OPINION: The entire structure of the World Test Championship must be reassessed

Everything about cricket’s World Test Championship needs a rethink.

While it is great South Africa have qualified for the final, giving the International Cricket Council an “up yours”, there are several things about the whole Test competition that just aren’t right.

For the record, the Proteas will take on Australia in the final at Lord’s in London in June.

And here already is issue number one: Why does the final have to be played at Lord’s in June?

Will the players be in form?

Neither South Africa nor Australia will have played any Test cricket in the weeks and months leading up to the match. In fact, none of the players, bar a few who might be involved in country cricket in England, will have had any first-class action going into the match.

How is this right? Surely you want your finalists in form and having had some cricket behind them going into the so-called biggest Test of the season?

Then there’s the whole issue of the number of matches played, and against who.

South Africa, for example, will go into the final having played 12 Tests in the cycle, while Australia will have played 19.

Third-placed India contested 19 Tests during the cycle, and England played 22.

Now, imagine if the finalists of a limited overs World Cup were determined by one team playing 10 times, but another only five times … that just wouldn’t be right.

Proteas given weaker opposition

Also, South Africa have been criticised in some quarters for qualifying for the final having played against so-called weaker teams like the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand. They did, however, also face India, but also only in a two-Test series.

That, however, is no fault of theirs but the ICC’s and the so-called ‘Big Three’, and it is most certainly not acceptable that some teams get the chance to play against fellow ‘big’ sides, while others do not. It should be a level playing field for all the teams.

And then, finally, having one match on neutral ground to decide it all seems to be a gamble.

If anything, the top team after each cycle, in this case South Africa, should at least host the one-off final, but would a three-Test series not be even better?