England propose points system for Sri Lanka Test series

You should be proud of yourself.

Chin will soon come to get you.

Brace yourself.

I think that most people would agree that test match cricket needs shaking up to some extent, but I'm more in favour of doing that off the field rather than on it.

A points system to decide the winner of a test series sounds like it's just over complicating things. I'm happy to give it a go, but I don't think it's going to be the ground breaking saviour of test match cricket that it needs.

This could never actually happen. All series/tours have always begun with the Test matches then conclude with ODIs and T20s. This wouldn't change with the introduction of this system for the very reason you point out.

We do need to find a way to make the weaker Test sides (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and West Indies) more competitive. The recent West Indies/Australia tour is a good example of this. It was too one-sided which makes it hard to generate interest or excitement, however, introducing a points system for the tour that also includes limited overs, should in theory, make it more meaningful as a strong limited overs team could claw those points back.

Personally, I wouldn't change it as I like to keep all three formats of the game separate. But I can see why those such as Wisden's Lawrence Booth are in favour of this change.

This is all moot any way as it was confirmed that the SLC has dismissed such a proposal for the tour.

I have seen a few where the T 20's actually were played first, but yes as you said it is moot as the proposal has been rejected. I love test cricket and even during the week it's big here in South Africa.

I think it is interesting that you bring up the fact that West Indies are seen as a weaker test team as the forum seems to agree that the West Indies team should be dissolved and separate island teams should be use to compete in the test arena. This will weaken test cricket imo.

www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-pakistan-...t/story/1005339.html

Agreement!

The suggestion being that four points should be available for each Test victory

and two points for the limited-overs contests.

Ben Stokes never once to mince his words:

I am with Stokes on this one. I'd rather they go with the Test championship as opposed to this notion. I prefer keeping all three formats of the game separate.

Rob Smyth writing in The Guardian also has an opposing view of the points system, feeling it will devalue the importance of Test cricket.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/03/ec...evalues-test-cricket

Well written and well reasoned, IMO. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea. I hope sense prevails at some point. Keep all three formats of the game separate. Can you imagine a hard fought Ashes series that is decided by one game of lick it cricket?  There are some traditions that shouldn't be messed with.

It is interesting to read the comments of current and former players on the points system proposal. The majority of comments I have read have been against such an idea.

Michael Vaughan was interviewed by the BBC in which he felt the idea was nonsense.

Conversely, Jason Gillespie is intrigued by the concept and willing to see how it plays out:

www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/36217532

There's a difference between thinking and marketing. I wish more cricket pundits would get that.