ICC could use 'timeless' Test for World Championship final

[Gotham Cronie]

Misba ul haq will force everyone to quit watching cricket.

It would only be for the final which only the top 4 teams are eligible for. I'm not even sure if it's mathematically possible for Pakistan to enter the top 4 at this point.

[Ultimate_Game]

I am amazed how ICC continues to go in the wrong direction. Instead of focusing on ways to make the game more interesting they are planning to move towards timeless tests!!! Have ICC even bothered to find out who exactly will want to broadcast he timeless test and who will sponsor the same? They should rather focus on venues like Jamaica, Mumbai etc. which will ensure the game ends in a result rather than timeless Test on a batting paradise where the team who wins the toss and bats first will invariably ground the opponent in dust.

[zen]

I like the idea of having timeless tests for the final of test championship .... That insures a result and would like to see how the teams play knowing that there are only 2 possible results, i.e. a win or a loss .... I prefer it to a situation where some sorts of points are given for say first inning's lead. Moreover with how the teams play today, it hard to see a test go beyond 6 days (540 possible overs .... On a sporting surface, it is difficult for a team to bat for more that 5 sessions) if the pitch starts to breaks from day 3/4 onwards Playing tests at venues that produce results is a good idea too, but that doesn't mean that you cannot play a timeless tests at such venues. Playing at venues that are likely to give results and having a timeless test are not mutually exclusive

[rajmarie]

IMO...idea should be simple....5 days of Test = 450 overs @ 90 overs per day. It should be bowled. An additional 6th day added with max 90 overs allowed. The winners in case of draw should be for SF...with some sort of better match performance batting run rate + bowling economy or something like that idea for teams to not look for boring draws.

[ahilya]

people dont even watch 5 days of test who will waste time to watch timeless test match.

[zen]

people dont even watch 5 days of test who will waste time to watch timeless test match.

Such folks are obviously not the target audiance .... There is T20 for them or ODIs if they prefer something slightly longer :P

[ahilya]

Such folks are obviously not the target audiance .... There is T20 for them or ODIs if they prefer something slightly longer :P

Then who are the targeted audience?Retired uncles aunties who have whole time to spare.

[zen]

Then who are the targeted audience?Retired uncles aunties who have whole time to spare.

OK let's have an 5 match ODIs series, I guess, people will watch every ball of the ODIs :P Obviously, you don't even know how test cricket can be followed

[ahilya]

OK let's have an 5 match ODIs series, I guess, people will watch every ball of the ODIs :P Obviously, you don't even know how test cricket can be followed

Maybe on TV or internet or people keep track of scores through cellphones.but stadiums goes empty as far as one can observe.not even 15% fill up the stadiums.

[zen]

Maybe on TV or internet or people keep track of scores through cellphones.but stadiums goes empty as far as one can observe.not even 15% fill up the stadiums.

good to know that you can draw conclusions for the test championship which isn't even played yet .... Let me tell you, if Ind were to make it to the final, I would be far too excited :two_thumbs_up: Imagine: No draws, pressure, test crown (the most prestigious in cricket) on the line, attacking fields, ......... that's cricket .... And you want to count days?

[rajmarie]

Maybe on TV or internet or people keep track of scores through cellphones.but stadiums goes empty as far as one can observe.not even 15% fill up the stadiums.

Stadiums like eg Mohali, Motera, Nagpur goes empty....because those centers in India are not traditional Test centers & Test cricket is forced over there because BCCI top honchos r from there. In traditional Test centers like Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai etc...always attract good spectators in the ground...despite all the troubles these days to go to stadia. When was the last time u went to watch a game? Also....when the contest is equal...& I mean equal between bat & ball (ie pitch not made for boring draws which is common these days)...people goes & enjoy the game..or as u said...follows more keenly on TV or Internet etc

[punjabi_khota]

Doesn't make any sense. Records will have no meaning (e.g. who knows Lara could have gone on to 500+ if enough time was there), and the choosing the crown winner this way demeans the game itself. Test cricket is defined as a 5 day affair, and the chosen winner should be the one who plays the game better enough to beat the other team. If they draw, it just means the two teams are too close to be separated. We have to accept that and move on.

[deepak_sach]

Doesn't make any sense. Records will have no meaning (e.g. who knows Lara could have gone on to 500+ if enough time was there)' date=' and the choosing the crown winner this way demeans the game itself. Test cricket is defined as a 5 day affair, and the chosen winner should be the one who plays the game better enough to beat the other team. If they draw, it just means the two teams are too close to be separated. We have to accept that and move on.[/quote'] Why not First Innings Lead?

[zen]

Doesn't make any sense. Records will have no meaning (e.g. who knows Lara could have gone on to 500+ if enough time was there)' date=' and the choosing the crown winner this way demeans the game itself. Test cricket is defined as a 5 day affair, and the chosen winner should be the one who plays the game better enough to beat the other team. [b']If they draw, it just means the two teams are too close to be separated. We have to accept that and move on.

If the game is a draw, the winner would be chosen as per below:

"That is what Dave Richardson and the committee is currently on working on because it is not a good idea to end up with a drawn Test match," Lorgat said. "You have got to determine a winner - whether it is on the first-innings basis, or the runs [scored] in the game - they will come up with a viable formula to determine a winner in case of a drawn Test match. The final may well be a 'timeless' Test. We don't know that yet but we are looking into the mechanics of that. Although looking at the statistics today most of the games have ended in results."

Unlike, what you believe, there will be a winner in anycase, i.e. despite the teams drawing on the field. Only thing is that it will be determined by other factors :winky:

[punjabi_khota]

^Deciding the winner of trophy is different from the winner of the test match. Don't **** with the test match :mad:

[zen]

^Deciding the winner of trophy is different from the winner of the test match. Don't **** with the test match :mad:

It's called providing a provision for a result :winky:

[cameron_black]

this first innings win thing just ruins the game. takes out the possibility of a sportive declaration in the first innings from the team batting first, and the second team will never declare behind the opposition. the game loses so many aspects because of that.

[coffee_rules]

Imagine Dravid batting endlessly

[zen]

"That is what Dave Richardson and the committee is currently on working on because it is not a good idea to end up with a drawn Test match," Lorgat said. "You have got to determine a winner - whether it is on the first-innings basis, or the runs [scored] in the game - they will come up with a viable formula to determine a winner in case of a drawn Test match. The final may well be a 'timeless' Test. We don't know that yet but we are looking into the mechanics of that. Although looking at the statistics today most of the games have ended in results."

To add to what's been said: Any steps you take to determine a winner is in some way changing how the traditional cricket is played. Let's say the winner is decided based upon a) first inning: The focus shifts to getting the lead. This may not be a bad thing but once a team gets the lead it's approach in the 2nd innings would be different than what it would be in a traditional test game b) the runs [scored] in the game: Here a team would simply want to play as many overs as possible. And prevent the other team for batting. Winning the toss is of prime importance because you have the chance to not let the other team bat in the 4th inning The big picture: For the test championship, a winner is going to be decided anyways. And that's going to affect how test cricket is traditionally played in some way or the other. So why not let the winner get decided on field. Let the teams fight and go all out out in the middle. With the best team in the game coming up triumph. From what I understand, this format is only for the 'test championship' where a few teams would have qualified for the play-offs. So it is not like ICC is changing how test cricket is played outside the play-offs of test championship. If someone can advise whether my understanding about the play-offs is correct.

[ahilya]

In which country this test championship will be played?