"The ICC cannot allow the WTC to continue as if designed on the back of a fag packet": Wisden comment

[MenInG]

The World Test Championship (WTC) is a "shambles masquerading as a showpiece", says Wisden editor Lawrence Booth.

Writing in the 162nd edition of the yearly book, Booth also set his sights on the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Booth questioned Jay Shah's promotion from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) secretary to ICC chairman in August - at a time when India were refusing to play Champions Trophy matches in the ICC-appointed host nation of Pakistan.

"The communal shrug [that met Shah's appointment] confirmed a sorry truth: 2024 was the year cricket gave up any claim to being properly administered, with checks, balances, and governance for the many, not the few," Booth wrote.

"India already had the monopoly: now they had hotels on Park Lane and Mayfair."

Booth then turned his attention to the biennial WTC, suggesting the tournament should run across four years rather than two.

The WTC cycle runs for two years, with teams playing six series during that period - three at home and three away - 12 points are awarded for winning a match, six for a tie and four for a draw.

However, as teams play a different number of Tests across their six series, the table is ranked by percentage of points won.

"Among the first items in Shah's in-tray ought to be the World Test Championship, a shambles masquerading as a showpiece," Booth said.

"With teams playing a different number of matches against a different set of opponents, it requires a calculator to rank them, offending the first rule of thumb for any sporting endeavour: it must be easy to follow.

"The ICC cannot allow the championship to continue as if designed on the back of a fag packet. Double its length to four years, like football and rugby, and ensure the top nine in the rankings all play each other, home and away, over series of at least three Tests."

The third edition of the WTC comes to a conclusion between 11-15 June, when South Africa face Australia at Lord's.

BBC

 

[sweep_shot]

Scrap both WTC and CT.

Both are unnecessary.

 

[Aqib_mustafa]

Scrap both WTC and CT.

Both are unnecessary.

Ya bro these two dont really have charm of cricket they just randomly got added to kill the charm and natural style of cricket wtc doesn't really have any importance or vibe just a one off test in final is a joke.

 

[kron]

Scrap both WTC and CT.

Both are unnecessary.

Then pak won’t have even one title since 2009

 

[Ball Blazer]

honestly as a pakistani fan i kinda agree with booth here

wtc had so much potential but the way it's set up is just messy

teams play different opponents and different number of matches, how's that fair

also can't ignore how one board is calling all the shots now, it’s not good for the game

in the WTC cycle, each team plays 6 series – 3 at home, 3 away – but the number of matches in each series isn't fixed

so like, one team might play two-match series while another plays five-match ones
for example, India might play a 5-Test series vs England, but Sri Lanka might only play 2 Tests vs the same team

that’s why the table is based on percentage of points won, not total points, which makes it a bit confusing and kinda uneven too

 

[sweep_shot]

The reason why WTC flopped was because of uneven amount of matches.

All teams should play same amount of matches. Otherwise, it becomes farcical.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

For me, dont care what lawrence say, that his opinion piece and he needs to name people and stick some dirt to sell whatever he is flogging.

WTC finals shoudl be a best of three.
- one test in ENG/NZ swinging conditions
- One in SC conditions for spin conditions
- One in Aus/Saf for pace and bounce

Have a one off test just kills it and is not an accurate reflecton of a team's merit earned through out the fifteen months preceding the finals.

 

[sweep_shot]

For me, dont care what lawrence say, that his opinion piece and he needs to name people and stick some dirt to sell whatever he is flogging.

WTC finals shoudl be a best of three.
- one test in ENG/NZ swinging conditions
- One in SC conditions for spin conditions
- One in Aus/Saf for pace and bounce

Have a one off test just kills it and is not an accurate reflecton of a team's merit earned through out the fifteen months preceding the finals.

One off game is good. It is supposed to be a World Cup. World Cups don't have best of 3. Even FIFA World Cups only have one finals.

Issue is uneven amount of matches during first round.

 

[mominsaigol]

The reason why WTC flopped was because of uneven amount of matches.

All teams should play same amount of matches. Otherwise, it becomes farcical.

WTC is a good format? Wdym? I expected Indians to complain but not you?

Wtc isn't about the most no of games played, it's about your overall win ratio. England played 22 bloody test games, way way way more then any other nations yet they can't make it to wtc for the life of em.

It was a fair system until South Africa exploited it this year by choosing weak teams to play against.

All that needs to be fixed is the scheduling so that teams don't play weak teams and exploit the system.

 

[sweep_shot]

WTC is a good format? Wdym? I expected Indians to complain but not you?

Wtc isn't about the most no of games played, it's about your overall win ratio. England played 22 bloody test games, way way way more then any other nations yet they can't make it to wtc for the life of em.

It was a fair system until South Africa exploited it this year by choosing weak teams to play against.

All that needs to be fixed is the scheduling so that teams don't play weak teams and exploit the system.

I am speaking as a cricket fan. Not as a Bangladeshi fan. BD is likely to lose no matter what the format is.

I think same number of games are needed for it to be fair.

For example, if a team plays a 2-match series and wins 2-0, they get 100%. If a team plays a 5-match series and wins 3-2, they get 60%. That's not fair.

 

[mominsaigol]

I am speaking as a cricket fan. Not as a Bangladeshi fan. BD is likely to lose no matter what the format is.

I think same number of games are needed for it to be fair.

For example, if a team plays a 2-match series and wins 2-0, they get 100%. If a team plays a 5-match series and wins 3-2, they get 60%. That's not fair.

I never said you are a Bangladeshi fan. Infact I've never discriminated against you, so I have no clue where Bangladesh came from when I didn't even mention them?

Anyway like I said it's not about the no of games you've played. Your win loss ratio is in greater danger of falling off the more games you play.

It's about the teams you play against. Aus, India, NZ and Eng faced tough teams while Sa played weak teams and reached the final which is unfair.

 

[sweep_shot]

I never said you are a Bangladeshi fan. Infact I've never discriminated against you, so I have no clue where Bangladesh came from when I didn't even mention them?

Anyway like I said it's not about the no of games you've played. Your win loss ratio is in greater danger of falling off the more games you play.

It's about the teams you play against. Aus, India, NZ and Eng faced tough teams while Sa played weak teams and reached the final which is unfair.

Teams sometimes have easy opponents. I don't think this can't be controlled always.

Cricket only has 4-5 strong teams currently. Competition isn't exactly much.

 

[mominsaigol]

Teams sometimes have easy opponents. I don't think this can't be controlled always.

Cricket only has 4-5 strong teams currently. Competition isn't exactly much.

Yes but South Africa avoided aus, India, NZ and eng altogether. They played very few games against them.

A rule should be made that each team has to atleast face aus, England, NZ and India atleast 2x in a 2 year cycle. 8 to 12 games should be scheduled against them

 

[sweep_shot]

Yes but South Africa avoided aus, India, NZ and eng altogether. They played very few games against them.

A rule should be made that each team has to atleast face aus, England, NZ and India atleast 2x in a 2 year cycle. 8 to 12 games should be scheduled against them

I disagree. Where is the guarantee that these teams would remain strong? NZ may well decline as they are going through a transition phase.

I think there should be 2 groups (4 in each group). Put 2 high ranking teams with 2 low ranking teams in each group. Have same amount of matches.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

WTC will always be a flop because the format is Test cricket which is an anachronism in 2025.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Same amount of matches??

People here are delusional. Cricket boards in few countries are run professionally to market tests.
Tests are only financially viable in Aus, India and England.

Playing 2/3 tests is already doing a great favor to save the test format.

Now, tell me whether you want to reduce the number of tests for India, England and Australia or increase the number of tests for countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan And Zimbabwe??

Pak and Ban are particularly so bad that, having a 5 match series would be disastrous. Does they even have the bench strength to play 5 match series to be even competitive?

I am not blaming the players but the boards. It doesnt make sense to reduce BGT and Ashes tests when they produce so much money and classic matches right?

 

[Theanonymousone]

WTC will always be a flop because the format is Test cricket which is an anachronism in 2025.

Its more of a placeholder to keep Tests as relevant for lower ranked teams.

Top test teams are thriving in test format as visible from the crowds during BGT / Ashes

 

[mominsaigol]

WTC will always be a flop because the format is Test cricket which is an anachronism in 2025.

No format where Australia rules is a flop

 

[mominsaigol]

I disagree. Where is the guarantee that these teams would remain strong? NZ may well decline as they are going through a transition phase.

I think there should be 2 groups (4 in each group). Put 2 high ranking teams with 2 low ranking teams in each group. Have same amount of matches.

Good idea, but then what about historic series like Ashes or BGT?

 

[sweep_shot]

Good idea, but then what about historic series like Ashes or BGT?

Those can be outside of WTC I guess.

But, I know cricket's window is very congested. So, it is not easy to omit those series.

I would scrap WTC completely and go back to old World Test Championship (#1 keep the mace).

 

[Nikhil_cric]

No format where Australia rules is a flop

Commercially

 

[mominsaigol]

Those can be outside of WTC I guess.

But, I know cricket's window is very congested. So, it is not easy to omit those series.

I would scrap WTC completely and go back to old World Test Championship (#1 keep the mace).

Or you could just ask sides to adjust to the rules, plain and simple?

No format is fair bhai. Gotta adapt, sink or swim

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Its more of a placeholder to keep Tests as relevant for lower ranked teams.

Top test teams are thriving in test format as visible from the crowds during BGT / Ashes

That's only 3 teams and maybe NZ if you want to stretch it.

 

[sweep_shot]

That's only 3 teams and maybe NZ if you want to stretch it.

I wouldn't say NZ is currently a top Test team.

They won in India but also got whitewashed against England at home.

NZ are a mid-tier team currently; same level as South Africa.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Same amount of matches??

People here are delusional. Cricket boards in few countries are run professionally to market tests.
Tests are only financially viable in Aus, India and England.

Playing 2/3 tests is already doing a great favor to save the test format.

Now, tell me whether you want to reduce the number of tests for India, England and Australia or increase the number of tests for countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan And Zimbabwe??

Pak and Ban are particularly so bad that, having a 5 match series would be disastrous. Does they even have the bench strength to play 5 match series to be even competitive?

I am not blaming the players but the boards. It doesnt make sense to reduce BGT and Ashes tests when they produce so much money and classic matches right?

Agreed. The WTC is the best that we can make of a bad situation.

Test cricket is an unequal game. It doesn't really make money beyond a few series. It isn't exciting beyond a few either. Forget the absolute minnows and Deep down who really cares about Pak v West Indies, or Sri Lankans v NewZealand beyond die hard fans that are in low numbers.

Honestly most people don't really even care about Indian series beyond some select fans.

It is a format hanging on by a thread and the ICC tried their best to keep it relevant.

 

[sweep_shot]

Agreed. The WTC is the best that we can make of a bad situation.

Test cricket is an unequal game. It doesn't really make money beyond a few series. It isn't exciting beyond a few either. Forget the absolute minnows and Deep down who really cares about Pak v West Indies, or Sri Lankans v NewZealand beyond die hard fans that are in low numbers.

Honestly most people don't really even care about Indian series beyond some select fans.

It is a format hanging on by a thread and the ICC tried their best to keep it relevant.

Current WTC format is a big farce. For example, why are teams like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and Ireland not given an opportunity?

In my opinion, there should be a qualification system and there should be equal number of games.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I wouldn't say NZ is currently a top Test team.

They won in India but also got whitewashed against England at home.

NZ are a mid-tier team currently; same level as South Africa.

I was talking about Test cricket's popularity/commercial success. Doesnt extend beyond these countries , if at all

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Current WTC format is a big farce. For example, why are teams like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and Ireland not given an opportunity?

In my opinion, there should be a qualification system and there should be equal number of games.

Equal number of matches is impossible. Boards themselves won't agree to this.

 

[Markhor]

It's uneconomical and unnecessary for each team to play an equal number of Tests. It's more important everyone plays an equal number of series.

The farcical element is a league championship without having each team play each other.

Extend it to a four year cycle and simplify the points system - 30pts for a series win, 10pts for a draw and an additional 10pts for an away series win. A final at the end. Done.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It's uneconomical and unnecessary for each team to play an equal number of Tests. It's more important everyone plays an equal number of series.

The farcical element is a league championship without having each team play each other.

Extend it to a four year cycle and simplify the points system - 30pts for a series win, 10pts for a draw and an additional 10pts for an away series win. A final at the end. Done.

I guess it's a sort of blend between a league and cup rather than a league alone so it sort of ( but not totally) negates the need for each team to play everyone.

4 years is far too long for the individual series to have much context. Two years if actually used properly gives teams a good amount of time to plan and bleed in players, also if a team loses out on the final by a flukey fixture list then it gives some of those players a chance to try again in two years time.

The format is imperfect but honestly given the constraints of test cricket and what the ICC is trying to achieve then its the best that can be done.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Current WTC format is a big farce. For example, why are teams like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, and Ireland not given an opportunity?

In my opinion, there should be a qualification system and there should be equal number of games.

I honestly don't really think Ireland and Afghanistan want to play test cricket. Ireland have scrapped matches because it isn't financially viable for example. It was just that becoming a full test member nation was seen as the only way to progress in the past.

 

[mominsaigol]

WTC is a format that will allow Australia to keep getting more gold

 

[Theanonymousone]

Agreed. The WTC is the best that we can make of a bad situation.

Test cricket is an unequal game. It doesn't really make money beyond a few series. It isn't exciting beyond a few either. Forget the absolute minnows and Deep down who really cares about Pak v West Indies, or Sri Lankans v NewZealand beyond die hard fans that are in low numbers.

Honestly most people don't really even care about Indian series beyond some select fans.

It is a format hanging on by a thread and the ICC tried their best to keep it relevant.

Its also due to bad quality of players. Look at South Africa. Even in 2010’s, they had such greats in Test cricket to make it exciting, but now even their bench strength is in shambles.

Quality test cricket will always attract the audience and money. Its just the boards have to get their stuff together.

I feel, cricketers know one cannot play all the formats. Not every one can be a Kohli. Bowlers situation us even more critical.

This in-fact provides a better option to include large number if players in boards plan. Rise of T20 leagues also provides cricket as a source of livelihood for many who are not talented enough for international cricket.

IPL has done this for India and BBL for Australia. Given it a few more seasons and South Africa will also have a good bench strength for all 3 formats.

I wonder what PSL has been doing here seriously. It doenst seem like a Bangladesh league where fixing happens blatantly. But somehow, their star performers in PSL are failing at international level. Some serious questions needs to be answered here.

 

[kron]

I wouldn't say NZ is currently a top Test team.

They won in India but also got whitewashed against England at home.

NZ are a mid-tier team currently; same level as South Africa.

Sena and India are all top top sides

Rest are average

Era is much tougher now than in the past

And yes wtc is a farce

All teams should play each other and make it a 4 or 5 year cycle instead.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

WTC is a joke.

It's not because of amount of matches but because of the reason that teams can have different level of competition for reaching the finals.

Also the WTC final always happening in England is the biggest joke. Subcontinent teams will always feel shortchanged in those conditions.

 

[mominsaigol]

WTC is a joke.

It's not because of amount of matches but because of the reason that teams can have different level of competition for reaching the finals.

Also the WTC final always happening in England is the biggest joke. Subcontinent teams will always feel shortchanged in those conditions.

England, India and Australia are the 2 easiest venues to travel to and the 2 venues that will attract actual interest and fill up stadiums for WTC.

However on the off-chance that Pakistan (yes very slim chance but suppose they did make the final), then their would be drama, chaos, confusion that happens every time an icc event is held in India.

Australia has a time zone problem. It's great for watching test but broadcasting wise, it'll generate less revenue as the rest of the world will be asleep.

England is the best venue overall to attract interest.

They care about Money, not about sides complaining about conditons and feeling they've suffered the brunt end of the stick.

Besides, How many advantages do you guys want? You got an emtire world cup at your own den and got an entire CT at one venue while other sides didn't have enough time to prepare for that venue.

Again not taking anything away from India, as they won 2024 t20 wc as well in neutral conditons, their clearly a world class team, but they had an unfair advantage in CT.

Let the west have an unfair advantage for WTC.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

England, India and Australia are the 2 easiest venues to travel to and the 2 venues that will attract actual interest and fill up stadiums for WTC.

However on the off-chance that Pakistan (yes very slim chance but suppose they did make the final), then their would be drama, chaos, confusion that happens every time an icc event is held in India.

Australia has a time zone problem. It's great for watching test but broadcasting wise, it'll generate less revenue as the rest of the world will be asleep.

England is the best venue overall to attract interest.

They care about Money, not about sides complaining about conditons and feeling they've suffered the brunt end of the stick.

Besides, How many advantages do you guys want? You got an emtire world cup at your own den and got an entire CT at one venue while other sides didn't have enough time to prepare for that venue.

Again not taking anything away from India, as they won 2024 t20 wc as well in neutral conditons, their clearly a world class team, but they had an unfair advantage in CT.

Let the west have an unfair advantage for WTC.

Everyone gets a world cup in their den, that is not something unique for India.

Champions trophy arrangement was chaotic because of the animosity between Pak and India, this is an exception, an outlier.

If the target is just to attract interest despite the obvious injustice then all world cups and other icc tourneys should also go to England.

Its simple logic for me, an Asian team can be at number one but still they will have to fight it out against A Sena team in conditions which suit the opposition. That’s unfair.

I don’t rate WTC at all for many reasons but this is the biggest of em all.

 

[mominsaigol]

Everyone gets a world cup in their den, that is not something unique for India.

Champions trophy arrangement was chaotic because of the animosity between Pak and India, this is an exception, an outlier.

If the target is just to attract interest despite the obvious injustice then all world cups and other icc tourneys should also go to England.

Its simple logic for me, an Asian team can be at number one but still they will have to fight it out against A Sena team in conditions which suit the opposition. That’s unfair.

I don’t rate WTC at all for many reasons but this is the biggest of em all.

It is not an outlier, if India and Pakistan will fight like cats and dogs every single time and they'll always be some sort of nonsense commotion between the 2 anytime an event is hosted.

Even if PCB has to bow down and eventually travel to India for a tournament, a commotion will be caused before an event commences.

If the target is just to attract interest despite the obvious injustice then all world cups and other icc tourneys should also go to England.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming Test = Odi = T20 in terms of interest. T20 is the most popular format amongst the youth and is closely followed outside the big 3, it's so popular that even some Americans and non playing cricket nations follow the format. I've met dozens and dozens of Greek and Chinese people living in Australia who watch t20, but have zero interest in odi and test.

You can host a t20 event anywhere. Similarly ODI wc is historic but demand for odi in other formats is dying down. For example Ct 2025 did not generate much hype this time around. It generated hype for subcontinent nations but the West was disinterested. Infact they've been disinterested for a while now.

2009 was probably the last champions trophy that was watched and generated world wide interest otherwise 2013, 2017 and 2025 have only been made popular due to Pakistani and Indian demand.

Test is the same, India, England and Australia are interested. NZ and Sa enjoy playing test but theirs not much population interest for a test game and hence revenue won't be generated.

Its simple logic for me, an Asian team can be at number one but still they will have to fight it out against A Sena team in conditions which suit the opposition. That’s unfair.

Its not unfair. Its only unfair if England is playing a final. Youre acting as if India, Australia, NZ, SA don't play on England soil. India is literally scheduling 5 matches vs England in their own soil? Don't use the history argument for Australia. It's true that Australia has played the 2nd most no of times on English soil but that's irrelevant since players like Mattew Hayden, Ricky Ponting are long gone by now. I'd say Steve Smith, Starc and Pat cummins is the only ones who have a bit of an unfair advantage.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

It is not an outlier, if India and Pakistan will fight like cats and dogs every single time and they'll always be some sort of nonsense commotion between the 2 anytime an event is hosted.

Even if PCB has to bow down and eventually travel to India for a tournament, a commotion will be caused before an event commences.

If the target is just to attract interest despite the obvious injustice then all world cups and other icc tourneys should also go to England.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming Test = Odi = T20 in terms of interest. T20 is the most popular format amongst the youth and is closely followed outside the big 3, it's so popular that even some Americans and non playing cricket nations follow the format. I've met dozens and dozens of Greek and Chinese people living in Australia who watch t20, but have zero interest in odi and test.

You can host a t20 event anywhere. Similarly ODI wc is historic but demand for odi in other formats is dying down. For example Ct 2025 did not generate much hype this time around. It generated hype for subcontinent nations but the West was disinterested. Infact they've been disinterested for a while now.

2009 was probably the last champions trophy that was watched and generated world wide interest otherwise 2013, 2017 and 2025 have only been made popular due to Pakistani and Indian demand.

Test is the same, India, England and Australia are interested. NZ and Sa enjoy playing test but theirs not much population interest for a test game and hence revenue won't be generated.

Its simple logic for me, an Asian team can be at number one but still they will have to fight it out against A Sena team in conditions which suit the opposition. That’s unfair.

Its not unfair. Its only unfair if England is playing a final. Youre acting as if India, Australia, NZ, SA don't play on England soil. India is literally scheduling 5 matches vs England in their own soil? Don't use the history argument for Australia. It's true that Australia has played the 2nd most no of times on English soil but that's irrelevant since players like Mattew Hayden, Ricky Ponting are long gone by now. I'd say Steve Smith, Starc and Pat cummins is the only ones who have a bit of an unfair advantage.

Asian teams are comparatively poor in England than SENA teams, thats because their spinners become absolutely useless in June.

Australia, Nz and SA has pace as their strength not spin, the conditions they have grown in helped them gain experience against swinging conditions. The bounce and spin in Asia is totally different.

If the world cup was always arranged in Englabd, you would find it unfair, right?

Then what’s the difference here? If you are arguing about finances and public interest then that is a separate topic and that doesn’t make the format fair. It just provides some financial justification, thats all.

My point is that its definitely unfair in cricketing terms.

 

[mominsaigol]

Asian teams are comparatively poor in England than SENA teams, thats because their spinners become absolutely useless in June.

Australia, Nz and SA has pace as their strength not spin, the conditions they have grown in helped them gain experience against swinging conditions. The bounce and spin in Asia is totally different.

If the world cup was always arranged in Englabd, you would find it unfair, right?

Then what’s the difference here? If you are arguing about finances and public interest then that is a separate topic and that doesn’t make the format fair. It just provides some financial justification, thats all.

My point is that its definitely unfair in cricketing terms.

Then get better spinners. It wasn't an issue for Murli, wasn't an issue for Warne(subcontinent conditons), ashwin and jadeja having issues doesn't mean that all spinners will.

As for point 2, then get better pacers. India has been historically poor in the pace department with Bumrah and Shami and a few others being exceptions . Same case with Pakistan who just haven't found world class test pacers post wasim, Waqar, And Imran. Amir, Asif, Shabbir Ahmed, and many others never filled the gap and the quality kept declining on end.

Less said about Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan the better.

This is a quality issue, blame the subcontinent for not having better spinners and pacers.

If World Cup was always arranged in England, i would find it unfair as England would always be a participant. I've already acknowledged WTC is unfair bit for England only. Kick England out of a world cup and arrange a wc in England with all other teams and I'd be fine with it.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

One off game is good. It is supposed to be a World Cup. World Cups don't have best of 3. Even FIFA World Cups only have one finals.

Issue is uneven amount of matches during first round.

If the WTC finals of 2021 or 2023 was in India, would justice have been served?
yes it is supposed to be a world cup, but in a T20 WC or ODI WC or Champions trophy or Asia cup, the leadup group matches and semis are generally in the same country, giving teams enough time to accumlatise...with TC you have teams coming in from the cold straight into the UK - is that really a test of ones skills - was it an accurate reflection of what the teams did in the 1.5 years leading up to the cycle?
where WTC and TC is different is - it is a lot more conditions dependant - its skill over a longer period and a best of three in Aus/Saf, SC conditions and Eng/nz finals will provide a true winner, as opposed to a 5 day shootout in early may-june in the UK..rest my case.

 

[Markhor]

If the WTC finals of 2021 or 2023 was in India, would justice have been served?
yes it is supposed to be a world cup, but in a T20 WC or ODI WC or Champions trophy or Asia cup, the leadup group matches and semis are generally in the same country, giving teams enough time to accumlatise...with TC you have teams coming in from the cold straight into the UK - is that really a test of ones skills - was it an accurate reflection of what the teams did in the 1.5 years leading up to the cycle?
where WTC and TC is different is - it is a lot more conditions dependant - its skill over a longer period and a best of three in Aus/Saf, SC conditions and Eng/nz finals will provide a true winner, as opposed to a 5 day shootout in early may-june in the UK..rest my case.

The problem is the calendar is so congested with all these leagues and international fixtures that it's impossible to play a Best of 3 Final.

According to reports the one available slot is June, so England becomes the most viable venue.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

The problem is the calendar is so congested with all these leagues and international fixtures that it's impossible to play a Best of 3 Final.

According to reports the one available slot is June, so England becomes the most viable venue.

valid answer....but if there is a will- a way around the logistical time frame and window can be found...the thing lacking is the will.

 

[BouncerGuy]

With too many leagues going on around the world and player missing test matches for these leagues, WTC is bound to be scrapped.. Teams are not interested anymore.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Then get better spinners. It wasn't an issue for Murli, wasn't an issue for Warne(subcontinent conditons), ashwin and jadeja having issues doesn't mean that all spinners will.

As for point 2, then get better pacers. India has been historically poor in the pace department with Bumrah and Shami and a few others being exceptions . Same case with Pakistan who just haven't found world class test pacers post wasim, Waqar, And Imran. Amir, Asif, Shabbir Ahmed, and many others never filled the gap and the quality kept declining on end.

Less said about Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan the better.

This is a quality issue, blame the subcontinent for not having better spinners and pacers.

If World Cup was always arranged in England, i would find it unfair as England would always be a participant. I've already acknowledged WTC is unfair bit for England only. Kick England out of a world cup and arrange a wc in England with all other teams and I'd be fine with it.

Warne and Murali came once in 130 years of cricket, you don’t have to be Warne and Murali to deliver in test cricket.

Patrick cummins averages 32 in India, go get better pacers. This is the kind of logic you are using, the point is simply that a team is getting to compete in conditions which are completely different from theirs

Australia hasn’t won a series in India since last 20 years, does that mean its a quality issue with them.

I made you admit that the England scheduling is because of finances and interest and its not fair.


Dont care about the rest, India easily has been the best test team of the last decade, and its not a quality issue with us, WTC is unfair and a ridiculous format.
I am not the only one who says that, look at the OP.

 

[mominsaigol]

Warne and Murali came once in 130 years of cricket, you don’t have to be Warne and Murali to deliver in test cricket.

Patrick cummins averages 32 in India, go get better pacers. This is the kind of logic you are using, the point is simply that a team is getting to compete in conditions which are completely different from theirs

Australia hasn’t won a series in India since last 20 years, does that mean its a quality issue with them.

I made you admit that the England scheduling is because of finances and interest and its not fair.


Dont care about the rest, India easily has been the best test team of the last decade, and its not a quality issue with us, WTC is unfair and a ridiculous format.
I am not the only one who says that, look at the OP.

CT was unfair for other teams except India. Subcontinent teams need to adapt or go home. It's as simple as that.