News has hit during the last couple days that the ICC are considering a ‘two-tiered’ system for Test cricket.
The ICC are often criticized for either being too greedy or out of touch, but many pundits have called for a system of divisions in Test cricket for years now.
So the ICC must be commended on some level for getting something right.
The details of the system are unknown as yet, and it is speculated the ICC will announce something even by the end of January.
Pundits don’t really have a say in what will happen, but it is still worth throwing forth some suggestions.
The speculation is there will be two divisions. The first division would consist the top six of South Africa, India, Australia, England, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in the first division.
The second division would likely consist of West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan.
It would be a boon for Ireland and Afghanistan to at least be given temporary Test status and the chance to compete against nations such as West Indies and New Zealand.
This would hopefully stop the bleeding of players from Ireland to England, such as Eoin Morgan, Ed Joyce, Boyd Rankin and potentially George Dockrell and Paul Stirling in the future.
The problem with a two division system is West Indies and New Zealand could potentially be left in the wilderness and not able to compete against the top ranked nations.
The strength of the two division system is lower ranked Associates – such as Scotland, Netherlands and Kenya – could have the incentive of qualifying as Test nations.
It would also keep Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on their toes as they could potentially lose their Test status if relegated from division two. Likewise West Indies and New Zealand would have to work hard to try to qualify for division one.
It has been purported the divisions would be changed every four years and there could potentially even be relegation matches played.
There is some fairness in the overall system of having Test divisions. The top ranked nations have long complained about having to play lowly ranked Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The divisions mean every Test would count for more, as teams play to keep their spot in division one or fight to get into it.
A different type of divisional system could be considered though:
Division one
– Top four teams (South Africa, India, Australia and currently England).
– Play each other a minimum of three Tests away and at home during cycle.
– Play division two teams a minimum of two Tests at home and two away during cycle.
– Play division three teams two Tests at home or away.
– Minimum of 42 Tests during the cycle, which could run for four to six years, depending on agreements from all full members.
– There would still be room if division one teams want to play five-Test series.
Division two
– Second four teams (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand).
– Play each other a minimum of three Tests away and three Tests at home.
– Play division one teams a minimum of two Tests away and two Tests at home.
– Play division three teams a minimum of two Tests at home and two Tests away.
– Play 50 Test during the four to six year cycle (with no room for five-Test series if the cycle is four years long).
Division three
– Teams ranked nine to 12 (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan).
– Play each other a minimum of three Tests at home and away during the cycle.
– Play division two teams a minimum of two Tests at home and away during the cycle.
– Play division one teams a minimum of two Tests at home or away during the cycle.
– Play 42 Tests during the cycle.
Currently Australia and England play an average of 12 Tests per year, while many of the other full members play eight to 10 Tests per year.
Bangladesh play five Tests per year and Zimbabwe play three Tests per year. It is clear Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are languishing because they do not get enough exposure.
Years earlier, Sri Lanka were the success story of an associate nation becoming a Test nation. They rose through the ranks from their lowly entrance in 1981 to number two in 2009. Sri Lanka also won the ODI World Cup in 1996.
Their progression should give an aspiring nation the hope it is possible to rise to the top of world cricket.
It will be interesting to see what the ICC comes up with. What is surely clear is not everyone will be happy.
It is impossible to keep TV broadcasters happy and yet create a fair competition at the same time. The demise of the Test world championship (no longer going ahead in 2017 after already being cancelled once in 2013) shows how much influence TV broadcasters do have.
Hopefully the ICC can strike as good a balance as possible and Test cricket will find new strengths in the 21st century.
Paul
Roar Rookie
When I suggested my idea there was no thought of Australia, England and India being immune from relegation. I am most certainly opposed to such an idea. Secondly, my concept has cross divisional competition between all divisions. I have no desire to see any nation locked out.
Clark
Guest
Which disappointingly is still not enough. I guess that is what we get for dropping as low as we have, but substantial progression is looking possible.
Clark
Guest
Wait so technically if there are 3 divisions, does that mean if South Africa remain at the top, there is no progression possible for lower teams? this could potentially be the beginning of the end for test cricket, especially for those (like me in New Zealand) who get a great joy of rolling teams like India and Australia (who we beat in the last test we played against them).
Cantab
Guest
I see kiwi papers are reporting that the NZC are supporting the take over from the 3 boards on the grounds that they have been given assurances that A- they will receive more money from the ICC than they do now, B- that they will still play the top tier nations at least as regularly as they do now.
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
Yeah exactly, unless they start playing international games in Pakistan again (which I highly doubt looking at the current conditions there), it would be unfair on them to be called a 'second division' team.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Cantab, polaying everyone hoime and away over a 4 year period is what many of us have wanted for ages. Unfortunately nothing has ever moved in that direction. Even the FTP has only ever been giving the idea lip service, while never allowing for it and it has been routinely ignored anyway.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Pakistan should have won the first Test, Sri Lanka won the second comfortably and their (at the time of writing) looks like being a tame draw. A likely 1-0 result that should have been 1-1 is not "very comfortable" in my opinion. That is opinion though. People may also be referring to the financial ability to survive outside the top group if the two tiers system was brought in. If Pakistan were able to play at home, they would certainly be ahead of the shambles that Sri Lanka currently is in. (Sri Lanka does have one financial advantage, in that India are prepared to play them regularly where as Pakistan never play against the biggest revenue makers in the game.) As things stand, only the three who want to take full control for themselves; and maybe South Africa for a as long as they stay strong on field; would be able to continue to play test cricket. And India would probably choose not to do so.
DanUK
Guest
I guess that means a lot more 10 test Ashes series in a calendar, seeing that is makes more money
Arka Sarkar
Guest
They can create an 8-team top tier and a 4 or 5-team lower tier. That would be better idea not to lose the elite nations always. They can also give test status to Ireland and Afghanistan without making these division systems. That will be better and 12 nations will play test cricket then.
Cantab
Guest
What about one big table, everyone plays each other in both home and away series over a 2-4 year period, points for a series win, loss or draw. Similar to normal sporting tables except you deal in series not games. Play a semi finals series and final series (or game) and then give the winner the biggest trophy money can buy plus an over size Check. Then start all the points at zero again. Each series lengths can then be worked out differently, so Eng vs Aust obviously 5 games, whilst India vs WI, NZ ect can be just two or whatever they agree on. The key to it all being inclusion not exclusion, whilst still making $$$
Paul
Roar Rookie
Completely agreed. Equality is certainly not the order of the day. Possibly the fairest thing to do is to have a true test championship that runs over, say 2 years culminating in a world champion, followed by say 3 years of playing who ever you want. But hey, we all have our opinions, it's a hard one to call.
Cantab
Guest
First article listed is the one I'm referring too. To me that indicates all current teams will stay in the top tier, ...unless they are going to start giving the profits from top tier games to second tier teams? Which to me would be an odd system. I find it quite interesting that in 2013 all the suppose weak second tier nations such as Sri Lanka, West Indies, NZ and Bangladesh did not lose a single home test match. There are only 20 fully professional crickets in NZ, surly the way to make NZ more compeditive would be to increase the number? Not decrease by stopping revenues? Given that Eng, Aust and India can't be relegated it's gonna be tough for the Saffa's in that top four division. Unless our aim is to challenge rugby league to be the least international, international sport I can't get behind a two tier system that excludes the current test teams (except zim).
Paul
Roar Rookie
I would take that to mean not losing full member status. The ICC money is divided as 75% equally ten ways between the 10 full members and the remaining 25% is used in development for the associate nations. A team in the second test division could still retain their current 7.5% and test status, but not have the opportunity to play teams in division one, or at very least far less opportunity. That wouldn't change direct money from the ICC even though it could indirectly mean less income.
Mitch Wilson
Roar Rookie
Yeah i dont agree with this new idea for cricket it just doesn't sound right to me and i bet a lot of other people, which of the other countries who arein on this will not join a few i bet
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Spot on Brett, unfortunately!
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
This article says: "It will be introduced on the "no disadvantage" condition that none of the current ICC Full Member nations would lose that status and its financial advantages." http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/709973.html This one says its part of a larger attempt by BCCI, CA and ECB to take firm control of ICC to ensure ongoing future income: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html
Zubes
Guest
Also there is a related proposal to distribute more revenue to India, Aus and England. In other words the more things change...
Zubes
Guest
I think there's a condition that India, Aus or England cannot be relegated.
Brett McKay
Expert
I'm open-minded, if still somewhat concerned about the two-tier idea, but the real worry for me is the news that the FTP will be all but abandoned, and instead relying on unilaterally agreed series between two countries. If this happens, it could become quite possible for any of the 'bigger' countries to NEVER agree to play the lower ranked nations. And that would almost certainly kill any credibility the two-tier system carries, which in turn would DEFINTELY be the end of Test cricket for all but a handful of countries. If the bigger crowd-drawing countries refuse to go to say Sri Lanka, or New Zealand, or Bangladesh, cricket revenues in those countries will drastically shrink. There's some very worrying developments afoot in world cricket currently..
Paul
Roar Rookie
Some here have said that Pakistan is a force in test cricket and that Sri Lanka is not. Yet Sri Lanka are beating them very comfortably in their current series.