Cons: Dilution of separate formats, distribution of points and jeopardization of marquee series
However, the system comes with its own set of flaws and disadvantages. Firstly, if the Test matches are played before the limited-overs contests and a team wins that by a big margin, say 3-0 or 4-0 in a 4-match Test series, then it would provide a huge advantage to that team and would make it almost impossible for the other side to come back in the contest through the limited-overs fixtures.
The Test match victory carries 4 points for the winning team while a draw or a tie carries two points for each team while each of the two limited-overs formats carry 2 points for a victory while 1 point each in the case of a tie or no result. Hence, if a 4-match Test series is won 3-0, one side would have 14 points (12 from the victory, and 2 from the drawn/tied game) while the other would have just 2. If 5 ODIs follow the Tests, the team on 2 points would have to win all five of them in order to come close to the other side, and then win the T20 series (if arranged) to draw level. Hence, the Test matches, if such a system is put into practice, must always follow the limited-overs contests, so that the weaker Test nations have an opportunity gain an early advantage through the limited-overs series and then grind it out during the Tests.
Another disadvantage that stems out of the demerit stated above is the dilution of the perceived superiority of one format over the other. Many would feel that a team that doesn’t do very well in Test cricket but wins the limited-overs series, or wins enough games to clinch the overall tour, shouldn’t be declared the winner due to the different levels of difficulties posed by different formats. This would open up the debate between the importance and the relevance of the longest format of the game and would ask the question that should a team that doesn’t perform well in the longest and arguably the most arduous format of the game be allowed to get away as the champions of a particular tour.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if the points system is put into practice it would also jeopardize some of the oldest and the most revered rivalries in cricket that have continued over the years through some of the most traditional bilateral series. The Ashes is the oldest of such traditions and it’s highly unlikely that a majority of the Australian and the English players would agree to the Ashes being amalgamated with anything else. Similarly, there is the Chappell-Hadlee series played between Australia and New Zealand, the Border-Gavaskar Series between India and Australia and many others. Both the English as well as the Australian cricketers hold the Ashes in the highest regard and some of them, namely Ben Stokes, have rubbished the idea as well.
Other than these obvious reasons, other issues like the need to refine the rankings system– as deciding a series based on all three formats would only be justified if the players too are rated based on how they perform in all the formats– and that would create further hassles as teams qualify for the ICC Cricket World Cup as well as the ICC Champions Trophy based on their ODI rankings. Further, there might be sponsorship hassles quite often it is observed that different formats have different title sponsors, and deciding an overall winner would mean that the winning team would be offered one winners’ trophy and the winners’ amount (if any) instead of three different trophies and subsequent awards. Also, it is still unclear as to what does the system intend to achieve in the long run and what structure does the system intend to incorporate into professional cricket.
Hence, the points system in cricket, as of now, is a contentious issue, and only after the conclusion of Sri Lanka’s ongoing tour of England will we find out as to what results did it achieve in its first experiment and how successful was it.
Brand-new app in a brand-new avatar! Download CricRocket for fast cricket scores, rocket flicks, super notifications and much more! 🚀☄️
