According to Cricinfo, the ECB wants to trial the points system used in the women’s Ashes in men’s international cricket too. They’ve asked Sri Lanka Cricket whether the system – which initially awarded 6 points for a test win, two for a ODI and two for a T20 – could be used in their upcoming tour of England. Do I sense WG Grace turning in his grave?
Although the tests and ODIs would still count as separate series (and have their own separate trophies) there would be an additional award for the team that accrues the most points over the tour. This team would be declared the ‘overall winner’. The ACB say they’ll be watching the experiment (should Sri Lanka agree of course) with great interest. The format has worked pretty well in women’s Ashes, so I’m not surprised the Australian cricket authorities are keeping tabs on things. After all, this could be the future of international cricket.
The concept of a points-based competition is certainly a contentious one. Many traditionalists are up in arms. Personally however, I think it’s an idea worth trying – even though I’m usually a bit of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to that divisive concept of ‘change’ (I’ve worn the same underpants for twenty years you know).
While I’m slightly nervous about tinkering with things like the Ashes and the Basil D’Oliveria trophy, the proposed system actually has its merits. Rather than undermining test cricket it could actually help to preserve it: if it’s written in stone that a test is worth double (or three times) the number of points as an ODI, it will surely force teams like India to prioritise the longer form of the game. Fans can’t turnaround and say ‘well, we won the ODIs and that’s all we care about”, because they’ll have to watch the opposition captain hoist an even shinier trophy immediately after Virat Kohli has hit the winning runs.
What’s more, I’ve become sick and tired of meaningless ODIs at the end of test series. They just get in the way. Few English fans really care about them and, if I’m being honest, they’re a complete pain in the arse to write about. Sometimes I can barely summon the energy to switch on my computer.
By giving post-test series ODIs some extra relevance – the chance for a team to get back into the overall series or a responsibility to defend a well earned lead – enthusiasm might just be rekindled. Although some might say ‘well if nobody cares about ODIs let’s just abolish them’ I just can’t see this happening. Fifty over cricket is just too popular elsewhere in the world.
Although some people will deride this idea are more ECB-fuelled insanity – and let’s face it, they haven’t got a lot right recently – I’m actually inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. A points based system isn’t a perfect solution by any means but at least they’re prepared to try things. This is surely a refreshing change after decades of obstinacy and narrow-mindedness. Just like the decision to abolish the toss in championship games, I have no problem with trials and experiments. If it doesn’t work, so what? But if it does work, then kudos to those who dared to try it.
Whatever your position on this one, I’m sure we can all agree on one thing: the status quo isn’t doing test cricket any favours. We can’t all moan about the gradual demise of test cricket but then moan even louder when the authorities try to change things.
Much as I’d love to see crowds flocking back to test cricket across the world, I can’t see that happening unless something changes. We can’t physically force other cricket fans to fall in love with tests all over again, so why not force them to engage with it by other means? A system that provides a broader context to matches, and recognises that all forms of the game are important (with test cricket deemed the most important of all), has to be a good thing.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. I’ll don my tin hat and await your comments with interest. I imagine this one could get divisive.
James Morgan
Stupid idea – we should be getting rid of friendly ODIs and T20s, not awarding them points in some artificial method of trying to make people care about them.
No-one will care anyway – the winner of the test series will be the winner of the test series, and no-one will even remember the other games or how many “points” they accumulated.
My concern would be an Ashes series. If we won a hard fought series 3-2, but then lost the subsequent ODI’s and T20 matches then Australia could win the overall tour. So who has really won the Ashes? And heaven forbid that the little urn itself is then put up as the overall prize of the combined matches.
Sorry James, slippery slope for me and I have changed my underpants at least twice in the last 20 years !
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear in my post but The Ashes would remain in its current form. It would still be a separate trophy within the broader series tournament. It wouldn’t be like the women’s Ashes.
I think in the case of The Ashes, AB has a point. The importance of the test series would still override everything else. It would be what fans care about most. But I think this would be an exception rather than the rule. In the majority of series between most countries, the overall broader tour winner could become the most important thing.
I’d wager that India & Pakistan fans probably care about the ODIs as much as the tests between the two nations. By incorporating the ODIs into a broader tournament, in which a single test counts 2/3 times as much as a single ODI, I think the importance of tests would be magnified. This is why the idea has some legs imho.
The Ashes would always have to be the test series, I think. The overall trophy would be something new. Maybe the Chappell Botham trophy? In the event of a draw, it’s decided by a fight in the car park (allegedly).
You don’t need to use the word “allegedly” as I heard it from the horses mouth that ITB thumped Chappell in the car park. When I asked why, Sir Beefy replied…”why not?
I’m not a great fan of the concept, especially as limited overs (ODI and T20) teams tend to be quite different from test teams these days. However, you make a number of valid points on test and ODI series, and it can do no harm to try it. Anything that increases overall attendances cannot be a bad thing.
By taking the idea over from women’s cricket you are setting the precedent that only one Test match is sufficient to create a “Series” with its attendant ODIs and t20s. Far from preserving Test cricket it is undermining the whole concept!
Cricinfo has also done an assessment under these new rules. South Africa would have won the Series against England, England would have won the Series against Pakistan. The last t20 game in both cases was the “clincher”. It seems totally bizarre that the most mercurial format and the most dependent on chance could be a “decider” in a hard fought Series. Why 2 points for the t20 – the same as the 50 over game which is much longer and more skilful? t20 should have 1 point – could still be a decider though.
It is a marketing idea. Nothing to do with cricket as a sport. Colin Graves is a businessman who made his name (and money) selling poor quality products at the cheapest prices. How on earth is he chairman of the ECB? First thing he wanted was to reduce five day Tests to four days or even shorter. Just for reference Mike Ashley (owner of Newcastle United) ran his club on the similar lines buying in players and then selling them off when they became good enough. You get the idea. Cheap business notions should be kept as far away from sport as possible. Remember the importance of quality? Graves and his kind are totally focussed on how to develop franchise t20 cricket for business reasons and want to create a window for it by shortening Series. I hope other fans aren’t deluded by this new back door approach.
I think you’re right that by combining a joint “series”, the ultimate aim of this move is to reduce the test component of that series to a single game, and eventually to scrap it altogether – they’ve already tried to push that agenda in the women’s game.
I imagine that by 2030, the official “Ashes” will be a series of ODI games played twice a year, whilst a group of amateur cricketers from England and Australia forlornly try to keep the tradition of Ashes test cricket alive outside of the remit of their national bodies.
Thinking about this more carefully, the Ashes will probably become a triangular tournament with India in the next 10 years.
Why assume the worst? Nobody mentioned reducing the number of tests in each series to one. Most series seem to have 3 tests, 5 ODIs and one or two T20s. That seems like a decent balance.
The Ashes would stay as 5 tests because that’s what everyone wants. The money men will be happy too because theses games all sell out. But what about the other series around the world? We can’t neglect those even if the Ashes is still popular.
Women’s cricket doesn’t have the same heritage as the men’s game. The test series aren’t as iconic. I severely doubt the men’s Ashes will become a single test series anytime soon (or ever).
“Why assume the worst?”
Experience of watching the game’s administrators ?
My feelings exactly! I’ve been going on about it all over Twitter so will probably not repeat myself again. Awful idea. Thin end of the wedge. James is wearing rose tinted glass. Recognise the ECB for what they are in this. Up to no good!
Are you sure it’s not April the 1st?
I’m not against a Points’ system in itself although I agree that the weighting given to T20s is wrong in this model.
The timing, however, smacks of a panicky reaction to fears that the SL tour is going to be a financial disaster. This isn’t going to stop the fact that a weak touring team is going to be sent around northern grounds in an English May and that isn’t an attractive prospect.
I also think the weighting for T20 is wrong. I’m not defending the model as it stands but the idea in theory. The best balance in my view would be 1 point for a T20 (which would always be played first as a warm up), then 2 points for an ODI and 5 for a test. I would love to see the ODIs played before tests too. The Texaco Trophy always used to be fun because it let the two teams size each other up before the main event.
Rest assured, it’ll be all about the money!
I fear Jackie L has located the nail. We’ll dream of the day’s New Zealand came over and played Two, yes two whole Test Matches in a series over five days each. The future will be one ‘test’ over 3 days, one full innings per side than 20 overs each for 2nd innings. Several one day and T20’s. Numerous touring sides each Summer joining India and Aus as yearly opposition…
Lots of opposition to the idea here then. So what’s the plan? How do we resuscitate test cricket in parts of the world where action is needed? We’ve talked about introducing two divisions into test cricket – personally I like this idea better but it seems unlikely to happen – but what other options are there? I would like them to try different things and see what happens. A slow death is the alternative.
A test championship?
We’ve talked about test championships before and all agree it’s a good idea. However, it’s not happening anytime soon. It’s extremely difficult to organise while keeping traditional series like the Ashes in their current form. Consequently I think it’s worth considering other options too. Do you remember this survey?https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/world-test-championship-survey/
Stop hiding cricket behind a pay wall might be a good start!
3 or 5 test match series
3 odi’s
3 2020’s
Put all money into a pot and divide 60% to the test team wages, 20% to ODI and 20% to 2020
Reward financially test players and make 2020 the entertaining slog fest it is purely as light entertainment.,stop,trying to bull it up as ‘great’ cricket when it really isn’t
Make icc funding weighted towards tests too
Spot on, was thinking exactly the same!
I think it’s a great idea, as long as each Test is worth a 1,000 points and each white ball game is worth 1 point.
You have it sorted Sean!
Terrible idea and simply only going to increase the death of test cricket and especially test cricketers. It’ll increase the importance of hitters like hales/roy etc and players like cook will be lost. Even bowlers like steyn/johnson/Harris/braid/Anderson would be lesser as they wouldn’t ever bowl the spells they can
Nope, horrendous idea for me but then I expect tests to die (certainly keep,dropping in quality anyway) over the next 5-10 years)
Hi MAC. Why would the system hasten the death of test cricket? If tests are worth 3 times the points of ODIs (say there’s 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 2T20s in a series) surely it would encourage nations to produce real test players rather than hitters. Winning tests is what it’s all about. That’s how teams would win series.
If tests are worth 3 times the points of ODIs, then its only fair and logical to have 3 times as many ODIs as tests.
We need to look after the players’ health as well as factor in commercial considerations and ODIs are just more popular with the lucrative Indian tv market.
In the past people might have complained that a single test was “pointless” and “without context”, and said “how can 1 test make a test series”, but of course now they understand how a single test can be part of a larger series when combined with 3 ODIs and 3 T20s. It makes perfect sense.
I hope I’ve helped to explain the ECB’s stance on this issue.
It would hasten it because the tests would be a small part and so players like hales/Roy would be produced and pigeon holed into test cricket.. Meaning it stops being tests and becomes just a longer ODI which for me is boring as it loses its meaning and you might as well just play 2 more odi’s as you’d make more ££
Why would tests be a small part? I don’t understand why you’re assuming this system would inevitably mean less tests and more ODIs. That’s not been suggested at all. My view would be entirely different if they were cutting the number of tests on tours, but to my knowledge this isn’t the case.
But it will, it’s a slippery slope.. sure something needs to be done but anything which promotes hitters like hales/Roy type,test players is a bad sign for test cricket.
Meh, ecb will go with the money so it’s irrelevant what’s best for the game either way.
Because it doesn’t make sense any other way. Take a series against South Africa or India: Winning 3 out of the 4 tests would be worth more the same as the entire ODI and T20 series combined. They’re never going to let that happen.
The only way to make this work is to reduce the number of tests, it should be clear to everyone that that is precisely the point of bringing it in.
There is already a precedent: women’s tour schedules. 1 test, 3 odi and 3 T20 will become the new standard.
Pointless (ho ho) to mix up Test/ODI/T20 – they’re different games played by different teams so the amalgamated total would be meaningless. I do think a sophisticated points system is the way to go for the Test Championship though, one that takes into account the multiple variables of this form of the game (e.g. home advantage, the toss, margin of victories, extent of dominance in draws and so on). Surely a job for Messrs Duckworth & Lewis!
As for when ODIs /T20s are played, I totally agree with you James. The greatest summer of International cricket in my lifetime (and, in all likelihood, that there will ever be) was in 2005. Something that contributed towards that was the schedule: T20 and ODIs were played first, and built momentum, interest and excitement towards the Test series. I cannot for the life of me understand why the ECB has chosen to move away from this model. It should be the starting point for the schedule, with everything else fitted around it.
Two words – Sky TV.
Test cricket is their key summer product, they don’t want test matches (especially Ashes test matches) clashing with the Premier League, it’s unavoidable for perhaps one but we haven’t had a September test since 2005
*one weekend*
Well i agree with James on this one, worth a try. Maybe I’m too optimistic but I don’t see why we should always assume the worst – I know ECB has plenty of ‘previous’ but things can change – look at Manohar at ICC.
James, by bringing it in,,say 3 tests, 5 odi and 3 2020 (you know they will have 5 odi’s for the cash)
So 5 Pts, 3 and 2.. Meaning a team can be tonk at tests but win limited overs and boom.. They win.. Making tests irrelevant as it’ll more important to win the white ball games.. So we will keep seeing white ball players invade red ball cricket like they already are and the test game declines more and loses its appeal