Now that the World Test Championship seems headed for the scrapheap, the ICC are reportedly considering a radical change to Test cricket which will split nations into two tiers in a promotion/relegation system.
Like all things new, the move will be divisive among cricket fans – from the old guard who scoff at the outrageous lack of respect the batsmen have for their wicket, to the new breed who flick the channel as they wonder why their favourites aren’t trying to slog it out of the park.
Rahul Dravid has deemed it a good idea in principle. On the possibility that countries with a long, proud history of Test cricket, such as the West Indies or New Zealand, may suffer financial losses as well as the game weakening in these nations if they find themselves in the second tier, Dravid has said, “the responsibility lies with these countries, it shouldn’t just be a right [to play Test cricket]… that’s not fair on teams like Ireland or Afghanistan who are making a huge effort to promote the game in those countries.”
It is this belief in earning the right to play Test cricket that Dravid thinks will be the greatest pro of the plan.
“It puts a little bit of pressure to ensure that they do play well enough to earn the right to be in that division,” he said, adding that it creates “light at the end of the tunnel for [teams like] Ireland and Afghanistan.”
The legendary batsmen was not pressed on how he would feel if it was his homeland, the cricketing juggernaut of India, which found itself in that situation.
And that’s where the dividing line between past and future will come back to the fore. Like Dravid, many will sit above the line and believe Test cricket is not a right.
Expanding the game in Associate countries is paramount and they deserve the opportunity to grow and move into the top tier if they play well enough.
With such a long period of Test cricket behind them, however, do teams like the West Indies deserve to be punished in such a way?
Former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe, writing for ESPN Cricinfo, unsurprisingly holds a different opinion to Dravid given New Zealand, alongside the West Indies, have the most to lose should this system come to fruition.
Crowe describes it as “disrespectful” and wonders, like I, if the idea would be entertained if Australia, England or India were the ones at risk of dropping out during their own well-documented periods of struggle.
“It’s not right to abandon upstanding nations, countries that have given their all to prop up the game, to cast them adrift,” writes Crowe.
“There are eight very proud cricketing nations that have earned kudos and respect the world over for their longevity and endeavour, over the course of the game’s history. The eight major teams deserve the chance to bounce back from difficult times.”
The recent news suggests that Australia, England and India will not only have ‘relegation exceptions’ under the proposal, but even more power than they currently hold under a plan to revamp the ICC’s structure.
This provides fuel to any cynics who may view this two-tier system as the ‘big three’ trying to fill up their own coffers by avoiding the less profitable tours of the smaller countries – not that they ever really face them anyway.
Either way the Associate nations will finally have a clear pathway into Test cricket, which cannot be a bad thing.
Twitter: The_Hoss12
Skittled
Guest
Wow your lack of knowledge of how the system works is astounding....... we are talking about three countries with 'relegation exceptions' no matter how they perform. We are talking about taking money away from struggling nations, SA is the number one team and they are being left in the dark. Is this how you want to get the number one ranking, you want to buy it? Even the players association has derided this idiotic proposal as damaging the game. "Really, the new setup is just having the adults taking over."
cantab
Guest
Agree with what your saying bb, all nations that are given the chance take test cricket seriously, even when a team lose it's not because they aren't trying. I also find it very amusing that some people actually seem to believe that if you take money away from teams that are already struggling they will get better? The idea of giving power to any single or small group of boards is a complete travesty for cricket and creates a monopoly like situation. I see India cut the NZ tour from 3 tests to 2 tests as 'punishment' for supporting an American 20/20 league. Talk about ant competition and complete market failure. If this all goes through I wonder how long nations outside of Eng, Aust and India will be allowed to host there own domestic 20/20 leagues.
So SA having a record of one test series loss since 2007 doesn't take test cricket seriously?
one-eyed jack
Guest
I agree. SA are number 1, but they are being left out in the cold. Dravid praises the motivating effect of relegation whilst ignoring the fact that his team can never be relegated no matter how crap they play. If the threat of relegation is such a good thing, or if Aus, Ind and Eng cricket is so strong, why do they fear to expose themselves to relegation? Conceptually, a promotion / relegation system may make sense, but if half the top teams are exempt from relegation, whats the point? The rules should be consistent for all involved. It is a power grab plain and simple. The controlling body will consist of aus, ind and eng and one other chosen by them. NZ has unearthed a 150 kph bowler. If they can keep him on the park, he will no doubt help improve their ranking and thrill crowds around the world. If NZ was a B grade test nation, would this bloke even have bothered or have the opportunity to play test cricket?
MJ
Guest
Welfare bludging nations? What a crock! Sounds like white noise on talk back radio. Look at how the AFL grew their game. Did they call their new teams "welfare bludgers" because they weren't paying their way at the time? No! Same with NRL - are the Melbourne Storm somehow welfare bludgers? Both of these are examples how good stewardship means investing money for the growth of the game, long term benefits. Back to cricket, the West Indies thrilled the world for 20 years, bringing big crowds to every game they played all over the world. Now they aren't #1, you suggest we should kick them to the curb and pay them nothing. This proposal places no value on the past, and cares little for the future. Are the BCCI, ECB or CA hard up for cash? No, their players are the highest paid in the world. So giving the big three more money just means that the cash pool for players in other countries is lower. Less money generally means in other countries you're just going to lose players to other sports or work careers. Therefore a smaller talent pool, and cricket is the loser. The cynic in me can see that it's going to make it easier for the ECB to entice more young South African players - they will follow the money! This current proposal reeks of bullying & short term gain at the expense of growth of the game of cricket.
Cantab
Guest
Real sad stuff if it goes through, it will further reduce the relevance of test cricket with even fewer nations competing. Though what is more worrying and surprisingly getting little air time on this site is the attempted power grab by India, Eng and Aust cricket boards. There's a good chance the coming tour of SA could be the last one for a long time if the other 7 nations block this attempt.
Jorji Costava
Guest
Take a look at the ICC website, it explains the ranking system. You get points for test wins, series wins essentially and more points depending on the ranking of the team you knock off. Of course you actually need to be out there playing. Australia and England are the only two nations that take test cricket that seriously. The rest of the countries just don't bother too much with it. That is why the argument for Australia, England and India to be included in relegation is actually a moot point. You have to actually PLAY test cricket to qualify. The new system is designed to promote that and not just allow these jokers to hang around and take the easy money for doing nothing to promote red ball cricket. Bring it on and make it a top 6 only in the future to clean out the welfare bludging nations.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
What is the criteria for being a 'Test' nation? Surely that needs to be clearly defined and apply equally to all, for good governance and justice to prevail. Rather than entrenching the currently powerful bloc of Test nations as a cartel running Test cricket. I'm not against a tiered system, I think their is merit in the idea. The issue is it not being equally applied to all, combined with what appears to be a grab for control attached to the proposal.
Jorji Costava
Guest
What exactly are the differences to what the new proposals are to what we currently have? And remember this is just about test match cricket, the other two forms are considered completely separate in the world of the ICC. From what I have read on this "draft" document it is just formalising the current system we have now. Teams do not tour Zim, Bangladesh, they hardly bother with NZ and West Indies because they do not pay. It just puts it in black and white. Ideally the system of promotion and relegation should be more ruthless and have only the top six to keep "tests" as a test. The only teams out of the current 10 team test line up are the bottom two, Zim and Bangladesh. And they are not that keen on red ball cricket anyhow. They only go in it to get the privileges and money the membership affords them but they do not put in. The nice thing to come out of the draft doco is that the top 6 associates, Ire, Afgh, Canada, Scotland, Namibia and UAE all get to play regular red ball cricket against each other plus Zim and Bang who we all know desperately need red ball experience as they are both pathetic. I doubt in this four year cycle(2015 - 1019) would one of these teams be able to defeat over four tests a New Zealand or a West Indies which is the requirement to be promoted. So, we basically just get what we had but with a bit more of an incentive to perform in red ball cricket or you will be punished financially. Really, the new setup is just having the adults taking over.