Before I begin what is a lengthy tirade, I must state that I am a traditionalist and firmly believe in the primacy of Test cricket at the international level.
Both limited overs forms of the game are, therefore, considered subject to the needs of Test cricket in the remainder of this piece.
Many may disagree with that opening premise, which is fair enough, but that is my starting philosophical viewpoint. Those who disagree with that will disagree with almost everything that follows.
One of Test cricket’s biggest problems, along with attendance and TV audience being skewed toward forms of the game that can be digested in one sitting, is that of context. A series is played. It is won or lost, and that is the end of it until those same sides meet again.
Unlike either limited overs (50 or 20) format, there is no World Cup equivalent, and the rankings system is difficult to follow with only those who support the number one nation paying much attention to who is number one.
Making the rating system simpler is possible, however, by amending the scheduling. It does require a financial hit to the stronger nations, as it would require playing series against all nations; both home and away; over a set period.
Doing this allows for a simple points table where a series win is worth so many points, and bonus points could be awarded for the winning margin (e.g. winning a series 1-0 or 2-1 may be worth 10 points, winning 3-0 or 4-1 worth 12 points).
This would encourage nations to schedule series against the weaker nations, who need more Test cricket if they are to ever improve at the main form of the game.
This inevitably leads into the possibility of qualification for a Test championship. The ICC already has a championship planned, which can not take place until 2019 due to television contracts surrounding the Champions Trophy, which has long since lost its meaning as an event to drive income for the second tier nations (more on those later).
The ICC seems to have a single match planned as a final in a nation which may or may not be taking part. This, while an improvement on the current situation, seems a little underwhelming given that it is winning series that gets teams to that point.
One bad pitch; whether poor for batting or a road on which twenty wickets is nigh on impossible; or a couple of days of bad weather, could render a final meaningless and playing the showcase game in neutral territory is fraught with the danger of low crowds.
Ideally, the final would be a series of 4 to 5 Tests and preceded by semi-finals series of 3 Tests, with the higher ranked sides having the home advantage. This is one part of the scheduling I can not yet work out, and admit that it may not be feasible due to the climate imposed limitations on each nations ability to host matches, so suggestions are very welcome.
During the final, no other international cricket and no domestic T20 matches would be played – enabling the cricketing world to focus on the one series.
There has also been a proliferation of meaningless limited over tours, Australia’s recent series against Pakistan and England are of obvious to us and the glut of series between India and Sri Lanka another.
This has arguably led to a cheapening of the 50 over game, as well as more importantly taken focus away from playing Test series. Encouraging the wealthy nations to play more Tests against smaller nations, almost inevitably weaker financially as well as on-field, assists those nation both in play and in finances – especially the series where the smaller nation is at home and get to sell TV rights into the visiting nation.
It could also help remove the over-playing of limited overs cricket. I would go one step further and ban all limited overs series (in this context 50 and 20 over formats) between Test match nations which do not not include a Test series. The World Cup and World T20 would be exempt from this rule, as would limited overs games between a Test nation and a non-Test nation. New Zealand would be free, for example, to play some 50 over cricket against Ireland as a full limited overs international series.
Possibly the biggest challenge facing all international and second tier cricket, not just Test cricket, is the rise of the domestic T20 leagues into significant money-spinners.
The IPL, in particular, is so large that it has seen international cricket played with what almost amount to third string teams. The question is often raised about having a specified IPL window where no international cricket is played.
Doing so leads into a path where all T20 leagues could be granted a window, and with every Test nation now having such a league if the leagues were not to clash with each other the window required may well be more than 52 weeks. That, clearly, is an untenable and indeed impossible ask.
So, how could a window be created without the risk of every league asking for a such a window under the precedent set? The answer at the moment is not to have a window, and nations can decided for themselves when they are willing to play.
A rule could be put in place whereby players’ nations have first rights to a player, but this risks going down the path where the financially weaker nations see their best players, and often only a few are truly world class in such teams, retire from international cricket in order to play in T20 leagues. Again, this situation seems untenable.
The rule could be extended to include players who have retired from international cricket, but would this be fair on those whose bodies truly are no longer up to the demands of longer forms of the game?
Perhaps another answer could be to use the strength of the IPL in a way to assist the game globally. The ICC could agree to an IPL window, and a window for other nations who request it, if a substantial portion of the revenues were to go toward funding the weaker Test nations, the associates and affiliates, and women’s cricket.
Probably only the IPL is a big enough cash generator for the governing body to do this. In effect the BCCI would get their exclusive window, while the West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan, etc. would receive some assistance, and we would not see the West Indies team playing with a dramatically reduced side due to the loss of players to the IPL.
Rules surrounding national teams having first choice over player selection could then be applied to all other leagues where no window existed, if Pakistan want a BBL-contracted player for example Pakistan get him.
The problem here is if other nations do ask for a window under those rules, the amount of time available for international cricket may be greatly reduced. The deal would need to be such that it favours the IPL in getting the big name players, but that other leagues find it unaffordable to request the window.
This is the challenge of T20, to allow it to flourish while enhancing the game as a whole. (As much as I don’t regard it as having any on-field importance whatsoever, T20 is firmly entrenched as the cash producer and has a role to play in building up the poorer nations and helping make them competitive.)
This brings me to the final part of this article, how to provide a pathway for the Associate and Affiliate nations gain access to the top flight that is Test cricket.
A pathway, or even a plan for one, is sorely lacking at the moment. Indeed, full member status and Test status appear to be virtually a closed shop with the incumbent nations seemingly not willing to look at anyone else joining them in the future.
With the ICC and full member nations seemingly willing to cut out the few chances that the non-Test nations get; to the point of advocating removing them from the 50 over World Cup; the promotion of the next tier of nations is under serious threat.
Most focus is on Ireland, as they have produced some good performances at World Cups. Ireland’s performances have been far better than Bangladesh’s were before gaining Test status. That, in itself, is not enough.
Kenya’s World Cup performances were also quite good for a time, but the lack of cohesion within the cricket community and political problems both inside and outside cricket have seen them fall away dramatically over the last decade.
Nations must have strong cricket governance and a domestic structure in place before taking the step up. This may also be considered a lesson from Zimbabwe as much as Kenya, although Zimbabwe did seem to have things in place before the nation as a whole was engulfed by turmoil.
When looking at the second tier, Ireland are not all there is and it should be noted that Scotland currently hold the Intercontinental Cup, while Ireland are currently on top in that competition and Afghanistan – not even an Associate nation – with Scotland round out the top three.
How can the next tier be assisted, then? Firstly, finances are important. But scheduling plays its part as well. These teams need regular cricket against hardened professionals.
This may mean Afghanistan touring Queensland; as an example; for a mix of List A, T20 and First Class games.
Teams already regularly play one match against Ireland or Scotland in a tour of England. The top European sides, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands also get experience in some limited overs tournaments in the county system.
The next step is for teams to have regular First Class matches outside the Intercontinental Cup. If they can play states, counties, provinces, on a regular basis and start being competitive, then some of the lower Test nations could start sending A teams.
Once the secondary nations are competitive against them on a regular basis it is time to start thinking about Test status, perhaps with some tours by higher ranked nation’s ‘A’ teams in the lead up.
Tours are an important part of the process, as once Test status is gained that inevitably involves playing the same opponent back to back, with some time in between. Learning the art of touring, including how to take the lessons from one game and apply them in the next, should not be underestimated in preparing a side for Test cricket.
The other question on potentially promoted nations then goes to the players from those nations who already play Test cricket for another nation.
The Irish who have played for England in recent years are the first examples that come to mind. Currently, if Ireland was to gain Test status and such a player wanted to go back and play for Ireland they would be prevented due to the qualifying period.
One option is to remove the qualifying period for players who wish to go back to a newly elevated Test status nation. This would provide a nation with such a player who has experience at that level, while still allowing players from non-Test nations to play for a Test nation until that point.
Any such player would be given the option upon promotion of their home nation (for example, Eoin Morgan could decide immediately transfer to Ireland, or stay with England). Refusal of that option would then lead to the normal qualifying period being imposed.
This seeks to strike a balance between the needs of a newly promoted nation to get their players back, and the ability of players from non-Test nations to seek a career where they can play at the highest level of the game, namely Test cricket.
There is one more question out of this, should a nation with such a player be excluded from voting on that nation’s promotion to Test status? Would, for example, England attempt to vote down the promotion of Ireland in order to retain Morgan (or Australia, in the less likely event of the Netherlands being up for promotion, in order to retain Nannes)?
None of the above concepts are completely free of their own issues, and some are perhaps not realistic. Any ideas to fill in the detail, any improvements, or alternative suggestions are most welcome.
Bob
Guest
Don't disagree- I think we should play less tests. We should refuse to play against countries who do not take test cricket seriously. Its a waste of time and money. Play Eng and SA every 3 years and encourage our team to have excellence in the long form of the game. I'm pretty sure the T20 players will struggle with that. I'm pretty sure you will see big crowds turn out then
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Bob, When Cricket Australia wanted more money in the tin, it didnt schedule more Test matches. The problem for Test cricket is that spectators dont want to turn up to it or watch it, and at the end of that day, its the crowd that pay the professionals.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Yes, I deliberately ignored the FTP because the ICC does the same. In reality, they do not have the power to compel nations to follow it. By removing the weightings from the rankings and ensuring maximum points can only be gained by playing everyone within the qualifying timeframe this might be mitigated somewhat. But even that ssumes nations will value a Test championship, and there is very little evidence any except maybe England would do so over and above the cash available from meaningless limited overs tournaments.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"It is these pointless series that take away time from test matches as well as turning people off ODI cricket." Its worse than that. The Condon Report pointed out that these pointless games were an invitation to corrupt conduct.
Kristin Carville
Roar Rookie
Definitely a lot of good points can be found in amongst this article. One of the points raised that I am in particular agreeance with is the proliferation of pointless ODI matches that take place. Timmuh mentioned the recent series that we played against England and Pakistan, and that fact that there is seemingly no more than 2 months between ODI series between India and Sri Lanka. It is these pointless series that take away time from test matches as well as turning people off ODI cricket. Call me old fashioned, and maybe out of touch, but I would love to see some of these ODI series and tournamens scrapped, and return to the old tours that used to see you play a number of Test matches as well as a good number of provincial teams. I personally used to love reading Steve Waugh's tour diaries and his adventures on a 3 month tour, and it is a shame that players today dont get these experiences. I would love to see tours return to 4-5 Tests, 3 ODI's and 3T20's with some tour matches thrown in that are a minimum 3 days, and MUST be first class certified, not these 2 day hit and giggle affairs. This gives players time to adapt to the foreign conditions, and if marketed properly can be a windfall for the provincial teams hosting the tourists. Given there is now a World Cup for T20's One critical factor with this needs to be the ICC enforcing the criteria of the Future Tours Program, meaning each country must play each other home and away over a 6 year period. The ICC has been very slack with this, highligted by the disgraceful fact that since their admission into Test Cricket, Bangladesh has never played a Test match in India as the BCCI has not hosted them on commercial grounds. It doesnt matter if the visitors wont get a full house - you need to play along with the rules. With regards to the Associates such as Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada and the very successful Affilate nation Afghanistan, their cricket exposure and development can be helped by countries sending their A-teams on tours to these countries. The A-team program is one that I feel is underutilised and should be driven more by the countries and the ICC.
Russ
Guest
It works both ways. The incentives for teams and players lie with the shorter forms of the game - particularly in associate nations who play four day cricket, but whose funding is based on ODI and T20 performances. If a competitive structure was in place that elevated test match cricket then t would be both more popular and taken more seriously. Increasingly, both players and boards are mad if they don't focus on being good at T20, and in using that to bolster their bank account. That's not the position I want test cricket to be in, and it has nothing to do with cultures or supporters. People, by and large, support and follow what is good - test cricket, mostly, isn't.
Bob
Guest
For mine T20 and test cricket are totally separate games. Different supporters, different mind sets. IMO you cannot optimise your performance in one without detriment to your game in the other- its about time Australians work that one out. Otherwise we will be mediocre in both forms. Lets separate the two forms and concentrate on becoming the no 1 test team again. If other countries want to play crap test cricket why should we bother coming down to their level.
Russ
Guest
Bob, I think you can over-state the cultural thing. Australia and England take test cricket seriously because they have a rivalry that consumes them. They take their other test series significantly less seriously - to the detriment of test cricket in those nations, and generally, in my opinion. South Africa's test cricket crowds are weak at best. The over-arching theme of Timmuh's post is that cricket needs a healthy dose of entrepreneurialism; for administrators to focus on making the best possible competitions, with actual context, and fewer more meaningful trophies. Test cricket, cricket generally, would thrive in a more contextual environment, because it is a great sport. But it will continue to struggle with the gross inequalities between members in the attention given to different series, and if scheduling continues to be based on the immediate money that can be made, and nothing else. I agree with a lot of what Mikeselig says. Though I don't, for what it's worth, agree with creating a league system, for a few reasons. One, it raises the possibility of key rivalries not being played - NZ vs Australia for a start, but obviously the great threat is a cecession of Ashes contests. Those contests are important, and any scheme that threatened them will fail. Two, there are a lot of test series that aren't that competitive or interesting, even amongst the top 8. There is no particularly good reason why all sides need to play all others, rather than a selection that creates the best cricket. Three, there are a lot of very even associate nations, and leagues are very slow to respond to changes in ability. If, for example, a new Afghanistan emerged in the 4th tier, then it will take 3-4 cycles (12-16 years potentially) for them to graduate up to the top level, by which stage their best players may have retired. Four, they are quite boring, because it will be quite obvious who is going to qualify for the final, or be relegated. Hence, for mine, we should split the test calendar into two scheduling types, alternating by year. The first is based entirely around bilateral tours, with sides able to schedule games as they please - whatever brings the most interest, history, cash, etc. The second, running over a period of two years should be a cup competition, open to all, but qualification for associate teams starting in the year prior. In the first year, 18 teams get whittled to 9 - each associate getting to play 2-4 tests against the major teams - and then a global qualification based on home-away matches is played. In the second year, the top 6 teams would play (in two groups of 3) 3-match home-away series, culminating in a final, played September-October, 2 matches at home, 2 away. (More details here: http://idlesummers.com/manifesto)
Bob
Guest
You ignore the cultural differences that exist between the different cricket countries. Australia, South Africa and England will only want to play test cricket (the ODI's and T20 games in these countries are treated as interesting novelties) and everybody else just seems to want to play limited over games. India in particular seem never to take tests seriously (hence their test record). NZ do not play tests at all in Auckland (which has 1/3 of the population) whilst Pakistan can't even play at home. WI play their second XI in tests. Of the others they all struggle to attract any sort of crowd numbers. The ACB will need to face facts- we really now have a tri-test comp with England and South Africa. If India want to join the test playing world they need to take the game more seriously than they did last summer.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
My apologies to Afghanistan. My memory was obviously playing tricks, I could have sworn Scotland won it but you are correct.
sheek
Guest
Timmuh, I will read your long essay at leisure when I get home. But for the moment some brief thoughts. Like yourself, I'm a traditionalist. Generally speaking, the authorities can follow one of two paths with test cricket. The first option is to do nothing. The second option is to compromise, tinker & adapt. The first option is like the proud pine standing tall & foohardy against the hurricane. Eventually it will snap in two & be destroyed. The secon option is to be like the wily oak on the riverbank, changing its root system & branch direction to accommodate changes in the landscape & seasons. The authorities say they care about test cricket, but are doing absolutely nothing to make it relevant to current society. There are changes that can be made which bring the game into the 21st century, while retaining a traditional feel. Things like day/night tests; reducing tests by one day; coloured clothing & alternate coloured ball, different pay scales for match attendances (full-day, part-day), etc. But the authorities do nothing to make test cricket more relevant while throwing as much resources as possible at T20. Join the dots, you can see where test cricket is heading - down the gurgler. And its demise is being deliberately orchestrated by the very authorities who are supposed to protect test cricket.
Johnno
Guest
People go on about the ball in test cricket the pink ball etc, why not just use the white ball and change it after 50 overs. Who cares if the fast bowlers will have anew ball more often will even out the contest between bat and ball, just play a night test with a white ball,. In the 1980's int eh Mcdonalds cup in OZ, some of you may recell, they used am orange ball. I remember a match dennis liillee played in for tasmania in his comeback bowling to Dirk Wellham and greg ritchie without he orange ball. It worked then why not now.
Rob Quin
Guest
Wow congratulations to Scotland I'm sure they will be delighted to find out they won the Intercontinental Cup last year, congrats on offending the actual winners Afghanistan. Ireland continue to lose players to England so an Irish Test side would be stronger as will their T20 and ODI team as players who are forced to seek Test Cricket with England will no longer leave and others return. Ireland does not play it's strongest side in the Intercontinental Cup due to county commitments for many players. Ireland are better and stronger than Zimbabwe at least equal with Bangladesh currently and have a first-class competition starting next year.
Mark Roth
Guest
I agree in principle with most of what you're saying, though I do prefer test cricket in whites even if I am not married to the idea. The flaw in your plan is that you believe the ICC cares. I have recently come to what, at least to me, seems like a stunning revelation. There are two types of world governing bodies. The first, the FIFA, IRB, FINA types of the world run their sport, for better or worse. The second, which at least amongst the sporting events I care enough to follow consists only of the ICC, are exclusive clubs that pretend to own the game. The ICC, to me, does not care at all about making the world cup inclusive or expanding test cricket. The ICC doesn't want to protect and expand the brand of cricket, it wants to protect and expand the brands of the "permanent" members. Until the ICC is seriously overhauled or simply replaced, you won't see first class matches between two random countries because allowing them to do so would diminish the brands of the Test nations. You won't see real qualification tournaments for the world cup and the world Twenty20 either for the same reason.
Mikeselig
Guest
Hi Tim, The mistake made in the aftermath of T20 was that spectators drawn to cricket by T20 would automatically get hooked on to test cricket. Decreasing interest in tests despite continued enthusiasm for T20 has shown that this hasn't worked. With that in mind, and agreeing with your premise that test cricket is the prestige format of the game, a boost has to be given, not only to attract limited overs fans to the longer format, but also to attract new non-cricket fans straight to test cricket. For this I have a few suggestions, some of which are covered by the article: - first of all get rid of the ridiculous notion of "test status". It has become divisive rather than aspirational, a stigma rather than an aim for those countries who don't have it. There is no reason that should they wish to France and Germany couldn't play each other in a 5 day match, and that being so call it a test. If they did, then potentially new fans could be brought in from those countries (admitedly very few, but every one counts, and in the long term it could be quite a few). Also, how can you justify having your flagship format only open to a tiny proportion (less than 10%) of the countries involved in your game? It makes no sense. - With that in mind, bring in 2 divisions of test cricket of 8 teams, with promotion and relegation every 2 or 4 or however many years. Much like the league system you want to see implemented. Renewed spice and interest. In time as the game develops a 3rd division could be added. - day-night test cricket. It seems obvious, if you can sort out the ball and the dew factor. - It might seem a silly thing, but numbers and/or names on the back of shirts would surely help spectators to follow the game, and don't cost anything. - Potentially more controversial but in the same vain, to attract non-cricket fans, coloured clothing would certainly help (this based on working in a non-cricket country, when interested spectators come along to watch a game one of the first questions is "are they all on the same team? Why are they wearing the same colour then?"). Whilst I understand the view of wanting to keep an amount of tradition, this has to be balanced with the need to get new fans into TEST cricket. I'm on the fence on coloured clothing TBH, but it's something which should be thrown into the mix. On developping the game in the associate/affiliate world, this is something I could develop for several pages. Let me just give a few ideas then: - open up test cricket (the flagship format) to all, as explained above. Make world cups (the flagship tournaments) more (not less) inclusive. Everyone should have to qualify, whether by ranking or tournament, and everyone should have the chance to qualify via tournaments. The latter actually happens; the former does not - the full members get automatic qualifying by virtue of status, not ranking. Have the format of WCs based on competition, not on making sure India and England are included for as long as possible. 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, top 2 to quarter finals. Shorter (everyone knows the last few tournaments have dragged on), more competitive, more chance of a shock result. At the moment, most developping countries can't play the flagship format and have no chance of qualifying for the flagship events. How are you going to interest average joe in the game in those countries? - Funding: funding should be attributed on a needs basis, rather than uniformly on status. England don't need the funding they get from the ICC, and frankly it is negligeable compared to the funding they get from Sky. Ditto India. PNG don't need as much as they get because it costs them 25 times less to employ someone than a european country like Italy (similar standards). Afghanistan could certainly do with a boost, as could Holland and most European countries. Etc. - the expat question. People often bring up Eoin Morgan switching to England, but less often that the two best dutch batsmen are South African and Australian. First of all, make it fair - currently if Morgan decides he wants to play for Ireland again he has to wait 4 years, if Dockrelly wants to (and England pick him) he can play for England tomorrow. That is so obviously unfair and ridiculous it barely needs saying that the same rules should apply both ways. 4 years is good, because it means you have to make a genuine commitment to that country (potentially miss a world cup). Secondly, reward those who pick homegrown players with more funding. Incentivise development programs. For local (e.g. European, Asian, African) tournaments, have a minimum number of players who are either born in the country, have been a national for x years, or played age-group representative cricket for that country. - the big one: make the voting system fair and transparent (so publish minutes of meetings - do you know the ICC executive committee don't have to publish their minutes (and don't)? Ridiculous? I thought so...).
Cantab
Guest
The top 4 test nations should play each other in 5 game series, the same with the bottom 4. When a top four team plays a bottom 4 team they should keep it to 3 game series. Any points going to any points tables should be based on series results. (so 3 match series = to 5 match series)
Brian
Guest
I keep waiting for the compromise to help the game. I believe the BCCI must be given a 3 month IPL window in order to pay its bills. Have another month for a Champions League to be split with the other somewhat important boards - ECB, CA etc. Than take the scheduling of the other 8 months away from the Boards and give it to the ICC, only then can logical decisions be made. Personally I would than go for a relegation system so the top 5 play each other over a two year cycle with the winner being crowned champion and last place being relegated to Division II. Div I - Eng, Ind, Aus, SA & SL each play 4 5 test series (2 home 2 away) over 2 years, winner is World Champion 5th goes to Div II Div II - WI, NZ, Pak, Zim, Bang winner promoted to Top Group, loser loses test status to winner of first class series between Ireland, Afghanistan etc. who gets promoted The whole thing could be done on a 2 year cycle with say 5 test series between the big teams and 3 between the smaller teams. Leaves plenty of time for IPL, ODI World Cups and other money makers. Over time who plays at home can be rotated like the Davis Cup.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Firstly, thank you for your kind critique. I agree that the time factor is a problem for a true Test championship. Particularly, with my version, timing of semi-finals and finals series. If semi-finals are in New Zealand and England, to take two of the more climate limited nations, the final will then most likely be in one of those. For this reason, I recognise this as being an idealistic proposition, which may not be able to be put into practice. I see the curent ICC proposal of a one-off Test, potentially at a neutral venue, as a recipe for failure. You are correct that Test cricket does not, and probably will not ever, gain the same audience as either form of limited overs cricket. The reason for suggesting no domestic T20 or other internationals are to be played on the same day as play in the Test final series is partly to alleviate that and maximise the audience it can get. Showcase the showcase event. People do still care about the result of Test cricket, even if they can not find time to follow it all. The same is even true on a smaller scale of Shield cricket, although people tend to be looking at indivdual prformances than the result in that case.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
If the ball situation can be fixed (and early reports form the pink ball used in some First Class games in South Africa are not good) then having three extended days may be a possibility in some cases. Many grounds are not suitable to playing into the night, however, because of the dew and other factors. That could result in two completely sets of Test cricket (three and five day) being played at different venues. It would be too radical a change for me to accept without a lot of whinging, but I can see the point. It may also open up the possibility of half-day ticketing, etc, for people who can only make the later sessions. As for limiting overs in a Test, I would be against that for much the same reasons as Mark Roth. One of the things about winning a Test is you need to be able to take wickets. Test cricket is not just highest score wins, it has that extra dimension of needing to have the opposition's innings completed (either by taking the wickets or a declaration that backfires). To win a Test you don't just need to outscore the opposition, you need to beat them.
Evan
Guest
I agree with the majority of what you have written, I also love Test cricket and we need to see it flourish. My gripe is with ODI's, they have no context, just meaningless 3/5/7 match series tacked onto a Test tour. I think each match needs a context, a consequence. The best idea I heard was for each match to count towards qualification and seeding in the next World Cup. If after the 2011 World Cup everyone started from scratch and each match leading up to the 2015 World Cup earned points towards qualification I think they would have more context. It would also require measurements added to entice teams to play the lower nations but I think it could work. In terms of Test cricket I beleive in a different kind of championship, more along the lines of a Boxing title, where a trophy (or a belt!) is held by a team and can be won from them by being beaten in a test series, minimum of three tests, preferably 5 tests.