Multi format point system to be used in England vs SL and Pakistan

[Chandan]

England considering points system for tours

 

A multi-format points system used in the Women's Ashes is under consideration for England's home series against Sri Lanka and Pakistan this year.

 

England Cricket is reportedly considering following in the footsteps of the Women's Ashes and devising a multi-format points system for the visits of Sri Lanka and Pakistan this year.

A points system for a bi-lateral series was first devised between the ECB and Cricket Australia and introduced for the 2013 Women's Ashes. It saw six points awarded for a Test victory (or two each for a draw) as well as two points for victory in a one-day international or Twenty20 match.

The Test weighting was revised down to four points for a victory for the 2015 series, with the rest unchanged. The 2013-14 Women's Ashes saw the Commonwealth Bank Southern Stars finish on the wrong side of an 8-10 ledger despite winning more matches in the series.

England will host Sri Lanka for three Tests, five ODIs and a one-off Twenty20. They will play four Tests against Paksitan, with the same number of white-ball games.

It has been reported the ECB is in advanced negotiations with Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with each board required to consent to the concept before it can go ahead.

The thinking is to give greater meaning and purpose to limited-overs series, particularly those played long out from the global tournaments which can sometimes struggle to capture the public's imagination.

Although the idea is to generate greater interest across the whole tour, the Test weighting and scheduling of Tests first mean a three-nil Test series win would leave either England or Sri Lanka needing just one more victory from the six remaining limited-overs matches to clinch the overall prize.

It is unknown if there would be a prize or trophy presentation after each format with England, like CA, having separate sponsorships for Test, ODI and T20 cricket.

A four-nil win for either England or Pakistan would make the concept redundant with not enough points on offer in the limited-overs component to overhaul the Test mark. If it proves successful, it could potentially see limited overs series played before Test matches in a break with the accepted norm.

Cricket Australia is expected to announce its 2016-17 international schedule this month, with South Africa and Pakistan visiting, plus the next instalment of the Chappell-Hadlee ODI series with New Zealand.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this syastem is rubish. How will it serve much purpose is beyond me. To provide context to limited overs game? How? If you guys figure out something, which I have failed to, please tell me. And where do these points go? Don't tell me they'll go in the ranking system and ranking too will leave its syatem for separate formats and will count everything into one!! That'll be the day of calamity for cricket.

Few other articles on this subject:

Pakistan and Sri Lanka agree in principle to points system for England tour

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Chandan

[zen]

Pak and SL agree so it should to be dumb

[rkt.india]

16 hours ago, Chandan said:

England considering points system for tours

 

A multi-format points system used in the Women's Ashes is under consideration for England's home series against Sri Lanka and Pakistan this year.

 

England Cricket is reportedly considering following in the footsteps of the Women's Ashes and devising a multi-format points system for the visits of Sri Lanka and Pakistan this year.

A points system for a bi-lateral series was first devised between the ECB and Cricket Australia and introduced for the 2013 Women's Ashes. It saw six points awarded for a Test victory (or two each for a draw) as well as two points for victory in a one-day international or Twenty20 match.

The Test weighting was revised down to four points for a victory for the 2015 series, with the rest unchanged. The 2013-14 Women's Ashes saw the Commonwealth Bank Southern Stars finish on the wrong side of an 8-10 ledger despite winning more matches in the series.

England will host Sri Lanka for three Tests, five ODIs and a one-off Twenty20. They will play four Tests against Paksitan, with the same number of white-ball games.

It has been reported the ECB is in advanced negotiations with Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with each board required to consent to the concept before it can go ahead.

The thinking is to give greater meaning and purpose to limited-overs series, particularly those played long out from the global tournaments which can sometimes struggle to capture the public's imagination.

Although the idea is to generate greater interest across the whole tour, the Test weighting and scheduling of Tests first mean a three-nil Test series win would leave either England or Sri Lanka needing just one more victory from the six remaining limited-overs matches to clinch the overall prize.

It is unknown if there would be a prize or trophy presentation after each format with England, like CA, having separate sponsorships for Test, ODI and T20 cricket.

A four-nil win for either England or Pakistan would make the concept redundant with not enough points on offer in the limited-overs component to overhaul the Test mark. If it proves successful, it could potentially see limited overs series played before Test matches in a break with the accepted norm.

Cricket Australia is expected to announce its 2016-17 international schedule this month, with South Africa and Pakistan visiting, plus the next instalment of the Chappell-Hadlee ODI series with New Zealand.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this syastem is rubish. How will it serve much purpose is beyond me. To provide context to limited overs game? How? If you guys figure out something, which I have failed to, please tell me. And where do these points go? Don't tell me they'll go in the ranking system and ranking too will leave its syatem for separate formats and will count everything into one!! That'll be the day of calamity for cricket.

Few other articles on this subject:

Pakistan and Sri Lanka agree in principle to points system for England tour

 

 

 

 

these points will probably decide the winner of the tour. They will combine all the points and the team which has more points will be the winner on that tour, not separate winners like tests, ODIs, T20s.

[Chandan]

Rkt,

 

You didn't read this passage?

 

Quote

A four-nil win for either England or Pakistan would make the concept redundant with not enough points on offer in the limited-overs component to overhaul the Test mark. If it proves successful, it could potentially see limited overs series played before Test matches in a break with the accepted norm.

And

 

Quote

Although the idea is to generate greater interest across the whole tour, the Test weighting and scheduling of Tests first mean a three-nil Test series win would leave either England or Sri Lanka needing just one more victory from the six remaining limited-overs matches to clinch the overall prize.

So? Its just for close test results and close ODI results so that decider becomes T20. How many times does that happen? And if it doesn't and series is decided at the end of tests only whats the use of any point system?

 

Where will these points go, anyway?

 

 

.

[Chandan]

One more view:

 

 

Quote

For a men's series in which three or more Tests are played, then I think the administrators should think again. The water is getting muddied: Test cricket is being weighted against limited overs' matches. That destroys the integrity of Test cricket. Test cricket is not 'just another format': its demands on the players are very different. The disciplines of playing Test cricket are not those that serve the purposes of playing effective 50 overs or t20 cricket. Take line and length bowling: a definite plus in TC, fodder in t20! Does rugby take the Sevens version as anything other than a less complex version of the real thing? That is where LO cricket lies in comparison with TC. Arguably the differences are even greater, because the pitch size is not reduced in rugby. I think that there is a case for bundling the two LO formats, but leave Tests as freestanding!

 

[Chandan]

ECB points system has only one drawback: it totally devalues Test cricket

Combining results from Test, ODI and T20 matches over a series not only rewrites history but suggests white-ball victories are equal to winning a Test match, and that is simply not the case

Link

 

Rob Smyth

Tuesday 3 May 2016 12.49 BST

 

 

The Ashes wins of 2009 and 2010-11 were among Andrew Strauss’s finest moments as England captain. At the time, anyway. In the future they may be perceived differently. Under the new points system proposed by the ECB for bilateral series, England would have lost on both occasions.

In case you’ve been otherwise engaged on another planet, or in Leicester, for the last few weeks, let’s get down to brass tacks. The system was first trialled for thewomen’s Ashes in 2013, and involves merging all three forms of the game to decide one winner. It is likely to be used for the forthcoming men’s series against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with four points for a Test win and two for victories in ODIs or T20s.

“How do you encourage the public to re-engage with the international game?” said Strauss. “I believe you have to look at giving every match context. If it is a case of just another Test match or just another five-ODI series between two nations, it loses some of its context and some of its meaning and that is something the ICC needs to look at. I personally think there is scope in linking up Test, ODI and T20 cricket in some sort of bigger world championship that involves all three formats. It’s an idea I’ve been a fan of for a long time.”

The Spin loves Strauss, the modern-day Midas of English cricket. If he told us Eldorado was the greatest show HBO never created, we’d instantly reconsider our hitherto contemptuous appraisal of the emotional depth given to Pilar, Fizz and Bunny. Strauss’s advocacy made The Spin pause and consider this idea rather than adhering to our usual practice of depositing rage-based foam all over our keyboard, but we still can’t make any sense of it. All instinct and logic suggests it is an unnecessary evil for two main reasons: it’s a gimmick too far, and it devalues Test cricket.

Advertisement

Under the new system, England lost 16-10 to Australia in 2009 and 16-14 in 2010-11. What actually happened was that they won the Ashes each time and lost the subsequent ODI series by an aggregate of 6-1. England won just a solitary ODI, but nobody really gave a solitary one.

Should those scenarios happen again, both sides could claim victory. One of the charms of Test cricket is that you can play for four days and still not be certain who is winning, but having a 32-day series without a clear result at the end is probably pushing it.

There are other famous series that would have been similarly affected. Australia would not have dethroned West Indies in 1994-95, when they lost 12-10 – but they would have won by the same score four years earlier. Pakistan’s iconic summer of reverse-swing in 1992 would actually have been an England triumph. Oh, and England would have beaten Australia in 1997, when they won the ODI series 3-0 and lost the Tests 3-2: in new money, a 14-12 win and MBEs for everyone from Mark Ealham to Phil DeFreitas.

The Ashes may not immediately be at stake under the new system – but they were in the women’s game, and it would be naive to think the wedge will not thicken. If they are not at stake, what is the point? If they are, do the winners across all formats lift the little urn, or just the winners of the Test series? Maybe we could modernise things and replace the urn with a gold hashtag.

The system is not even weighted correctly. Whether your metric is blood, sweat, tears, glory or days’ play, a Test victory is worth a lot more than two ODI wins. The original system gave them six points rather than four – but that almost ensures the team that wins the Test series will win the overall series. Which, at least qualitatively, is where we are at the moment.

The proposed system ties in with the rhetoric that ODIs and T20s now have the same importance as Tests in England. A quick look at when England choose to rest players show that is undeniable hyperbole. Quite right too. It’s good that white-ball cricket is no longer an afterthought, but it should always be a secondary consideration after Test cricket. Having a points system for the two white-ball series is worth trialling, because they have clear common ground. But red- and white-ball cricket go together like bananas and bone-marrow gravy.

 

There is a need to tweak Test cricket, and the first day-night Test was an uplifting triumph, but this feels like a try-hard contrivance from a country that has belatedly embraced limited-overs cricket. A couple of years ago, Kevin Pietersen said that talking to Strauss about the IPL was like “explaining gangsta rap to a vicar”. Well now the vicar has discovered grime and he don’t care about your isms and schisms, grandad.

In itself, the system is relatively harmless and will probably go into the actually fairly small bucket of cricket’s bad innovations, along with things like the Supersub and the aluminium bat. But it is another in a worrying list of compromises and, as the examples of 2009 and 2010-11 show, an obvious case of devaluing Test cricket. It is also indicative of a sport that is in danger of following society by catering for an assumed audience with an IQ of 25. Test cricket is supposed to be our sanctuary from the real world.

Let’s be clear on this: Test cricket is the greatest, most soulful sport format ever invented. A world without it is as unthinkable as a world without arthouse cinema or alternative music. The points system is only a minor act of cultural vandalism, but it will beget far greater ones.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

 I agree 100% with this view. Let us not equate test cricket with LOI.

 

.

[bulbul]

May be they should give test wins more points compared to limited over matches

[kosingh]

Don't think players will care about this. Just like they didn't seem overly concerned with Test rankings etc. 

 

For them, cricket will always be match by match, series by series, tournament by tournament. 

[bulbul]

Don't think players will care about this. Just like they didn't seem overly concerned with Test rankings etc. 

 

For them, cricket will always be match by match, series by series, tournament by tournament. 

What if there is prize money ? MoS etc?

[Chandan]

But not a good message to spectators either. Administrators should convey at least how much test cricket means and it can in no way be equated with LOI. Two different formats of the same game and both have different importance, in records, for players, for admins and for spectators too.

 

Neither of the formats can be equated. They require different skills.

[PBN]

lol. someone sitting with nothing else to do can come up with this.  Combining points for test matches, ODIs, and t20..and then awarding the series.  Laughable to say the least.

[Pagalpanti]

I think its a fantastic idea. 

 

Instead of devaluing test cricket it rather gives context to the otherwise meaningless bilateral ODI series'. 

 

Like its clearly mentioned above that if teams win test series comprehensively they probably win on points anyway whatever the result in LOI's but if the test series is a close one, it makes the ODI series more exciting with trophy up for grabs. 

 

However like the article above suggested it'd make more sense to have ODI series before the tests in this case to keep the contest alive. As a test white-wash might render it useless which is very much a possiblity in the upcoming Eng v SL and Eng v Pak series. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Pagalpanti

[sscomp32]

37 minutes ago, Pagalpanti said:

I think its a fantastic idea. 

 

Instead of devaluing test cricket it rather gives context to the otherwise meaningless bilateral ODI series'. 

 

Like its clearly mentioned above that if teams win test series comprehensively they probably win on points anyway whatever the result in LOI's but if the test series is a close one, it makes the ODI series more exciting with trophy up for grabs. 

 

However like the article above suggested it'd make more sense to have ODI series before the tests in this case to keep the contest alive. As a test white-wash might render it useless which is very much a possiblity in the upcoming Eng v SL and Eng v Pak series. 

Completely agree with this. 

[bulbul]

lol. someone sitting with nothing else to do can come up with this.  Combining points for test matches, ODIs, and t20..and then awarding the series.  Laughable to say the least.

This is already happening in woman's cricket from some time..

[Chandan]

Too much dependence om computer, England?

 

............

 

The MVP rankings were launched in 2007 and the PCA has worked with the ECB's high performance centre at Loughborough to enhance them for this new venture. The system moves beyond basic averages, with batsmen gaining points for strike-rate and a percentage of the team's score while bowlers are rewarded higher for which batsmen they dismiss. The quality of opposition is taken into account as well as overall conditions.

"This is a good opportunity for England, domestic players and the game," Strauss said. "Finding the best players outside the current England set-up, playing them against each other in overseas conditions and placing them in an England environment will help us see if they're ready for international cricket. 

"As a player you always like to see how you rank - it gives you recognition and here it comes with the added bonus of getting further into the England reckoning as we look ahead to the World Cup here in 2019. 

"And for fans it also gives an added element to the Royal London Cup, putting the spotlight on the players to follow in the 50-over game. This is a shot in the arm for the domestic game."

...................................................................

 

I don't like this over dependence on computer!!

 

.

[zen]

Imagine Ind of early to mid 2000s. Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar or VVS plays a tremendous knock to help Ind win a test series 1-0 in say Aus or SA. Then a young ODI teams comes and loses the ODI series 1-4

 

Ind lose the series 6-8 (Calculated at 4 pts  for tests and 2 for ODIs win) 

[Chandan]

What is winning a series for?

 

 

The real issue is that no one has answered the fundamental question: what is winning a series for? The answer would present itself if divisions in Test cricket were introduced, and leagues in ODI cricket, as the ICC is pushing for. A vote on introducing a top division of seven nations, and a second of five, with promotion and relegation every two years could take place at the ICC Annual Conference next month.

This would imbue context into international cricket and ensure every match counted towards something, rather than simply for a series with no greater meaning.

And if only a tiny proportion of cricket fans in India suddenly had reason to care who won a Test series between England and Sri Lanka, because it would now impact India’s chances of winning Division One, viewing figures, and therefore the value of broadcasting rights for Tests, could be transformed.

The ECB’s new approach is “commendable”, Tony Irish, the executive chairman of Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, told i, while warning that it is “not in any way a substitute for proper centrally developed context like a genuine Test and ODI league involving all countries. Different countries doing different things can also sometimes make the game even more confusing.”

Rather than go too far to address the flaws of international cricket’s structure, perhaps the new points system doesn’t go far enough.

-------------------------------------

 

Boards should wait to see what decision is taken on Division of tests and ODI teams.

 

If that happens. This point system will be useless as every match will have a context.