Should the World Test Championship final be a best of three?
New Zealand created history last month by defeating India in the inaugural edition of the World Test Championship final, as they became the first-ever World Champions of the longest format. Much to the dislike of ICC and the participants, the WTC 2019-21 was marred with Covid-19, leading to multiple postponements and cancellations, and even a change of criterion for deciding the rankings of each team on the table.
NEW ZEALAND ARE THE INAUGURAL ICC WORLD TEST CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS 🎉#WTC21 Final | #INDvNZ | @BLACKCAPS pic.twitter.com/HMIaYI32Az
— ICC (@ICC) June 23, 2021
Defying all the odds, both India and New Zealand reached the summit clash, having led brilliant campaigns. Unlike T20 leagues or even the limited-overs World Cups, the WTC is a two-year event. And hence all the debate of why it should be a best-of-three event. The idea behind is simple – a single loss should not deny a team the title when they fought hard for two long years to secure the top-two position.
“I’m not in absolute agreement of deciding the best Test side in the world over the course of one game,” Indian skipper Virat Kohli had said after India’s loss. “If it’s a Test series, it has to be a test of character over three Tests, which team has the ability to come back into the series or totally blow away the other team. It can’t just be a pressure applied over two days of good cricket… I don’t believe in that.”
Kohli did not make these claims without backing his argument. “… at the end of three matches, there’s effort, there’s ups and downs, there’s situations changing throughout the series, a chance to rectify the things that you’ve done wrong in the first game and then really see who’s the better side over the course of a three-match series or something will be a good measure of how things really are…” he reasoned.
Notably, India’s head coach Ravi Shastri had voiced identical thoughts before the WTC final went underway.
“It [WTC] has not happened over three days or three months. It has happened over two years. Where teams have played each other around the world and earned their stripes to play the final. In the long run, a best-of-three final will be ideal. As a culmination of two-and-a-half years of cricket around the globe,” Shastri said.
The views of most cricketers and even the followers of the game are similar. So, should and will ICC indeed make it a best-of-three event?
ICC’s acting CEO Geoff Allardice had an answer, “In a perfect world a three-Test series would be a great way to decide… But the reality of the international cricket schedule is we’re just not going to have [a situation where] blocking out a month or so for all the teams in the tournament for the final is realistic.”
Finals of the tournaments have historically been one-off affairs. But the same cricket history never had a championship for the longest format. If history changed in one aspect, why can’t it change in another?
The ICC deserves many accolades for the move to introduce WTC, which aims to provide context to Test cricket. But while aiming to provide context, the ICC must also ensure that the tournament produces justified results. A best-of-three final might not be “realistic”, but deciding the winner of a two-year cycle through a one-off affair isn’t realistic either.
