- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,601
- 6,524
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
One option I think could work for the WTC is mandating a minimum series length of 3 tests, but allow flexibility within how long each test match is. I would much rather 3 tests of 4 days each than 2 over 5 days each.I like the concept of the WTC and whilst it's still finding its feet in what is the best format to make it work, overall it's a positive step.
Agree with the notion that 2-test series suck. Even though the WTC changed to a % of max points to determine ladder order, I still feel it's not even when some teams are playing regular 2-test series and others always 3 and sometimes 4 or 5.
IMO all test series should be 3 tests minimum. Not many nations can now justify more than 3, but obviously, the Ashes can whilst series between Eng/Ind and Aus/Ind can as well. For the purposes of the WTC any series longer than 3 tests, only the final 3 tests should count. This would square up the number of games played on the WTC table (6 series and 18 games), whilst not allowing there to be dead-rubbers in 4 & 5 test series that are one-sided.
Just looking at the schedule of the current WTC and of the 27 series, 18 are now scheduled for 2 tests, so the above is obviously never gonna happen.
Could even go for the old English model of 3 day tests for all but the last test, which is timeless (or more realistically 5 days) if it's not a dead rubber.
For series of more than 3 matches i.e. the Ashes, BGT etc. there could be some kind of 'translation' of the series scoreline to a 3 test scoreline. Essentially a team that was 3-0 down would be playing to take back a rubber in the 4th test i.e. 3-1 => 2-0 and then with the rubber back up for grabs in the 5th test 3-2=> 2-1. Most scenarios translate pretty nicely, the only dead rubbers then would be a team 4-0 up going for the white wash (which has its own significance anyway).