Just reading War's thread about a "heavyweight battle being denied" and looking at links I started wondering about the 16 Tests minimum in four years.
ICC news : Test Championship to replace Champions Trophy | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo
ICC World Test Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the info on the format, I was trying to work out how England might schedule. I can't see much to suggest you couldn't just gorge yourself on weak opposition, but wondered if you could play everyone home and away in four years without drastically reducing the number of Tests you'd usually play.
To fit in four summers and four winters requires three sides in one summer, assuming all to be played home and away over four years. I find it odd not to see any clear info on who you have to play, you could deliberately avoid a tough series say in India and play 2-3 series extra against whipping boys.
Below are the Test series lengths England normally play, like to play, or could play without compromising the status quo
5 : Australia
4 : South Africa, India
3 : Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies
2 : Bangladesh, Zimbabwe
I'd suggest England and Australia would like to stick to five Test Ashes, they have played West Indies and South Africa in similar length series, but with West Indies not the force they are, and needs must, both could be dropped down a Test or two. India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan tend to be what fits, New Zealand is traditionally three Tests and the bottom of the pile get minimum to make them series not one-off Tests.
So is the format compatible with those numbers of Tests? This is a feasibility Test, I can't see England only play 16 Tests in four years so I suspect that is for the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have to beg for series, and perhaps so India can fit in the IPL and lots of ODIs instead. Four Tests a year seems incredibly low, I reckon the minimum should be 21-24 over the four years instead of 16.
So here's a mock-up England Test schedule :
21/22 (7) : Bangladesh (2), Sri Lanka (2), West Indies (3)
2022 (8) : New Zealand (3), Australia (5)
22/23 (7) South Africa (4), Pakistan (3)
2023 (7) : India (4), Pakistan (3)
23/24 (7) : Zimbabwe (2), Australia (5)
2024 (8) : Bangladesh (2), Zimbabwe (2), South Africa (4)
24/25 (7) : New Zealand (3), India (4)
2025 (6) : West Indies (3), Sri Lanka (3)
I've made the shortest summer the last in the cycle assuming the Championship taking place in that year. 57 Tests over four years, possibly a strain but not many more than the 6-7 England already play.
It could be revamped a bit to reduce the fixtures by a few, this is all of course assuming England have to or try to play everyone inside four years which it may well be they don't have to. Seems a bit pointless to me have a league and play-offs if sides can still decide who and how much they play any given opponent.
It would be much better if all series were 2-3 Tests and sides had to play exactly five Tests against each opponent covering both home and away, and inside four years thus making a standardised 45 Tests over four years. I'm guessing the ICC think that even if they just take the Test table at the end of four years and play-off it will be a Championship, maybe it will be but as I say there could be some fiddling if sides are given carte blanche over who they play
ICC news : Test Championship to replace Champions Trophy | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo
ICC World Test Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the info on the format, I was trying to work out how England might schedule. I can't see much to suggest you couldn't just gorge yourself on weak opposition, but wondered if you could play everyone home and away in four years without drastically reducing the number of Tests you'd usually play.
To fit in four summers and four winters requires three sides in one summer, assuming all to be played home and away over four years. I find it odd not to see any clear info on who you have to play, you could deliberately avoid a tough series say in India and play 2-3 series extra against whipping boys.
Below are the Test series lengths England normally play, like to play, or could play without compromising the status quo
5 : Australia
4 : South Africa, India
3 : Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies
2 : Bangladesh, Zimbabwe
I'd suggest England and Australia would like to stick to five Test Ashes, they have played West Indies and South Africa in similar length series, but with West Indies not the force they are, and needs must, both could be dropped down a Test or two. India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan tend to be what fits, New Zealand is traditionally three Tests and the bottom of the pile get minimum to make them series not one-off Tests.
So is the format compatible with those numbers of Tests? This is a feasibility Test, I can't see England only play 16 Tests in four years so I suspect that is for the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have to beg for series, and perhaps so India can fit in the IPL and lots of ODIs instead. Four Tests a year seems incredibly low, I reckon the minimum should be 21-24 over the four years instead of 16.
So here's a mock-up England Test schedule :
21/22 (7) : Bangladesh (2), Sri Lanka (2), West Indies (3)
2022 (8) : New Zealand (3), Australia (5)
22/23 (7) South Africa (4), Pakistan (3)
2023 (7) : India (4), Pakistan (3)
23/24 (7) : Zimbabwe (2), Australia (5)
2024 (8) : Bangladesh (2), Zimbabwe (2), South Africa (4)
24/25 (7) : New Zealand (3), India (4)
2025 (6) : West Indies (3), Sri Lanka (3)
I've made the shortest summer the last in the cycle assuming the Championship taking place in that year. 57 Tests over four years, possibly a strain but not many more than the 6-7 England already play.
It could be revamped a bit to reduce the fixtures by a few, this is all of course assuming England have to or try to play everyone inside four years which it may well be they don't have to. Seems a bit pointless to me have a league and play-offs if sides can still decide who and how much they play any given opponent.
It would be much better if all series were 2-3 Tests and sides had to play exactly five Tests against each opponent covering both home and away, and inside four years thus making a standardised 45 Tests over four years. I'm guessing the ICC think that even if they just take the Test table at the end of four years and play-off it will be a Championship, maybe it will be but as I say there could be some fiddling if sides are given carte blanche over who they play