The gripping ICC World Test Championship (WTC) final between South Africa and Australia injected fresh excitement into the traditional five-day format, yet prominent cricket voices insist the tournament structure requires serious reform.
South Africa clinched a five-wicket victory over Australia by lunch on day four at Lord’s, overturning early bowling dominance with resilient batting on a more docile pitch. While the final delivered the intensity and drama reminiscent of high-octane limited-overs matches, critics argue the WTC’s overall format lacks fairness and clarity.
One of the major issues raised is the uneven fixture list. South Africa qualified for the final without facing Australia or England during the two-year cycle, prompting questions about the legitimacy of the pathway to the final.
“The average cricket fan struggles to understand who the top teams really are or how the finalists are determined,” noted former England captain Michael Vaughan.
Finalists are chosen based on a percentage of points earned from wins and draws in Test matches. However, the number of matches each team plays varies drastically. South Africa played only 12 Tests, compared to 19 for both Australia and India, and 22 for England.
England captain Ben Stokes admitted he rarely thinks about the WTC due to its confusing nature. The freedom given to cricket boards to decide the number of matches often disadvantages teams with fewer resources or less commercial interest in Test cricket, such as South Africa.
The upcoming WTC cycle starts with Bangladesh touring Sri Lanka. South Africa will play 14 matches, including series against Australia and England, but only two Tests against India. Lengthy five-Test series remain limited to clashes among the “big three” — India, England, and Australia.
Michael Atherton summarized the problem: “The WTC structure is flawed — unequal fixtures give some teams an easier path. Fixing it won’t be easy, but it’s necessary.”
