How do you value the different types of ICC titles?

[sage]

 

 

Manjrekar with a comment above. Indian media seems to enjoy pushing this 'ICC titles' cross-format stat that includes the champions trophy to show india as #2 close behind australia. 

 

How do you value each trophy?

Edited March 10 by sage

[sage]

i have tried to quantify the different trophies - with ODI WC - 3pts, WTC - 2pts, T20 WC - 1pt, CT - 0.5 pts. Interested in how other people weight it. 

 

[sage]

also interested in how people rank achievements. would you put a Border-Gavaskar trophy in Aus above a CT? Or a T20 WC? What about a series win in England or SA

[jf1gp_1]

12 minutes ago, sage said:

 

Manjrekar with a comment above. Indian media seems to enjoy pushing this 'ICC titles' cross-format stat that includes the champions trophy to show india as #2 close behind australia. 

 

How do you value each trophy?

I agree with Sanjay. 

[vvvslaxman]

WTC shouldn't be combined with LOIs.  It is an over-rated trophy as it is not a single event. It happens over a period in multiple places. Imagine you have a ODI  tournament where SOuth Africa just have to play 4 matches  to win the cup and India has  to play 12 matches. It is a bogus cup

Edited March 10 by vvvslaxman

[Prabhdeep Singh]

Also holding T20 WC every 2 years devalues it compared to 50 OVER WC, also not sure the need for CT.

 

Schedule something like this makes more sense:

 

ODI WC EVERY 3 YEARS (2031)

 

T20 WC EVERY 3 YEARS (2033)

 

WTC Cycle 3 YEARS (2 series pre year home and away, can possibly play 10 matches per year) (2032)

[LordPrabhzy]

ODI WC

 

 

WTC Win

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T20WCs/CT

[zen]

LOIs 

If T20 WC = 1, ODI WC likely = 2 and CT (if included) = 0.5. 
 

Tests 

 

WTC if included can be at 1.5 since it ks relatively a new trophy but test cricket gives it prestige. Eventually, WTC could = 2 and ODIs may lose its value.

[vvvslaxman]

Another stupidity about WTC is hosting at the most SENA friendly country unlike ODI world cup.

[Gollum]

WTC in its present form isn't that prestigious. If we win test series in NZ/RSA in coming 2 years, I will rate each of that above WTC win. 

 

[bowl_out]

Here's how I rank it.

 

ODI WC >>>> World T20 > WTC > Champions trophy

 

WTC is its current format is weird. You can play in favorable conditions and make it to the finals.. And the finals has always happened at one venue over three cycles.

 

I think the T20 one should be called World T20. The "World cup" should refer to only the OG ODI version.

[BacktoCricaddict]

I lost him as soon as he mentioned the word "sanctity." What BS.

[BacktoCricaddict]

Test series win in Australia/South Africa/Eng > Test series win at home against Australia/SA/Eng = T20WC win = ODI WC win > CT win >>>>>>>>>>>> WTC 

[Gollum]

16 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

Here's how I rank it.

 

ODI WC >>>> World T20 > WTC > Champions trophy

 

WTC is its current format is weird. You can play in favorable conditions and make it to the finals.. And the finals has always happened at one venue over three cycles.

 

I think the T20 one should be called World T20. The "World cup" should refer to only the OG ODI version.

NZ wasn't even supposed to play the 21 final. They used pandemic as an excuse to avoid BD tour and qualified above Aus. Even one draw in BD would have meant Aus vs India final. 

 

Can't just pick and choose test series and make the final. Look at the kind of soft draws Pak and SL get every time. There is no even playing field. 

 

WTC can become the greatest event if done the right way. Play it over 4 years cycle, and let all top 8 teams play each other....also number of tests mein there shouldn't be a huge disparity. Let Eng, Aus play 40 tests in those 4 years, but we must ensure Ind, NZ, RSA etc. also play at least 35. To reduce randomness. And WTC final should be a proper series, and not fixed venue. Let the team that finishes top in league stage play 2 of the tests at home, and one in the other finalist's home, proper 3 test series. 

Edited March 10 by Gollum

[Vk1]

42 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

WTC shouldn't be combined with LOIs.  It is an over-rated trophy as it is not a single event. It happens over a period in multiple places. Imagine you have a ODI  tournament where SOuth Africa just have to play 4 matches  to win the cup and India has  to play 12 matches. It is a bogus cup

agree.. if we had won WTC 2 or 3 times by now.. Manju would have placed it below champions trophy. Manju is definitely the durandhar placed by Imran or so he imagines.

[rtmohanlal]

1. 50 over world cup 

2. Champions trophy   //all top ranked teams participate .... in effect it is same as 50 over world cup

3. T20 world cup ... Far higher chances of lower ranked teams causing upsets due to   skills getting considerably nullified  in far shorter number of overs makes this format

    carry  far lesser weightage when compared to ODI world cup or Champions trophy.

4. WTC .... just can't take it as seriously  as the others due to differences in levels  of challenges  faced by participant teams . 

   

   

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

To me WTC gets 0 value.  Even South Africanas have mentioned that in the articles

https://iol.co.za/sport/cricket/2026-03-10-why-winning-the-wtc-meant-nothing-for-the-proteas-at-the-t20-world-cup/

 

Why winning the WTC meant nothing for the Proteas at the T20 World Cup

 

Once again, a Cricket World Cup has come and gone, and South Africa had to be content with strong performances but no new silverware.Leading up to the T20 World Cup, there was plenty of talk (from pundits and players) that the Proteas winning the World Test Championship (WTC) would help them in their search for limited-overs glory.Ultimately, South Africa were thumped by New Zealand in the semi-final last week.Though it certainly was no choke as they did not come close to winning a position against the Kiwis, the net result was the same.

 

The Proteas’ Test Success: A Legacy of Dominance and Challenges in Limited Overs Cricket

The Proteas have traditionally been a strong Test-playing nation since readmission, always able to compete and beat the best in the world. This was especially true under Graeme Smith, who led the side to series victories in England and Australia.Most notably, Smith led the team to the number one ranking in 2012 when South Africa was awarded the ICC Test mace.That’s the equivalent of winning the WTC, which the Proteas did under Temba Bavuma last year, beating Australia in the final at Lord’s.

The victory was widely hailed as South Africa’s first ICC trophy, and while technically true, that’s not actually the case since Smith’s side achieved the same feat.

What all this means is that success in the longest format is something the Proteas are well-accustomed to achieving.Therefore, trying to conflate their red-ball success into confidence in limited overs is something of a stretch.You might as well say the Springboks winning the Rugby World Cup will translate to similar achievements on the cricket field. That’s just not how it works. What is far more relevant is the performances of the Proteas during the recently completed SA20. That translated to an impressive run of victories during the group stages and Super Eights, but certainly didn’t warrant Cricket South Africa opening its trophy cabinet.

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

For top teams, it should not matter where a final is played. 

 

It is as if some folks are only looking for favorable draws and conditions. Complaining about everything (sour grapes?) from pitch, the soil, venues, etc. It is as if these type of folks want everything to go there way to feel comfortable.

 

Such complaining does not suit a sporting culture mindset, and only reflects badly on those who complain. 
 

If India had won a title, they would have liked rated WTC more highly. Who buys into such hypocrisy?
 

The strength of WTC is that you play tests teams on home and away basis. WTC brings additional dynamics to a regular test series. It should not matter where the final is played. 

 

 

Edited March 10 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

25 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

agree.. if we had won WTC 2 or 3 times by now.. Manju would have placed it below champions trophy. Manju is definitely the durandhar placed by Imran or so he imagines.

Test mace is enough. If you top the table you get the cup. That's it.  SA played mostly 2 test series. Teams like India, England play 5 test series. Injury problems are higher. Imagine Bumrah played a lot of 2 test series like SA. They would have won a lot of points

[speedster]

 

52 minutes ago, Gollum said:

WTC in its present form isn't that prestigious. If we win test series in NZ/RSA in coming 2 years, I will rate each of that above WTC win. 

 

Agree with this. Winning a series in SA is like last frontier, we haven't done it so whenever it happens, it would a big one, along with this other places where we haven't won in ages like NZ and England should count much more than winning the WTC which is after all dependent on winning a one off final and a qualifying system that could be unequal for different teams. 

Edited March 10 by speedster