Why a Test Championship is flawed

If recent weeks have told us anything, it’s that to be considered the No. 1 side, you must do more than just top the rankings. This winter, the two most recent incumbents of this prized position have been defeated by Australia and Pakistan respectively.

India, a team which spent around 18 months at the top of the pile, have gone down 4-0 to an inexperienced but hungry Australian side, displaying the same technical flaws against the moving ball as were seen during the English summer. England, recently crowned No.1 and lauded copiously as such, have subsided in the heat of the UAE. Despite relatively friendly pitches and a notable lack of ‘rank’ turn, the mere sight of a spinner 22 yards away seemed to be enough to have England’s batsmen nervously shuffling and prodding anywhere but near the ball.

There’s a lesson to be learnt. That to be considered the best team in the world more widely than just in the ICC Rankings, a team must win throughout the world, displaying aptitude against pace, seam, swing , and spin, in any and every set of conditions. Based on this conclusion, it’s fair to say that realistically, we are yet to establish another ‘No.1’ side since the retirement of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist et al in 2007, and the subsequent decline in fortunes of the Australian team after more than a decade of domination.

On England’s recent showing, the search for a successor continues. However, there’s a serious practical consideration to be taken from examining what makes a side truly the best. It concerns something talked about increasingly in recent years as the saviour of Test cricket – the proposed Test Championship.

Put forward as an instrument for stimulating bigger crowds and reviving interest in the majority of Test nations outside England and Australia, this championship would see the top four nations compete in semi-finals and a final at the culmination of a four year cycle. Putting aside the fact that interest is unlikely to skyrocket in anticipation of a final four years away, if approved, the inaugural finals would be held in one of the Test countries, most probably England.

Spot the problem? The location of these finals would undoubtedly go a substantial way towards determining the winner, and even if that were not the case, the outcome would hardly receive a respectful reception worldwide. Imagine a scenario in which England romp home over an Indian side at Lord’s and are declared the indisputable Test champions for the next four years, rather like is currently the case in ODI cricket. The acceptance of this by the wider cricketing world, especially the subcontinent where cricket is a different ball game, is doubtful to say the least.

It would be nice I admit, in a perfect and simple world, to have some sort of definitive competition, ending in one match to crown the winner. However, Test cricket has always been a far more complex and diverse a sport in nature than say, football or rugby. In the modern world, we constantly strive to categorise, define, and seek quick results and instant gratification, both in watching a sport and determining the winner. The beauty of Test cricket is the progression and evolution, the sometimes gradual, sometimes sudden ebb and flow which takes place, both over the course of a five-day contest, but also in the fortunes of a team over a longer period of time, from London to Cape Town, Brisbane to Delhi. Just as the current rankings system is clearly too simplistic and inaccurate, the battle for supremacy of a sport such as Test cricket can never and must never be compressed to a single game either. It is so much more than that.