An idea for a Test Championship

[bharat297]

The other day I had this idea for creating a Test championship, which would be the Test equivalent of a world cup as a way of symbolising your status as the no.1 team in the world. Here is the idea ... * It would take place every 4 years and would consist of the top 4 or 5 teams in the world. * Each team would play each of the other teams once, in a league format. * The top 2 teams would then meet in the final. * This would be a total of 11 games and max. 5 games for any one side, if there are 5 teams. If there are 4 teams, it would be a total of 7 games and max. 4 for any one side. * So the current tournament would feature South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Australia and England (if there are 5 teams). * This would take place over 2-3 months, and some games could take place in parallel (if time is really an issue). * As for who would host it, it could just work the way the limited overs world cup hosts are decided. * Another possibility, would be that for each game, the higher ranked side would host that match. This would give the top sides further incentive to finish as high as possible in the rankings. * There shouldn't be too many matches in total, as the fans would lose interest. The advantages I see of this are: * It would renew interest in Test match cricket as the top teams are now working towards a specific goal, which is to remain in the top 4 for the next Test Championship. * The bottom teams are trying to reach the top 4 or 5 in time for the next Test Championship. * During the tournament, teams won't be satisfied with a draw as so few games means winning margin will come into play (some system would need to be devised to compare wins/losses) The disadvantages I see of this are: * Increased workload for players * Neglects the teams that don't make it (Gives them a 2-3 month holiday). Could possibly run a parallel tournament for the bottom 5 teams. It would work better if there were an even number of teams so they could be split better. What do you guys think? Is it good? Has it been proposed before? Is it straight out not going to work? Anything to add/remove from it?

[bunny]

Long back I had posted a thread on test championship. Pretty much similar to what you propose. i) My idea was that you could condense Test tours to 3 years (top 4 countries play 4 with each other and 2 with teams rated 5-8, and same for countries ranked 5-8). This would mean a total of (4*3+4*2)*2 = 40 = 13 matches per year. They will play 4 or 5-odi series (or a triangular) depending on the ODI rankings. It would mean a total of (5*3 + 4*4)* 2 = 62 = 21 matches per year (Same with T20s. (7*2)*2 = 28 = 9 matches per year). This would reduce the workload enormously. In addition they can IPL or whatever in those 3 years. The 4th year would be the mega year where there would be all 3 of tests, ODIs and T20 championships (of course you can shift the ODI, tests and T20 cycles and make sure that they are played on separate years which can be used to control the workload even more). ODI and T20 championship as usual. The test championship would be for cup (top 4) and plate (bottom 4). Each pair plays 1 home and 1 away test. If that sounds difficult, they can all play in one country. The rules can be modified so that every game has to have a winner. (So for example no innings can last more than 150 overs and no team can bat for more than 230 overs combined across their two innings).

[bharat297]

Sounds pretty good. I think if you make a table format where you compare victories ... like say for instance ... winning by more than 100 runs or winning by more than 5 wickets entitles you to a bonus point, then teams would not be satisfied with a draw. I don't like the idea of restricting an innings to 150 overs because its changing the rules of the match itself rather than customising the tournament around it. I don't want a situation where a team is chasing 600 to win and they are 8/580 after 150 overs and the innings has to end. Highly unlikely situation but still Draws are mainly an issue in bilateral series' where a team wants to make the series result look better or less bad. If each match is for points to qualify for a tournament final, then teams would be disadvantaged by a draw.

[bunny]

Sounds pretty good. I think if you make a table format where you compare victories ... like say for instance ... winning by more than 100 runs or winning by more than 5 wickets entitles you to a bonus point, then teams would not be satisfied with a draw. I don't like the idea of restricting an innings to 150 overs because its changing the rules of the match itself rather than customising the tournament around it. I don't want a situation where a team is chasing 600 to win and they are 8/580 after 150 overs and the innings has to end. Highly unlikely situation but still Draws are mainly an issue in bilateral series' where a team wants to make the series result look better or less bad. If each match is for points to qualify for a tournament final, then teams would be disadvantaged by a draw.

Yeah I guess initially one shouldn't fiddle too much with the game itself.