The elephant in the room with the ICC Test championship

championship in the sub-continent would reinforce the idea that test cricket is a dying phenomenon. Wow And playing in aus or eng will help? What a joke.

What you will lose is a ton of money, which will make your cricketing systems unsustainable, especially given the competition it face from the AFL, NRL and in England, football. Between maintaining the current paychecks for the contracted cricketers, and continuing to nurture the grassroots game, your cricket boards will have to declare bankruptcy. Or play 20 Ashes tests a year just to stay afloat. And Dave Warner will be happy if he can make 50,000 in such an environment.

More people showed up to watch the dead rubber at Delhi between India and Australia than at Perth where Australia regained the Ashes. Cheers,

Its sad that despite 1.3 billion fans and the related success of the IPL, BBL (and other leagues) we are still debating if India is good for the game. England and Australia ran the game into the ground financially before India started to have serious influence. Cricket today is on the up and India's mass gives it the stability it needs to grow. Yes, there are issues in administration and other areas but thats a learning curve for everybody and not just India.

If cricket is to truely become a global sport it needs India. Or else cricket it will just be the Ashes and a few hangers on..... boring and not commerically viable.

The Ashes is also a big roadblock to having a Test championship. Its too long and it is played too often. This throws the international schedule out of whack for everyone else.

For non-India games they should do the following: 1. Play at one of the smaller cities that doesn't see too much international cricket. 2. Make it free entry for the kids. 3. Have a school holiday on one of the week days.

Yes, but Nick is right on 2 counts, the atmosphere would be rubbish at neutral tests, and Indian TV audiences might be fine for India tests, but I bet they're not as brilliant for non-India games

I'm afraid it's never going to work. Apart from by necessity (modern Pakistan tests) the only tests played in neutral countries were in the 1912 triangular tournament which was ruined by rain, a weak Aussie team (we'd just been thrashed in the Ashes at home and 6 players inc Victor Trumper, Clem Hill and Warwick Armstrong refused to your), and a very poor SA team. Even in those less entertainment rich times it was a flop. Tests are simply too long to attract neutrals

A big and powerful elephant that one

Interesting points Jorji. I don't have many answers to your questions. I certainly dont know where the ICC distributes their income. Is India good for cricket? There is an argument to suggest 1.3 billion (Indians) passionate followers of the game adds vibrants to a game which competes globally with rival codes. The IPL arguably kicked-off T20. I never thought I would see the day of 20,000+ crowds attending Australian State cricket on such a regular basis. Ever.

Excellent thoughts. Agree 100 percent.

We are going to a division setup. Forget the playoff scenario. The ICC has shelved it forever. It will get rid of problem of forcing those who want to play test cricket to those who say they want to but do not actually put in the effort to improve. Think Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies, even New Zealand. More or less similar to the Davis Cup "world group" concept with the floundering states underneath that given the opportunity to progress up the ladder if they are good enough. This is better than the neutral ground and "extra series" you would need to play.

Problem is with this "68 percent", how much of that goes to the test match nations? I reckon diddly squat, most would end up in Indian bank accounts or else you would have no money issues in Zimbabwe, New Zealand etc.. Cricket is good for India, but is India good for cricket? What is more, if India stopped playing cricket today. Would that change anything to us here? Not on your nelly. So Dave Warner would lose a million dollars a year. He still makes 2 or 3 anyhow. They do not really matter that much overall.

Not sure about that Star TV paid $750m to broadcast India home series for 7 years. That's over $100m a year and the rights do not include the IPL. Yes there are ODI but the majority of days of the $100m a year they are paying are Test Cricket. Even lopsided you would have to allocate at least $350m of the $750m to Tests ($70m per year for Tests). Which is slightly more then 9 paid for Test Cricket here. Nine paid $80m per year without BBL which at most would be $60m for Tests and $20m for limited over. Aus and England get much better crowds but these days the money is in the TV deals.

Not withstanding all that Nick - at last count - India was alone responsible for 68% of the ICC's annual revenue. That makes for a large, powerful customer.

I disagree re: India. India don't bring in any revenue from test series. Appalling home crowds, and far from satisfactory TV appearances. Only in England and Australia do India test matches pull a bit of a crowd...funnily enough by Indian-Australians and British-Indians savouring their once in 4 year chance to see the Indian team. If England or Australia was unable to be in the competition, it would flounder big time.

What looks like happening more and more is that the ICC will rig up a Davis Cup style setup for nations competing in test matches. It is technically going on right now more or less already. Australia does not bother playing Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies or New Zealand in test matches terribly often as the result is a given and has no box office pull from spectators at the gate to tv broadcasters. Wth the current emphasis on short form cricket there is not much incentive for them to improve either. If they were decent teams with good players us established cricket nations would be happy to take them on. But there is no point in flogging these minnows just to inflate averages. People want competitive games. With the ascendency of associate cricket nations of "All" Ireland and Afghanistan who are demanding a way to move up the cricket ladder, the ICC will split the top test nations from the lower and allow promotion and relegation based on merit. The format is a while off being negotiated and we all know how political the ICC can be and it will be tough to convince these "lower standard" states to be content with their lot in division two or lower. My personal preference is to follow the Davis Cup setup as it is transparent and fair and allow teams to move up and down depending on performances in matches. They would probably have a top 8, knowing the ICC to placate as many members as possible to get the deal to go ahead so Australia, India, England and South Africa would never drop to the 2nd level. The big advance besides preserving the integrity of test cricket and keeping it a going concern is that it will allow nations to get to test cricket in time with good performances and conversely be punished for incompetence by being demoted. If it was a transparent system Ireland would easily progress and in a generation could make it to the top level with their organisational and financial abilities. The downside is I could see the West Indies falling away, which would be heartbreaking. But maybe it is what they need to finally, after all this time put aside their idiotic island rivalries and find a way to become good again at cricket. They have a plethora of talent. But it is rough and unpolished.

I think the bigger issue was India not being in the top 4. Personally I am baffled the ICC can't come up with a way to make it work it out. There's interest and money to be made and they sit on their hands and do nothing Option 1 Have a 6 week World Cup with the top 8 teams. Two groups of 4 round robin will take 4 weeks to play, then another 2-3 weeks for semis and Final. The whole thing will take as long as the current ODI World Cup with no team playing more than 5 Tests, which is exactly what Australia and England have just played in 6 weeks. Option 2 The ICC have committed to have the ODI and T20 WC once every four years, take the two years without tournaments 2017 & 2018 and have each of the top 8 play each other home and away over a 9 month period from say July 2017 to March 2018 with an overall winner. Whoever comes last gets relegated for the 2021-2022 edition. 7 Home Tests is a lot for some but obviously less Tests will be played in the other years. Option 3 Set aside a February-April in 2017 for all 8 teams to play quart-finals 3 Test series with home advantage to the higher ranked team 1v8, 2v7 etc. Then in September-November you play Semi-Finals then in 2018 the finalist play a five Test series at a time suiting the host's calender. There are many other solutions which don't impede on Ashes & IPL and are workable with all the other machinations. It continues to astound me how a solution is not find. In response to the article you could also simply make it that the host and top 3 qualify.