What if teams got more points for taking Tests longer (without drawing)?
The current WTC system is weighed in favour of bowler-friendly pitches. Here’s one that aims to incentivise longer Test matches that end in an outright result
Kartikeya Date01-Dec-2025The World Test Championship points system awards 12 points for a Test win, four points for a draw, and none for a Test defeat. This makes a Test win significantly more valuable compared to a draw.Consider two hypothetical three-match series, where in the first, the winning side wins 2-1, earning 24 points to the losing team’s 12. In the other, the winning side wins 1-0, earning 20 points (12 for the win, four each for the draws), while the losing side earns eight. In terms of raw points, the side winning 2-1 earns more points than the side winning 1-0. It also earns a higher percentage of the available points (24 out of a possible 36, or 66.7%) compared to the 1-0 winning side (20 points out of a possible 36, or 55.6%). This is significant because a team’s position on the WTC table is decided based on the percentage of available points that they collect.It is fair to say that the WTC points system disincentives draws in Test cricket. Only 26 of the 216 Test matches (one in eight) in the WTC era have been drawn. It would not be fair to say, however, that the WTC system singularly has caused teams to chase results. That tendency precedes the championship.In the 214 Tests just before the WTC era, 32 were drawn. It is also not the case that the more successful teams in the WTC era play fewer draws. In the last two editions of the championship (2021-23 and 2023-25), the top four teams in the final table played at least as many, if not more, draws than the bottom four teams.Nevertheless, Test matches have been getting shorter. This is partly because scoring rates have been rising, and consequently, dismissals are occurring more frequently than they used to. This is also due to the DRS. Other interesting causes are evident in the record, but those are best left for a separate discussion. For now, let’s focus on the cause that keeps attracting much discussion every time a short Test match is played – the pitch.Home teams have the privilege of producing pitches of their choice in Test cricket. Different parts of the world have different types of soil, weather and traditions, and produce a variety of pitches, all of which are not equally well suited to the same styles of bowling. The ICC’s pitch and outfield monitoring process acknowledges this reality. In the WTC era, all home teams have produced bowler-friendly, result-oriented, pitches.Home teams cannot produce pitches that make only their own victory more likely, especially when the visiting team has sufficient quality and variety in bowling, as New Zealand, South Africa, England, India, Australia and Pakistan invariably have had for all conditions in recent times. The best home teams can hope for is that even against a fairly complete opponent, their own quality and depth in bowling on their pitches will outgun that of the visitors in the long run. The Australians, for instance, successfully made this bet when India toured in 2024-25. They lost the first Test, in Perth, on a very quick, seaming pitch, but in the end, their superior fast-bowling depth and quality told on five fast-bowler-friendly surfaces. In a short series, there isn’t always time for this type of benefit to play out. But even there, as we have seen above, 1-1 is a better result than 0-0 under the WTC points system.In the 865 non-WTC Test matches since the start of 2000 that were not played at neutral venues, the median game lasted 1982 balls. Of the 432 Tests that were completed in 1982 balls or fewer, the home team won 255 and lost 129 (or 59 wins and 30 defeats per 100 Tests). Of the 432 Tests that lasted more than 1982 balls, the home team won 170 and lost 122 (or 39 wins and 28 defeats per 100 Tests). Longer Tests make winning less likely but don’t reduce the frequency of defeat; they increase the probability of draws.Under the current points system, matches less than about 300 overs long fetch the home team 60% of available points, while longer ones produce 56%. Which makes home teams interested in risking defeat chasing victory with bowler-friendly pitches•Gallo ImagesIn the WTC era the median Test has lasted 1765 balls. Of the 109 matches that lasted 1765 balls or fewer during this period, the home team won 61 and lost 40 (or 56 wins, 37 defeats per 100 Tests). Of the 106 matches that lasted more than 1765 balls, the home team won 53 and lost 34 (50 wins and 32 defeats per 100 Tests). Matches have become shorter in the WTC era; longer WTC matches (those longer than the median) produce 18 draws per 100 Tests, compared to nine draws per 100 Tests in shorter matches. But under the WTC points system shorter matches produce 59% of available points for the home team (56 wins, nine draws), while longer matches produce 56% of available points for the home team (50 wins, 18 draws). So it is in the interests of the home team to risk defeat chasing victory in the WTC era by preparing more bowler-friendly pitches.The general understanding that better batting pitches increase the probability of the draw by reducing the likelihood of winning more than they reduce the likelihood of losing, precedes the WTC era. It is no surprise that England sought old-fashioned English pitches after losing by 405 runs to Australia in the Lord’s Test of the 2015 Ashes. The cost of an English fast bowler’s wicket in England dropped from 29.1 runs in the 2011-2015 period (including that Lord’s Ashes Test), to 23.9 runs from the end of that 2015 Test to the start of the Bazball era in June 2022. The 2011-15 period was already a strong era for England, with Stuart Broad and James Anderson forming a great seam-bowling new-ball pair.India’s desire for turning pitches at home has a much longer history in modern cricket. Most Indian captains have sought such conditions, believing (correctly) that, (a) in the long run, their superior depth and quality of spin bowling will mean they will win a lot more than they lose, and (b) that a turning pitch mitigates consequences arising from the outcome of the toss.The conventional wisdom, which has found new voice following India’s defeat at Eden Gardens – that better wickets will amplify India’s spin bowling quality – is not borne out by the record. Since the start of 1993, India have played 151 Tests at home, won 90 and lost 24. Anil Kumble played his first home Test against England in January 1993, marking the start of a prolonged period of Indian spin domination at home. India’s median home Test in this period has lasted 2059 balls. Of 75 home Tests that lasted 2061 balls or fewer, India won 55 and lost 11. Of the 75 that lasted longer than 2061 balls, India won 35 and lost 12. While it is true, as Himanish Ganjoo has showed on these pages that, relative to better batting pitches, bowler-friendly pitches reduce India’s batting average more than they do the opposition’s (since the visiting team’s batting average is lower to begin with), this does not, in the long run, translate to more frequent defeats for India.If the current points system rewards bowler-friendly pitches because teams don’t want to risk draws, how might a points system that aims to produce longer Test matches without incentivising draws be devised? Such a system would, for instance, reward a win in 400 overs more than it does a win in 280 overs. The requirement is for a system that makes the choice less obvious for home teams when it comes to preferring result pitches. It will do this by finding a way to penalise shorter Tests (and consequently, pitches at the bowler-friendly end of the spectrum) without rewarding draws. Rewarding draws is likely to encourage home teams to ask for featherbeds.The current WTC points system also does not consider the balance of play; it only considers the result. A draw is a draw, and teams get the same number of points whether it is a team hanging on by one wicket in a thrilling finish or a Test in which only 21 wickets fall over 400 overs of play.A few years ago I proposed a method of measuring the dominance of a Test team. It is sensitive to the outcome of every delivery in the match. Under that system, the two teams in the Kanpur and Ahmedabad Tests above would not finish on an equal number of points. That system also avoids arbitrary thresholds (for instance, the WTC system prescribes a 3:1 ratio for wins to draws). How points are allotted using this hypothetical system is shown below with the examples of two recent Tests. (Note, the intermediate figures are rounded to three decimal places here. In the actual calculation, they are not.)1. India vs South Africa at Eden Gardens, 2025
Result: SA won by 30 runs
SA: 312 for 20 in 654 balls
IND: 282 for 18 in 584 ballsRuns per wicket for the match (312 + 282) / (20 + 18) = 15.63IND batting points: 282 / 584 = 0.483IND bowling points: 20*15.63 / 654 = 0.478
SA batting points: 312 / 654 = 0.477
SA bowling points: 18*15.63 / 584 = 0.482
IND total points: 0.959
SA total points: 0.961Since South Africa won outright, they get a win bonus – equal to the average number of points each team earned in the match – which in this case is 0.960 (0.959 + 0.961) / 2South Africa’s total points for the match: 0.961 + 0.960 = 1.919, and India’s total points for the match: 0.959. So South Africa has +0.960 points net.2. India v England at Edgbaston, 2025
Result: India won by 336 runs
IND: 1014 for 16 in 1404 balls
ENG: 678 for 20 in 946 ballsRuns per wicket for the match: 47IND total points: 3.200
ENG total points: 1.252
IND net points: 1.948In draws, each team’s final points tally is simply the sum of their bowling and batting points. For instance, in the 2023 Ahmedabad Test referenced above, India collected 1.008 points and Australia 0.934 points. In other words, India collected a net 0.069 points and Australia a net -0.069 points.This method of assessing teams in Test matches is sensitive to the outcome of each delivery, and to the margin of victory (or even the margin of the draw). For the hypothetical WTC version of this system, I propose scaling the winning team’s points by a match-length factor to arrive at the win bonus for outright wins.The average outright result in WTC Tests takes 1738 deliveries. So we divide the number of deliveries in a match by 1800 (300 overs), or the average length. If a match lasts 2000 deliveries, the match length factor is 2000 / 1800. The consequence of this method of deriving the win-bonus figure is shown in the graph below, which compares the net points teams earn in all the outright results in WTC Tests using this modified system to their net points in the original system. The net points decrease for shorter matches and increase for longer matches.Kartikeya DateThe calculation of the net points per match for each team in the 2021-23 WTC Test cycle is below. This comparison is difficult to make because pitch preparation is shaped by the points system at work. If pitches that last five days give teams a chance to earn more points than quicker victories on more precarious pitches, then pitches will become less bowler-friendly. The comparison also depends on which matches a team loses and which it wins. For instance, the average Test match won by South Africa in the 2021-23 WTC cycle lasted 1703 balls, while the average Test they lost lasted 1319 balls. Five of their six defeats in this cycle came in New Zealand, England and Australia. The sixth was a defeat to India in the 2021 Boxing Day Test in Centurion.
Under the proposed system, a team that wins a Test match by one wicket, scoring 301 for 19 in 600 balls and conceding 300 for 20 in 600 balls earns a net points tally of 0.704, using a 300-overs threshold. Using the same threshold, a one-wicket win achieved scoring 601 for 19 in 1200 balls and conceding 600 for 20 in 1200 balls earns a net points tally of 1.379. It is worth nearly two wins of the first kind.By making the outcome of each ball count in the final net points tally (since it is calculated from the runs, balls and wickets for each team), this new points system shifts the focus to the management of resources. For instance, if a team reaches 400 for 4 in this system, there is an incentive to declare, to deny the opposition the opportunity to take a few cheap wickets and acquire some extra points.The proposed approach raises the possibility of an interesting perverse incentive. If a team, say, like Australia in the Perth Test of the current Ashes were to have reached 162 for 1 in 25 overs, chasing 205, and wondered whether it was worth blocking a few overs and taking, say, 40 overs to score the last 43 runs, instead of 20 balls as they did, how much would their points tally improve?In the match as it occurred, Australia finish with 1.248 net points under the new system. In the alternative match, where Australia chased 205 in 68 overs instead of 28, they would end with 1.254 net points (given an otherwise identical eight-wicket margin of victory). The points system rewards quick runs and a greater number of runs. It also rewards efficient management of resources. The proportion in which it does this can be adjusted by weighting the match length-scale factor.If the fans and the authorities want to see Test cricket on pitches that are gentler to the batter, then the competitive incentives need to be shaped to make home teams amenable to it. A points system that is sensitive to these competitive instincts and can reward winning on the fifth day more than it rewards winning on the third is necessary.The system proposed in this article attempts to pursue each of these ends. It is sensitive to the outcome of each delivery. And it rewards wins in longer Tests more than it rewards wins in shorter ones. It (or something like it) should be adopted in the WTC.