Home > Cricket > Diary archivesMay 18, 2001
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

## A Test of logic
The first Test between England and Pakistan supposedly heralds the advent of the ICC Test World Championship. However, the point system used to run this league-based World Championship has reduced it to farcical levels even before the Championship has begun. One really has to wonder if the committee entrusted with developing this system were on the same marijuana trip as certain members of the South African cricket team. I will not even comment on the rankings that have come out of this ridiculous system, instead I will focus on its more obvious faults.
Let's take a real-life example: The West Indies' 'umpire assisted' 1-wicket, 1-0 series triumph over Pakistan last year is worth exactly the same as the 3-0 demolition handed out to Pakistan by Australia just a few months prior to that. Does that make sense? If England defeat Pakistan 1-0 in the just begun series, it will get the same number of points as it would earn if it completes a 5-0 demolition of Australia in the Ashes series to follow. Brilliant! Clearly, the way to go should be a points system per individual Test, with bonus points for a series win.
The ICC will argue that by ensuring that every team plays every other team over a 5-year period on a home and away basis, these anomalies will automatically cancel themselves out. But that is not really the case. The more established teams will play long 5-Test series, with plenty of preparatory warm-up games etc., while the less powerful (either politically, or in terms of talent) will find themselves playing hurried two- or three-Test series. For the system to work fairly, each team should get to play the same amount of Tests as all the others. Obviously, that is not going to happen. And for now, we won't even think of the political complications that could arise when it is time for India and Pakistan to play each other. The fair way to go would have been to weight each individual Test result by a strength of schedule system. The tables below show each team's home and away record since the last Pakistan tour of England in 1996. Percentages were calculated by awarding 3 points for a win, and 1 for a draw, for each individual Test. Hence Australia, which played 27 Tests at home during this period, had a total of 81 points available, of which it won 64 for a success percentage of 79%. The same yardstick was applied to all countries.
The way I would run a world championship would be as follows: Lets take the upcoming England-Pakistan series as an example. For each England win, it would get 3 points weighted by the strength of Pakistan's away record, which is 50%, hence it would get (3*.50) points. Similarly Pakistan would get (3*.47) points for a win, and for a draw it would be 1 instead of 3 points. A side winning a series would get 2 bonus points. Similarly, a side would get one bonus point for drawing an away series, and none for drawing a home series. For countries with no Test records like Bangladesh, or Kenya if it were to get Test status, the weightings assigned would be those of the weakest home and away teams respectively. (Zimbabwe and West Indies, in the above table). This system would eliminate the inequality of giving points only for a series win, it also incorporates the value of winning test in difficult conditions. The weightings mentioned above would change before each series started, and would then stay constant for that entire series. Incidentally, this system also eliminates Fault #3 -- which I will refer to below.
Why all this emphasis on relative strength and such? Because this is a league-based championship, not one that works on the elimination principle. Under the knockout/elimination structure, the factors mentioned above don't come into play as much, but when you spread a competition over five years, then you do have to budget for these factors as well. By way of concluding aside, it looks like the England-Pakistan series, and especially the first Test, is going to be badly impacted by the weather. From a Pakistan point of view, playing both all rounders makes sense since Sami looks less than fully fit and Shoaib Akthar is short of match practise. Playing two spinners would be a mistake on a seaming track, thus playing two all-rounders appears the preferred option, with the bonus that it will strengthen the batting which is Pakistan's biggest weakness. I am not one for predictions when it comes to Pakistan cricket, since their performances normally defy logic, but I still think it would rank as a major upset if Pakistan pulled off a win here.
The Rediff Email Diary -- the complete archives
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

©1996 to 2001 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. |