"Mohan" <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:b9ef9aa1-e9f2-4005-b13d-b6a2c12b66a4 at (no spam) j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

Two groups of four teams each. Teams play two Tests against every
other team in the group on a home and away basis. At the end of the
year (defined as Aug-Jul), semis and finals to be played in England.

The idea has merit, but...

Why should England have an advantage (if they make the semis and final that
is)?

And do you think that the English public would come to watch these finals? I
doubt it.

On Sep 25, 6:18 am, "Gerrit" <gth... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

"Mohan" <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:b9ef9aa1-e9f2-4005-b13d-b6a2c12b66a4 at (no spam) j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

Two groups of four teams each. Teams play two Tests against every
other team in the group on a home and away basis. At the end of the
year (defined as Aug-Jul), semis and finals to be played in England.

The idea has merit, but...

Why should England have an advantage (if they make the semis and final that
is)?

I think England in July probably comes closest to providing fair Test
match conditions for all teams. Sub-continent is too spin friendly,
Aus/SA is too pace-friendly. Plus, one of the semis in Oval and finals
in Lord's provides the right setting for this kind of recurring
championship.

What about The Ashes? The only thing in sport that matters!

Two groups of four teams each. Teams play two Tests against every
other team in the group on a home and away basis. At the end of the
year (defined as Aug-Jul), semis and finals to be played in England.

On 6 okt, 11:57, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:39 am, Mohan <dpuse... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Two groups of four teams each. Teams play two Tests against every
other team in the group on a home and away basis. At the end of the
year (defined as Aug-Jul), semis and finals to be played in England.
Teams will play 6-8 Tests per year which seems ideal. Have
thischampionshipevery alternate year leaving every other year free for
boards to schedule bilateral series as is done currently. So you have
aTestchampion declared once in two years,Testmatches will have
some context and meaning rather than scheduling meaningless series
just because ICC has mandated it.

Alternate proposal. Top 6 in first division, bottom 4 in second
division. Round robin home and away test followed by finals between
the top 2 teams. One team moves up and down between the two divisions
every 2 years.

So going by current rankings, First division will be SA, SL, Ind, Aus,
Eng, Pak. Second division NZ, WI, BD, Zim.

July/Aug - 5 Tests in England
Aug/Sep - 5 Tests in SL
Sep/Oct - 5 Tests each in Ind, Pak
Nov/Dec - 5 Tests each in SA, Aus
Jan - Finals

A short, sharp six-month tournament. Each team gets to play 10 tests
in the period.

Or you can make it 5 in each division, so that teams play 8 tests
each.

Mohan

Have you thought about what you have just written?

A round robin home and away involving six nations, where each nation
plays 10 Tests each, would mean that England play five Tests in
England, one each against the other five in the first division. So
those five will all have to travel to England for a single Test,
before flying out to Sri Lanka, accompanied by the England team, where
everyone, except Sri Lanka, plays another solitary Test, and so on in
India, Pakistan, South Africa and Australia. Do you seriously think
that national boards will agree to such a schedule? Because I don't.

In a previous post, I said that I was not in favour of any type of
Test Championship. I understand why you would want it, but I am
opposed to it because IMO it is not possible to structure the Tests in
any practically achievable way.

In my view, the best Test cricket is produced in a multiple-Test
series, preferably 4 or 5 Tests, between evenly matched opponents. If
people are not watching a two-Test series between New Zealand and
Bangladesh, then have them play less, not more. And abolish the ICC
Ten Year Plan,