Is it time for ICC to consider NBA-style play-offs for the World Test Championship?

[RedwoodOriginal]

The World Test Championship should be one of the premier ICC events. But it doesn't exactly feel like one because of the presence of just one final.

A measure of disparity will always exist because of the Future Tours Program with some teams getting more favorable match-ups during a 2 year period than others.

But I feel that if the ICC considers adding NBA-style play-offs/best of 3 series for the knockouts it would go a long way in making the tournament more equitable and interesting.

For the knockouts the Top 4 teams on the table would qualify. Then you can either have best-of-3 playoffs with #1 playing #2 for a place in the final and #3 playing #4 in the eliminator, followed by qualifier #2 and the final.

Or you could have two best-of-three semi-finals.

For the 3 match series each side would have to play one test home and away and one test at a neutral venue.

And if a 3 match series gets drawn then you can use Runs Per Wicket(RpW) Ratio to decide which teams moves forward.

The final would obviously be best of 3 aswell.

I recognize that such a thing will require alot of work from the logistical end. But if ICC really wants to give genuine value to the World Test Championship and by extension increase interest in test cricket they will have to do something like this.

 

[Bilal Ahmad15]

Nah, they should just have a best of 3 final, because Test Cricket just isn't that popular, and if they do too many best of 3 semi-finals, eliminators etc. it will become too boring to watch for the majority. And everyone has to be playing everyone, except India - Pakistan, because although I do want to see them play each other, the reality is they won't, but this shouldn't mean that this affects other teams from playing each other.

 

[U$ofA]

The WTC is the biggest joke of a tournament that I have ever come across. It has a lot of firsts/unique aspects that are not necessarily good.

1.The ICC – I have never seen a more disinterested organizer that is in charge or organizing a tournament. They want no part of the WTC.

2.Teams - Not just the organizer, majority of the teams playing are equally disinterested.

3.Length – The WTC is probably the longest tournament of any sporting event, running for 2+ years. By the time the final comes along, no one remembers when it started.

4.Points System – This is one big dog’s breakfast. I mean, a team playing the exact same game against two different teams in the same tournament earns different points for a win. How do you wrap your head around this?
[MENTION=147292]RedwoodOriginal[/MENTION], just for the first two points above, your suggestion is dead on arrival. Majority of the test playing nations cannot be bothered to play more than two tests. That too because they are forced to for the sake of WTC.

Also, you have to consider the money aspect. Nothing is free. Where is the ICC going to get the $$$ to organize the playoffs? Do they dip into the WC $$$ there by decreasing the profit margin and the $$$ distribution to all the boards? If so, will the boards be ok with reduced revenues?

 

[Giannis]

Yes, but instead of top 4 make it top 8. Each of the teams play each other in a Best-of-3 test series, first test at the higher ranked teams home and second test away at the lower ranked teams home and then the deciding 3rd test (if needed) back at the higher ranked teams home or a neutral venue.

The playoff tree would look like this

Q1 #1 vs #8
Q2 #2 vs #7
Q3 #3 vs #6
Q4 #4 vs #5

Then
Q1 winner vs Q3 winner
Q2 winner vs Q4 winner

And then the Final

 

[Giannis]

Yes, but instead of top 4 make it top 8. Each of the teams play each other in a Best-of-3 test series, first test at the higher ranked teams home and second test away at the lower ranked teams home and then the deciding 3rd test (if needed) back at the higher ranked teams home or a neutral venue.

The playoff tree would look like this

Q1 #1 vs #8
Q2 #2 vs #7
Q3 #3 vs #6
Q4 #4 vs #5

Then
Q1 winner vs Q3 winner
Q2 winner vs Q4 winner

And then the Final

Here's hypothetical based off the current rankings

Q1 Ind vs WI
Q2 NZ vs SL
Q3 Aus vs SA
Q4 Eng vs Pak

S1 Ind vs Aus
S2 NZ vs Pak

WTC Final
Aus vs NZ

All of the playoff series will be best of 3 and the final a one-off match at a host city selected by the ICC the year before.

 

[U$ofA]

Here's hypothetical based off the current rankings

Q1 Ind vs WI
Q2 NZ vs SL
Q3 Aus vs SA
Q4 Eng vs Pak

S1 Ind vs Aus
S2 NZ vs Pak

WTC Final
Aus vs NZ

All of the playoff series will be best of 3 and the final a one-off match at a host city selected by the ICC the year before.

Where will these matches be played? In Eng, or in one of the two playing teams' home? If at one of playing team home, how is it fair to the other team?

Who is going to pick up the tab for these matches? The hosting team or the ICC?

With all these extra matches, does it squeeze/stretch the international calendar? How will the private T20 leagues react? More importantly how will the IPL react?

All these things have to be sorted out. Not by you or me, but by the ICC. Who by the way couldn't care less about the WTC.

 

[Giannis]

Yes, but instead of top 4 make it top 8. Each of the teams play each other in a Best-of-3 test series, first test at the higher ranked teams home and second test away at the lower ranked teams home and then the deciding 3rd test (if needed) back at the higher ranked teams home or a neutral venue.

The playoff tree would look like this

Q1 #1 vs #8
Q2 #2 vs #7
Q3 #3 vs #6
Q4 #4 vs #5

Then
Q1 winner vs Q3 winner
Q2 winner vs Q4 winner

And then the Final

Where will these matches be played? In Eng, or in one of the two playing teams' home? If at one of playing team home, how is it fair to the other team?

Who is going to pick up the tab for these matches? The hosting team or the ICC?

With all these extra matches, does it squeeze/stretch the international calendar? How will the private T20 leagues react? More importantly how will the IPL react?

All these things have to be sorted out. Not by you or me, but by the ICC. Who by the way couldn't care less about the WTC.

Did you read my earlier my comment? It's gonna be done the way playoffs are done in American leagues. The higher seeded team would host the first match then the lower seeded team hosts the second test, if a 3rd match (decider) is needed then the higher ranked team would host it but I'm also open to the idea of the decider being played at a neutral venue however in American leagues the higher seeded team usually has the rights to home advantage for the first games and the last games of the series. Only the WTC final will be held at a city decided a year earlier by the ICC sort of like how UEFA decides which city gets to host the Champions league final.

 

[U$ofA]

Did you read my earlier my comment? It's gonna be done the way playoffs are done in American leagues. The higher seeded team would host the first match then the lower seeded team hosts the second test, if a 3rd match (decider) is needed then the higher ranked team would host it but I'm also open to the idea of the decider being played at a neutral venue however in American leagues the higher seeded team usually has the rights to home advantage for the first games and the last games of the series. Only the WTC final will be held at a city decided a year earlier by the ICC sort of like how UEFA decides which city gets to host the Champions league final.

Should the tab for hosting be forced on the home team or should the ICC pay for it? Remember, the ICC is a reluctant party in all of this.

I think the NBA picks up all costs in the playoffs.

 

[Giannis]

Should the tab for hosting be forced on the home team or should the ICC pay for it? Remember, the ICC is a reluctant party in all of this.

I think the NBA picks up all costs in the playoffs.

Up to the ICC and boards involved.

 

[Varun]

Test cricket doesn't need this tournament.

It's good enough as it is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Atleast a best of 3 final. With the participants getting a good particupation fees.

 

[U$ofA]

Up to the ICC and boards involved.

Good luck with that. It will be an endless - you pay for it, no you pay for it.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Here's hypothetical based off the current rankings

Q1 Ind vs WI
Q2 NZ vs SL
Q3 Aus vs SA
Q4 Eng vs Pak

S1 Ind vs Aus
S2 NZ vs Pak

WTC Final
Aus vs NZ

All of the playoff series will be best of 3 and the final a one-off match at a host city selected by the ICC the year before.

Quarter-finals are too much. There are only 8 teams. The value of the knockouts would decrease if every team made it there.

 

[U$ofA]

Atleast a best of 3 final. With the participants getting a good particupation fees.

Problem is broadcasters and advertisers aren't exactly climbing over each other to sponsor this event. The the participation fees if any will be very negligible.

The ICC unlike it's other events does not seek broadcasters until they the know who is playing the final. In direct contrast to its T20 and ODI WC. That tells us everything we need to know.

The reality is, the broadcasters (and the ICC) do not care. Above all, a large % of the fans do not care. So, I do not see much $$$ being pumped into this. So no participation fee.

 

[pratiktc]

Format is unfair and weird but given that it is not lucrative this is how it will be.
Atleast some interest is generated in one off final with some prize on line and one off final is not commercial headache for icc or participants to stage.

Let it remain as is

 

[Xoib]

A best of 3 over a period of one calender year with each game happening every 4 months.

A 3 year cycle and then in 4th year the best of 3 taking place while the best of 3 final of first cycle is taking place the year 1 of next cycle takes place simultaneously.

 

[street cricketer]

Having a one off final is against the very essence of Test cricket, which tests the long term endurance of a cricket team and the ability of a cricket team to make comebacks in a Test series after being put on the backfoot, like the recent Indian tour of Australia or 2001 India vs Australia series. Imagine Bangladesh by some miracle makes the WTC final and the final is being played in Bangladesh against Australia, it's not inconceivable that Bangladesh could go on to roll Australia on a rank turner and be crowned the WTC champions, when they would get absolutely mullered by Australia everywhere else in the world.

I've said this before, but my dream scenario is for the WTC final to be a best of 3 series - with each venue testing specific skillset of a team - pace and bounce, swing and seam movement and spin. Australia and South Africa can be alternating venues for pace and bounce, England and NZ can be the options for swing and seam, while India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka can be the venues to test spin playing ability of a cricket team. The venues can be alternating in each edition.

So if the venues for the first edition of the WTC final is:

SA - 1st test
Eng - 2nd test
India - 3rd test,

The venues for the next edition can be:

Aus - 1st test
NZ - 2nd test
Pak - 3rd test.

I know there might be logical issues, but if football teams can play one leg of a champions league knockout match in one country and the 2nd leg in another country, it can happen in cricket as well. But there's **** all chances of this happening though. So at the very least, I would want a best of 3 final in the same country, so that the toss advantage is neutralised to some extent. Otherwise we could have a WTC final in India when the team losing the toss would be up against it even before a ball is bowled. The one off WTC final is better than nothing, but it's hard to give it too much importance when the entire essence of test cricket is about testing a cricket team in a variety of conditions.