England v South Africa, Lords, 3rd Test Thread

[eirebilly]

First topic message reminder :

Yeah, the fielding certainly has left alot to be desired. Still the chances are being created and things must surely stick soon.

[Mad for Chelsea]

tend to agree with mysti on that: while England's dropped catches did cost them dear, take the drop off Amla in this innings. Result: the batsmen got a single and Peterson got out two balls later. Now had Prior caught it, Petersen wouldn't have been on strike, hence may not have got out, and could have made 150.

[Mike Selig]

The stats on dropped catches is ridiculous - it assumes that had the catches been taken the match would have carried on in exactly the same way, just the guy wouldn't have scored the runs he did. It is not an interesting stat, it is inane.

My feeling is that England lost their chance to win the test when Anderson dropped AB, and I said so at the time. 280 was chaseable, and had Jimmy caught that I think that's what England would have been faced with (maybe as little as 260 even). 350 was always going to be tough, and I echo guilford's admirable comment that it seemed as if England were always two wickets behind.

[ChequeredJersey]

Everytime Broad has a dip he comes back big. He'll be back in India

[ShankyCricket]

Well played South Africa - quite simply the better team in all the departments.

Now where do we go from here? Squad for the India tour?

[JDizzle]

Taylor looks compact enough and plays the ball late so certainly seems technically able to open, but hasn't ever really batted there apart from a couple of times in the Lions. Is he ready for it mentally? More generally I am a bit concerned about whether he has the mental edge he needs at test level, a lot of this is based on appearances, but he seems so apologetic at the wicket.

Bairstow has surely made himself undroppable with his batting and fielding (he is an outstanding fielder) in this test.

I am fairly undecided on Strauss: part of me says that's now 4 disappointing series England have had, 3 of which Strauss has done very little in, and it may be time for a change; the other half says India is a tough place to blood a new captain and a new opener, Strauss has done well in India in the past and with time away to work on his game could come back stronger. I think the man concerned probably knows better than anyone, and I suspect he'll discuss the issues with Flower. I doubt he'll be pushed, it will be a joint decision.

From the bowling perspective Finn was very impressive in the 2nd dig, after being a bit all over the place before that during the series.

Anderson had a rare off day. He bowled very well in the first innings but too short in the 2nd innings and was clearly unhappy.

Swann I thought bowled well, at times very well, without any luck, and on another day could have had 4 or 5 wickets. In any case, 2 wickets and an eco rate of 2 will do the job just fine in India.

Broad is a worry, not so much his stats as the way he's bowling. I'm not sure Onions is the 2nd coming some people proclaim (as they did with Finn when he wasn't in the team - it's well known you're always a better player with the fans when you're not playing), and would be very hesitant to go in with a tail with Anderson, Finn and Onions. Bresnan could be very handy as 3rd seamer in India, keeping things tight and finding reverse swing, if Broad doesn't get his nip back.

What goes of Tremlett BTW?

I actually think the exact opposite when it comes to Taylor Mike. Whilst he has looked slightly, as you say, apologetic this series it is hard to look dominating when you are only 5ft 5. He does have a bit of the Owais Shah fidgeting about him, but he is new to Test level playing against the best attack in the world. And what I would say about him mentally is that every time he has stepped up a level, he has scored runs. When he first came into the Leics side, when he plays for the England Lions and when he plays in front of the Sky cameras he seems to get runs which to me suggests a good temperament. I thought his main weakness would come against spin, but he played Tahir very well here especially in the Second Test but whether he can replicate that in India is a question mark.

Strauss is an issue. Whilst the Windies attack isn't some pie chuckers, they aren't great and runs against them don't prove much. However, if KP doesn't come back into the side Strauss has to play for me. Just for some experience, as with Taylor and Bairstow in there isn't much of that about and add in there isn't anyone sticking their hand up to replace him then he stays for me.

[Biltong]

In my opinion England must not change too much.

Sort KP's ego out and take him with, how you do it is simple.

He either commits to england cricket or IPL, no half measures.

Then set him down in front of his teammates and let them all be honest with one another to clear the air.

Leave the rest as is.

[Galted]

Broad's 3-4 consecutive games doing sod-all cost Eng dear. He has the ability to come back after that with a big score or 5/6 wickets with a spell dictated by the match situation but, ultimately, is unreliable for game after game. Players like Swann & Prior, even when not making statistically noticeable contributions, keep the pressure on the opposition whereas Broad seems like a free ride at times.

[ChequeredJersey]

I get the feeling that KP's text was just a joke (probably unfunny) but could easily be offensive and was taken the wrong way

[ChequeredJersey]

Not sure I can agree with you Galted.

[guildfordbat]

Taylor looks compact enough and plays the ball late so certainly seems technically able to open, but hasn't ever really batted there apart from a couple of times in the Lions. Is he ready for it mentally? More generally I am a bit concerned about whether he has the mental edge he needs at test level, a lot of this is based on appearances, but he seems so apologetic at the wicket. ....

I am fairly undecided on Strauss: part of me says that's now 4 disappointing series England have had, 3 of which Strauss has done very little in, and it may be time for a change; the other half says India is a tough place to blood a new captain and a new opener, Strauss has done well in India in the past and with time away to work on his game could come back stronger. I think the man concerned probably knows better than anyone, and I suspect he'll discuss the issues with Flower. I doubt he'll be pushed, it will be a joint decision ....

What goes of Tremlett BTW?

Mike - just to follow up on the aspects above.

I really like Taylor. Believe he's a class act. I don't consider that he should be opening though - as you say, he's had very little experience in that role. I do understand your comment about his 'apologetic' appearance; his (lack of) size probably has a bearing and having played until recently for Leics, an utterly dreadful and continually losing side, will hardly have been a confidence booster. I'm sure a couple of good Test scores can't be far off and will go some way to him showing himself in a more positive light.

I'm with Alfie on Strauss and don't want him to go (assuming he doesn't). We came much closer to a win today than anyone with half a cricket brain thought possible around lunchtime. Team spirit - and the captain's contribution to that - must have played a part. If we had pulled off a win, people would now be placing Strauss on a pedestal and calling for his elevation to Brearley-like sainthood rather than calling for his head (I appreciate you are not). I think Strauss should go when he thinks the time is right but no one should try to convince him it is now. I also believe it'll be easier for any new skipper to take over for a home series rather than a tour of India.

As for Tremlett, he's once more injured. At a Surrey members' meeting last week, Chris Adams explained that (in common with many sports injuries causing undue strain on other parts of the body) Tremlett's original back injury had led to knee problems. (He last played at Guildford about six weeks ago and looked far from fit to the seasoned eyes of the Corporal, myself and other 606 v2 Surrey boys.) However, Tremlett's knee is not as bad as first feared and it is hoped that it will be cured by rest rather than surgery being required. Adams added that there's an outside chance Tremlett could play again for Surrey this season although I personally doubt it - given we are struggling to aviod relegation, I can't see the risk of him breaking down early in a match being taken. This leads to another potential problem.

Tremlett's Surrey contract is up at the end of this season whilst his England central contract seems unlikely to be renewed. If Surrey don't offer him a new contract (and they will be less inclined to when there's no funding from England for a player who misses too much cricket), there's a real danger of him ending up in limbo. He'll then need to find another county to ever get back into international recognition. That won't be easy given his injury record and the belt tightening going on at most counties.

Finally, a wonderful Test and series. Much credit to both sides.

[msp83]

Will be a real shame if Tremlett is left in the cold. Liked him from that India series in 07, and his ashes performance was class. Another Simon Jones?

[Mike Selig]

Guilford and JD, thanks for the responses.

I really like Taylor. Believe he's a class act. I don't consider that he should be opening though - as you say, he's had very little experience in that role. I do understand your comment about his 'apologetic' appearance; his (lack of) size probably has a bearing and having played until recently for Leics, an utterly dreadful and continually losing side, will hardly have been a confidence booster. I'm sure a couple of good Test scores can't be far off and will go some way to him showing himself in a more positive light.

I certainly can't find much technically wrong with Taylor, although JD mentions that playing spin could be a factor. As I say, I am basing myself on TV images which really is probably meaningless. I've seen him play a few times for Leicestershire, and he's impressed me with his cricket nous, and how he builds his innings. I'm just saying we don't really know what he's going to be like under the highest pressure. I would certainly think he's more a top order player than middle-order, but can you realistically ask him to open up in tests having never really done it? I don't think so, opening is such a specific mental thing. (similarly ideas of Trott and Bell moving up the order to open are a bit silly)

I'm with Alfie on Strauss and don't want him to go (assuming he doesn't). We came much closer to a win today than anyone with half a cricket brain thought possible around lunchtime. Team spirit - and the captain's contribution that - must have played a part. If we had pulled off a win, people would now be placing Strauss on a pedestal and calling for his elevation to Brearley-like sainthood rather than calling for his head (I appreciate you are not). I think Strauss should go when he thinks the time is right but no one should try to convince him it is now. I also believe it'll be easier for any new skipper to take over for a home series rather than a tour of India.

Pretty much what I said, or what I meant to say. However if after reflection he and Flower genuinely think he's no longer the best person to take England forward then I'll also respect that. I take the point about a tour of India not being the ideal place to put a new captain (and England after India have 2 test series against New Zealand which may work better) but also you often find a change of captain brings a new energy about the team (see Clarke winning in Sri Lanka for his first test series say as the most recent example) which might be what England need - they looked uncharacteristically sluggish in this test. As I said, I sit firmly on the fence, but believe Strauss and Flower are the best placed to make the call - whatever they go with I'll agree.

As for Tremlett, he's once more injured. At a Surrey members' meeting last week, Chris Adams explained that (in common with many sports injuries causing undue strain on other parts of the body) Tremlett's original back injury had led to knee problems. (He last played at Guildford about six weeks ago and looked far from fit to the seasoned eyes of the Corporal, myself and other 606 v2 Surrey boys.) However, Tremlett's knee is not as bad as first feared and it is hoped that it will be cured by rest rather than surgery being required. Adams added that there's an outside chance Tremlett could play again for Surrey this season although I personally doubt it - given we are struggling to aviod relegation, I can't see the risk of him breaking down early in a match being taken. This leads to another potential problem.

Tremlett's Surrey contract is up at the end of this season whilst his England central contract seems unlikely to be renewed. If Surrey don't offer him a new contract (and they will be less inclined to when there's no funding from England for a player who misses too much cricket), there's a real danger of him ending up in limbo. He'll then need to find another county to ever get back into international recognition. That won't be easy given his injury record and the belt tightening going on at most counties.

Regrettable. I suppose some people's bodies are just not up for it.

Finally, a wonderful Test and series. Much credit to both sides.

Absolutely. We have been blessed in the last couple of years with a great number of exciting tests and series. This is certainly the most dense standard I can remember in test cricket.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Mike, just to play devil's advocate on the Taylor opening when he's never done it before thing: Watson, Katich, Langer?

[DouglasJardinesbox]

The stats on dropped catches is ridiculous - it assumes that had the catches been taken the match would have carried on in exactly the same way, just the guy wouldn't have scored the runs he did. It is not an interesting stat, it is inane.

My feeling is that England lost their chance to win the test when Anderson dropped AB, and I said so at the time. 280 was chaseable, and had Jimmy caught that I think that's what England would have been faced with (maybe as little as 260 even). 350 was always going to be tough, and I echo guilford's admirable comment that it seemed as if England were always two wickets behind.

So you believe dropping Alma on 2 was insignificant, but dropping ABV on 8 was the game changer? Have I got that right, or have I misunderstood?

[DouglasJardinesbox]

tend to agree with mysti on that: while England's dropped catches did cost them dear, take the drop off Amla in this innings. Result: the batsmen got a single and Peterson got out two balls later. Now had Prior caught it, Petersen wouldn't have been on strike, hence may not have got out, and could have made 150.

I'd really really prefer my chances of Alma scoring bigger that Peterson. But it is all ifs and buts. I put it all down to bad dressing room camaraderie.

[msp83]

Mike, just to play devil's advocate on the Taylor opening when he's never done it before thing: Watson, Katich, Langer?

Sehwag and Dilshan as well.

[Mike Selig]

The stats on dropped catches is ridiculous - it assumes that had the catches been taken the match would have carried on in exactly the same way, just the guy wouldn't have scored the runs he did. It is not an interesting stat, it is inane.

My feeling is that England lost their chance to win the test when Anderson dropped AB, and I said so at the time. 280 was chaseable, and had Jimmy caught that I think that's what England would have been faced with (maybe as little as 260 even). 350 was always going to be tough, and I echo guilford's admirable comment that it seemed as if England were always two wickets behind.

So you believe dropping Alma on 2 was insignificant, but dropping ABV on 8 was the game changer? Have I got that right, or have I misunderstood?

You keep deliberately misinterpreting people's points in a way which you obviously think makes you seem clever, or cutting, or maybe you just find it entertaining. Whatever.

I didn't even mention the Amla drop.

I was making a general point that when people say "the drop cost x" they are talking rubbish.

And that for me the last key moment in the test was the drop of AB, because from that point onwards England never really had a chance to get in front in the game.

In the scheme of things I think as a moment, I reckon the AB drop was more crucial, because after the Amla drop England immediately picked up a wicket, so the deflating effect it had on the side was far less. However the Amla drop was obviously not insignificant - dropping someone on 2 who then goes on to make 100 rarely is.

[DouglasJardinesbox]

The stats on dropped catches is ridiculous - it assumes that had the catches been taken the match would have carried on in exactly the same way, just the guy wouldn't have scored the runs he did. It is not an interesting stat, it is inane.

My feeling is that England lost their chance to win the test when Anderson dropped AB, and I said so at the time. 280 was chaseable, and had Jimmy caught that I think that's what England would have been faced with (maybe as little as 260 even). 350 was always going to be tough, and I echo guilford's admirable comment that it seemed as if England were always two wickets behind.

So you believe dropping Alma on 2 was insignificant, but dropping ABV on 8 was the game changer? Have I got that right, or have I misunderstood?

You keep deliberately misinterpreting people's points in a way which you obviously think makes you seem clever, or cutting, or maybe you just find it entertaining. Whatever.

I didn't even mention the Amla drop.

I was making a general point that when people say "the drop cost x" they are talking rubbish.

And that for me the last key moment in the test was the drop of AB, because from that point onwards England never really had a chance to get in front in the game.

In the scheme of things I think as a moment, I reckon the AB drop was more crucial, because after the Amla drop England immediately picked up a wicket, so the deflating effect it had on the side was far less. However the Amla drop was obviously not insignificant - dropping someone on 2 who then goes on to make 100 rarely is.

I asked for clarification on your point, which you have done. You then explain your rationale. The fact that you are getting twitchy tells me all I need to know. You chuck out insults at people when they dont gush at your posts. Whatever.

[liverbnz]

Just seen that these to teams won't play another Test against each other until December 2015. Shameful organizing.

[Fists of Fury]

Shocking, isn't it. Alongside the Australia Tests the South African series are always tremendous viewing and are played extremely hard.

Organisers hang your heads in shame.

[skyeman]

Anyone find out yet that if Aus beat SA in the coming series, they may become No1. Surely not.

[GSC]

Also we only get the 3 tests of the best series in years

[skyeman]

Found it:

Sydney, Aug 21: Australia could regain the No.1 Test ranking by December if they beat South Africa in the upcoming three-Test series.

The Proteas climbed to the top of world cricket overnight by defeating England at Lord’s to complete a 2-0 series victory, but their glory will be short lived if Michael Clarke’s side conquers them.

The Australians currently sit third in Test rankings with 116 points, behind England on 117 and South Africa on 120, but can erase the four-point deficit on the Proteas by beating them on home soil.

That starts an exciting few months for cricket.

England has an away series against India on the subcontinent, where they have a poor recent record, which runs concurrently with Australia’s battle against South Africa.

The Australians then tackle Sri Lanka in a three-Test series, starting on Boxing Day, which overlaps with South Africa’s two Tests against New Zealand.

The Proteas then host Pakistan in a three-match series, which starts in February 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Regaining the No.1 ranking would be a tremendous boost for Cricket Australia which underwent a massive overhaul last year in the wake of a disastrous Ashes campaign two summers ago.

Does seem to make the rankings list look like they are flawed.

Then again recently they have beaten India and SL{away} and drew in SA.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Found it:

Sydney, Aug 21: Australia could regain the No.1 Test ranking by December if they beat South Africa in the upcoming three-Test series.

The Proteas climbed to the top of world cricket overnight by defeating England at Lord’s to complete a 2-0 series victory, but their glory will be short lived if Michael Clarke’s side conquers them.

The Australians currently sit third in Test rankings with 116 points, behind England on 117 and South Africa on 120, but can erase the four-point deficit on the Proteas by beating them on home soil.

That starts an exciting few months for cricket.

England has an away series against India on the subcontinent, where they have a poor recent record, which runs concurrently with Australia’s battle against South Africa.

The Australians then tackle Sri Lanka in a three-Test series, starting on Boxing Day, which overlaps with South Africa’s two Tests against New Zealand.

The Proteas then host Pakistan in a three-match series, which starts in February 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Regaining the No.1 ranking would be a tremendous boost for Cricket Australia which underwent a massive overhaul last year in the wake of a disastrous Ashes campaign two summers ago.

Does seem to make the rankings list look like they are flawed.

Then again recently they have beaten India and SL{away} and drew in SA.

SA won in Aus last time they were there - so an Aus win would be reversing that result. And 4 points on the rankings isn't a massive gap

[skyeman]

Found it:

Sydney, Aug 21: Australia could regain the No.1 Test ranking by December if they beat South Africa in the upcoming three-Test series.

The Proteas climbed to the top of world cricket overnight by defeating England at Lord’s to complete a 2-0 series victory, but their glory will be short lived if Michael Clarke’s side conquers them.

The Australians currently sit third in Test rankings with 116 points, behind England on 117 and South Africa on 120, but can erase the four-point deficit on the Proteas by beating them on home soil.

That starts an exciting few months for cricket.

England has an away series against India on the subcontinent, where they have a poor recent record, which runs concurrently with Australia’s battle against South Africa.

The Australians then tackle Sri Lanka in a three-Test series, starting on Boxing Day, which overlaps with South Africa’s two Tests against New Zealand.

The Proteas then host Pakistan in a three-match series, which starts in February 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Regaining the No.1 ranking would be a tremendous boost for Cricket Australia which underwent a massive overhaul last year in the wake of a disastrous Ashes campaign two summers ago.

Does seem to make the rankings list look like they are flawed.

Then again recently they have beaten India and SL{away} and drew in SA.

SA won in Aus last time they were there - so an Aus win would be reversing that result. And 4 points on the rankings isn't a massive gap

GL Aus, then if Eng beat India, they regain top spot. Very topsyturvy at the moment. Not a clear No1.

[robbo277]

I don't think the rankings are flawed, I just think that there is no clear number 1 at the moment. There are a number of teams near the top that could all beat each other.

At the end of last summer, England were the best team in the world. It was a long time since they'd lost a series, but since then we've lost 2 and drawn 1, winning a solitary 1 at home against the West Indies.

Right now, South Africa are the best team in the world, they've just taken an away win from the previously ranked number one team. However, England and Australia aren't that far behind. If South Africa beat Australia in Australia, then they'll cement their position as number 1 ranked team, but if Australia can beat SA after Australia's recent run (and the 10/11 Ashes was a while back now), then they deserve to be called the best team in the world.

If one team goes on a mad winning spree, winning several series home and away in a row then they'll gather a big lead at the top of the rankings and be the undisputed best test side, and then one slip won't change the rankings by that much. As it is South Africa are the best team in the world, but not by loads, so if they lose a series then they are vunerable.

[skyeman]

Agreed, i rescind my flawed statement about the rankings. Just seems that Aus did not look great in SL or SA and have a chance of going top.
But results count, ugly or not.

[Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler]

It seems odd to many england fans because the series we remember best are the ones they lost ( ie to us) but Aus have been doing pretty well recently. Its also easy to forget that England have lost two series recently where they didnt win a test, one of those at home, and havent beaten a top side since this time last year.
SAs results have been pretty mixed too its only really this series that confirmed them as a genuinely good side.
So whilst there might be some short term oddities in the rankings I dont think theres anything wrong with the idea that its topsy turvy at the top and the mace can get passed around quite a group of teams
If India could get a decent bowler they might even get back up there in a year.

[msp83]

PSW, that's the problem, we don't have a decent bowler across conditions other than Zaheer. He himself is closer to the end rather that the start of his career, and Ashwin and Ojha can be good in helpful conditions, and Yadav is a decent, but still developing prospect. Beyond that? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

[Shelsey93]

Agreed. Australia would, on the basis of results, be rightful number one were they to beat SA. Not only would they have beaten the existing number one, but they would have considerably less defeats on their record than the others - India away and England home and away are all I can think of.

[alfie]

Just on that rankings point : I tend to take the rankings with a pinch of salt - they are what they they are , and may or may not reflect current reality depending on whether a particular team has had a sudden improvement (or rapid fall off) , but generally are not too far off . Of course all the attention is focused on the top of the table , but these comments apply up and down the table.
In truth it would seem a little strange if Australia were to regain top ranking on the basis of perhaps a single Test Match win over South Africa at home , while still "carrying" losses home and away to England , away to India , and a couple of draws to SA away and NZ (!) at home...but one should consider that England took the top position despite having lost their last away series to India , Sri Lanka and West Indies. The difference was that England had a very strong recent record against the other heavyweights , while Australia's recent success has been largely against the lesser teams.
If there is any distortion , it is really a function of (a) lots of very short series , 3 or even 2 matches (b) the emphasis in the rankings on individual Test Matches rather than series results and (c) just the luck of the draw...
Depend upon it , no one is going to stay number one for very long without beating their main competitors.

Just the same , if Australia were to be crowned top of the pile in December - even briefly - I would hope it came as the result of a decisive win over SA rather than say a one win and a couple of lucky draws , just for credibility.

I don't rule out an Aussie win , by the way , but if SA take their current form with them I do think it a little unlikely.

[mystiroakey]

I think when it comes to Test cricket rankings are much more relevant. Because it is the ultimate achevement in my mind.

I cant think of another sport that is similar though and rankings are just not important- bar seedings of course, which is kinda important

[Biltong]

There is much to be said for rankings and their validity.

It is impossible to take all aspects into account, example, a team gets away with two draws in which they were in trouble and were likely to loe if rain didn't interrupt the game, it also doesn't consider conditions etc.

So it shows form, now whether one team is 3 points below or ahead of another team is in reality meaningless as it means either team can win, depending on rain, conditions, injuries, form, etc, etc.

So yes, it provides an indication that a team has been better or poorer than their opponents in recent time.

[Shelsey93]

There is much to be said for rankings and their validity.

It is impossible to take all aspects into account, example, a team gets away with two draws in which they were in trouble and were likely to loe if rain didn't interrupt the game, it also doesn't consider conditions etc.

So it shows form, now whether one team is 3 points below or ahead of another team is in reality meaningless as it means either team can win, depending on rain, conditions, injuries, form, etc, etc.

So yes, it provides an indication that a team has been better or poorer than their opponents in recent time.

Indeed. In fairness the current rankings are very representative of what I'd say is the current hierarchy.

Alfie's point about short series is of course relevant. A 3rd Test in the SA v Australia, SL v England and NZ v Australia series played in the last year would have put a completely different complexion on the results. Certainly it is difficult to imagine that Australia would have lost to NZ again.

[mystiroakey]

It depends how you look at the rankings. If you look at it like the ultimate goal it doesnt really matter if you have had a bit of luck getting there does it!

Most winners of world cups have also had to ride there luck to get there.. That offcourse is the ultimate goal for sports that have world cups.

[Biltong]

It does indeed depend on how you look at the rankings, for me what does 3 points in a ranking mean?

It is the same with Rugby rankings. Some teams are decimal points ahead of others, it means squat.

I look at how we have performed against other teams to know what our chances are when we play them next.

Australia.
Win away
Loss at home
Draw at home

Very even.

India
two draws away
One draw at home

England.
2 away wins
1 draw at home

Those are the top teams and their series results vs SA.

It is damn close, for me to go run around the streets to shout we're number 1 is futile, foolish and immature.

[alfie]

I think we agree on that , Biltong ! Though the media do bang on about it a lot.

West Indies 1980s . Australia either side of the turn of the century. They were clear "number ones"

These days it is more "Team of the Month". And actually makes for more interesting Test Series.

[mystiroakey]

Untill we have some kind of test championship being no.1 will allways be a goal..

[Shelsey93]

Untill we have some kind of test championship being no.1 will allways be a goal..

Whilst welcome I can't see a Test Championship becoming more of a goal than No. 1 status.

One-off matches, potentially in conditions more favourable to one team, can be a bit of a lottery.

When we do get a Test Championship I'd like to see quarters and semis played over the course of a few months right around the world, and culminating in a Lord's final. Would be an interesting exercise, but certainly wouldn't/ shouldn't be the dominant goal of Test teams.

[mystiroakey]

Shelsey how about just scedule teams to play every other test team home and away over a 4 year period and just create a scoring table!

[Shelsey93]

Shelsey how about just scedule teams to play every other test team home and away over a 4 year period and just create a scoring table!

I think that that is a bit of a utopian scenario and simply wouldn't work, because:

- Everyone plays different lengths of series (rightly - we wouldn't want a 3 Test Ashes or 5 Test England v Bangladesh at the moment)
- Some teams don't even bother playing each other or don't for political reasons - India v Bangladesh, India v Pakistan, England v Zimbabwe
- Fitting together this type of schedule would be a nightmare
- India wouldn't want to have to forego biannual series against the most lucrative opponents
- It wouldn't be much different to what we have already

Play-offs are a good idea but, as I say, would not be definitive.

[Biltong]

Untill we have some kind of test championship being no.1 will allways be a goal..

Whilst welcome I can't see a Test Championship becoming more of a goal than No. 1 status.

One-off matches, potentially in conditions more favourable to one team, can be a bit of a lottery.

When we do get a Test Championship I'd like to see quarters and semis played over the course of a few months right around the world, and culminating in a Lord's final. Would be an interesting exercise, but certainly wouldn't/ shouldn't be the dominant goal of Test teams.

The only way I see a Test Champioship work, is where the ICC starts with a clean slate and say in a 4 year cycle all test teams must play a home and away minimum 3 test series.

So at the end of a 4 year cycle you will have completed a home and away series against the test nations.

They can work on a points system for it.

Debatable, but something like this.

3 points for a win, by an innings or more
3 points for a win by 200 runs or more
2 points for a test win by any other means
1 point for a draw
0 for a loss
4 bonus points for a series win.

[mystiroakey]

Yeah Thats on my way of thinking bilt!

[KP_fan]

Couple of thoughts on test championships:

1)unfortunately test match championship has been rejected by BCCI...in principle.

It is not a money spinner...requires too much of locked-down commitment and doesn't interest sponsors with attractive return on investments......

going forward any changes to the structure of international calendars will be driven by returns investments for the sponsors......and test match championship does not fall in that category...perhaps a mini 2nd IPL every year might.

Unless the backers a test championship ( primarily England) can bring sponsors that make such a lucrative deal that it pales any thoughts of a 2nd IPL.

2) In the absence of a championship which will have it's own format, shceduling sponsorship issues........a tightened ranking system is not a bad option. As Biltong is alluding to the system of Ranking points needs to be tightened........IMO to account for the following two factors that it currently doesn't consider.....

a) Margin of win / defeat
b) Weightage for home vs. away wins

[msp83]

I believe the rankings indeed account for the home-away factor.

[KP_fan]

I believe the rankings indeed account for the home-away factor.

unless I am seriously mistaken...they don't .

a win against No.2 Eng in India will earn India same points as they would if they win in Eng.

that indeed is a serious factor not accounted for

[robbo277]

Untill we have some kind of test championship being no.1 will allways be a goal..

Whilst welcome I can't see a Test Championship becoming more of a goal than No. 1 status.

One-off matches, potentially in conditions more favourable to one team, can be a bit of a lottery.

When we do get a Test Championship I'd like to see quarters and semis played over the course of a few months right around the world, and culminating in a Lord's final. Would be an interesting exercise, but certainly wouldn't/ shouldn't be the dominant goal of Test teams.

The only way I see a Test Champioship work, is where the ICC starts with a clean slate and say in a 4 year cycle all test teams must play a home and away minimum 3 test series.

So at the end of a 4 year cycle you will have completed a home and away series against the test nations.

They can work on a points system for it.

Debatable, but something like this.

3 points for a win, by an innings or more
3 points for a win by 200 runs or more
2 points for a test win by any other means
1 point for a draw
0 for a loss
4 bonus points for a series win.

I would go for:

3 points for a series win
1 point for a series draw
0 points for a series loss

Then I'd look at results between the teams as the first seperater and then matches as your second separater. I think it would be much easier to get teams to play the same amount of series then it would be to get teams to play the matches, so points should only be issued for series wins/losses. Also, then you can't play 8 match series against Bangladesh to boost your points total!

[Biltong]

Robbo, I agree with you on the basis that some test series may be more matches, I ddn't consider that.

However if all test series are of equal number of matches, then I think my suggestion would ebcourage teams to play more agressive test cricket to avoid draws.

[Liam]

3 points for a home series win = bonus of 1 if its something to nil (3-0)
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss

4 points for a away series win = reward positive results on someone's turf

[alfie]

Some nice ideas on here for refining the points system to improve the "accuracy" of the rankings.
And on getting an actual championship off the ground.

Good luck on getting all countries to agree on them

I think we are likely to be stuck with the current arrangement for the foreseeable future , and I don't think that is any disaster. Plenty of good cricket being played and that will do me.

[Sponsored content]