some serious challenges fitting this into a schedule.