[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Former England captain Kevin Pietersen has expressed his dissatisfaction with the World Test Championship (WTC) qualification process after South Africa made the final with their latest win in Tests over Pakistan.
South Africa’s qualification for the 2025 WTC Final, despite playing only 11 matches during the 2023-25 cycle, has stirred debate.
England, who played a demanding 22 matches, sit sixth despite winning 11 games – the highest by any team – due to the way Points Percentage (PCT) is calculated.
READ ALSO: WTC Final scenarios: What are India’s chances after the loss at MCG?
Taking to social media platform X, Pietersen defended South Africa against criticism for their qualification, pointing instead at the structural flaws in the tournament framework.
“Cricket South Africa didn’t create the FTP for their WTC qualification, so criticising them for qualification isn’t fair. You play the cards you get dealt. The qualification process is the issue and I’m sure it’s something Jay Shah will fix,” he wrote, urging the ICC Chairman to address the apparent inequality.
Under the current system, PCT determines standings by dividing a team’s earned points by the maximum points available from matches played.
While it incentivises consistent performance, disparities in the number of fixtures unfairly penalise teams with heavier schedules.
England, for instance, played twice the matches South Africa did. This broader schedule naturally exposed them to a greater risk of point loss, leading to their exclusion from the final despite notable performances.
The disparity extends across the table, with Australia (16 matches) and India (18 matches) rounding out the top three, while teams like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, who play fewer matches, remain competitive largely because they face less fixture fatigue.
Critics, including Pietersen, argue this creates an uneven playing field and compromises the credibility of the final standings.
As the June 11 final approaches, the debate over the WTC’s structure calls for urgent reform.
[ad_2]
Source link
