A proposal for a Test cricket World Cup

I like the general thrust of the article, with biannual World Cup challenges. But I'd be even more radical, and schedule a Test World Cup over a five-six week period in one place every two years. It is the home and away approach which makes the logistics so difficult, and drawing out the competition over a two-year period impacts interest. People don't attend test matches in the Windies, SA, Pakistan or even India and SL anyway - so playing the series in one area (eg. Aust and NZ, or England, or South Asia) would work in my view. One way to manage this would be to have twelve countries (allowing two minnows through a qualification process), in four groups of three teams. Simultaneous round robin matches within each group over three weeks would produce four semi-finalists, with semi-final winners then playing off for the Cup. Other Test tours could still proceed as per individual country prerogatives. Of course there will be cons, but my view is that the pros will outweigh them. Some extra fodder for thought anyway.

Certainly. But that has to do with a lot of things that are fixable. At the moment T20 is marketed as the game of the people and Test cricket the game for traditionalists. T20 also offers far greater financial reward to players than Test cricket. There seems to me a certain amount of snobbery in this and that needs to change. Test cricket needs to be the game of the people and the players if it is to be the pinnacle. Those marketing Test cricket have either become lazy or no longer believe in their product or, possibly, they believe too much in the product. T20 actively engages new cricket fans. Test cricket has to then actively capitalise on T20's good work to convert those new fans to Test cricket. They are certainly not doing this at the moment. Can they do it with flat pitches, dead rubbers, the rich teams getting richer, the poor teams poorer (both in monetary terms and standard of play), exorbitant ticket prices, the best players not playing...? Test cricket needs a revamp on many levels... Don't get me started on the administrations of the top Test playing nations. They are strangling the game with their policy of keeping the riches for themselves and not funding tours to play the lesser teams. If Test cricket doesn't change with the times it will go the way of all things that shy away from evolution: extinction.

I agree in theory that something like this is needed. BUT I think what a lot of traditionalists are missing is that they are taking it for granted that the public is there in favour and at the moment, outside of Australia and England I'm really struggling to see the wider public showing much concern about tests at all. That's the point I was trying to make before, that while for people like most of us posting on here tests are the primary form of cricket, I just dont think this is necessarily true any more for even the broader cricket public

Have to have a system where the lesser teams get SOME exposure to the top teams otherwise you're going in circles. If you're wanting to grow the game, build rivalries and not worry too much about it being financially viable until those rivalries are built you could have a four year rotation. Each team plays each other home and away in a three test series except for one marquee pairing of a 5 match home and away series. For eg marquee pairings could be Australia-England, South Africa-India, Sri Lanka-Pakistan, NZ-West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe. 6 points for a win. 2 for a draw. Tied teams split on the number of outright wins, then net run rate. Make the financial rewards for placings 1 to 8 commensurate with Test cricket's standing in the game. ie bigger than what you'd get for a ODI or T20 World Cup. Like I said, not really financially viable, especially in the short term. But it gives each Test match meaning, should give incentives for more results based pitches and the lesser teams get more experience of facing the best teams. A big pot of gold at the end of it should also encourage the more mercenary players to want to play Tests.

Your idea has been mooted before, although it usually involves some system of getting the Associates into the mix as well. The problem is that if the West Indies don't play any top drawing teams like Australia or England, then you'll kill it instantly in those countries. You're simply solidifying something that is almost in place now anyway - that some teams are worth less than others. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Test Cricket. The issues are all fixable, but there may not be the will to fix it: 1. Fix the pitches. We want to see a competition; 2. Fix the schedules. Teams need to play proper warm up tour games to be prepared to play well when touring; 3. Fix the allocation of money to all ten nations. How are the Windies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ever meant to improve if they don't have the resources to build proper first class structures. At present Australia, England and India get 62% of world revenue. All that does it make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 4. Appropriately prioritise Test Cricket. The fact that we're touring New Zealand, for the first time in a long time, and we'll only play two tests is ridiculous. It shows clearly what the administrators prefer. Proper series create the eb and flow and drama that live long in peoples memories.

Everyone is already bored mindless from the constant rotation of tests against India and England. Just playing them every single year is a great way to kill the golden goose.

If we want test cricket to survive I think it;s going to require people to be prepared to cop a lot of radical ideas. As much change as is possible, without losing the essence. I would think that includes: Firstly a reassessment of priorities. As heretical as it may be, I think we all now (whether you like T20 or not) have to accept that it is, in some ways (crowds, fan engagement, player incomes) the primary form of the game. It's lifeblood in fact. People have to stop fighting the notion that a domestic T20 comp shouldn't have a central place in the annual calendar. In every other sport the domestic competition is the bread & butter of the game, with representative levels the cherry on top. This is not a bad thing for test cricket. In fact it's a very good thing. It takes the pressure off tests (and ODIs) to be the sole income generating force for the sport, as has traditionally been the case. Too much pressure has been put on what should really be occasional events to generate TV content and revenue, as has been reported ad nausuem this has diluted the appeal and charm of international cricket. Once this fact is accepted then you can proceed to revamp test cricket for the better: Reassessing the calendar - it could be time to move away from 'iconic' tests (MCG and Boxing Day etc) Less matches - I suspect a lot of the smaller countries will gradually become less keen on tests anyway, so this may take care of itself, to prevent this some form of test championship may be necessary. More balanced pitches - a given after the awful roads this season just gone (again, hopefully a growing T20 calendar should take the pressure off venues needs to maximise a 5-day income and encourage fairer tracks) Day-night tests Tournaments - Maybe either a 4-year world championship format could work, with every four years the top 8 playing off in a knockout series? Or even a quadrennial world cup like the baseball World Classic or Football or Cricket world cup (with off years reserved for the Ashes and other series that may survive) Problem with everything scenario is the underlying problem with test cricket is the very thing that gives it it's charm, appeal and tension - its length and complexity - is also what makes it uniquely unsuited to the modern era. Good luck to the administrators, they're on a hiding to nothing stuck between diehard traditionalists who want everything to be as it was (they imagine) in 1948 and modern commercial imperatives.

I quite like the idea to be honest, I've always found it a bit odd that the highest form of the game doesn't have a world cup of it's own - obviously it's a lot more difficult to pull off, but still. I've always pictured it as more of a knockout tournament though.

Peter I think something like or similar to the above is best. I would prefer to have the two tiers World Championship - SA, Ind, Aus, Eng, Pak, NZ ICC Pepsi League - WI, SL, Zim, Bang, Ire Every second year each country in each tier plays home and away between July and March over 9 months. No need for a final winner first past the post like the football leagues. Bottom of tier I gets relegated. Winner ot Tier II promoted. Bottom of tier II gets relegated as well replaced by the best associate. The whole thing can be every 4th or every 2nd year. Over time it will become the biggest prize in the game and eventually be held every year. Flying for one test should not be a problem Australia are flying to RSA for 3 T20 in a month and India have previously flown to South Africa for 1 ODI.

You choose a worst day of test cricket (I suppose it was a game against the WI - you don't say which one it was) and compare it to a day night 20 over big bash local derby. How about comparing apples and apples. MCG v England or India Boxing day test that lasts 5 days......... Test cricket is fine, just don't bring low level draw cards out here. Save those encounters for their home countries.

That's ALOT of travelling to only play one test. A scenario where each nation plays 3 tests home and away would be a much better option.

My suggestion is we have a world cricket league, say every second year. That way we preserve iconic and sacred series like the Ashes (which would be arranged in the off years). The cricket league would consist of two groups of five teams, playing four home and four away Tests during a calendar year with the two top teams playing off in a final. I’d also prefer that it was two equal groups. And you would rotate the teams from group to group for each tournament. Consider this narrative on how it would work (say should you start from the northern hemisphere summer:) Group A: England, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, Bangladesh Group B West Indies, Sri Lanka, Australia, India, Zimbabwe From June to September, England would host the other 4 teams in their groups for 1 Test and also fly to the Emirates to play Pakistan. Pakistan would do the same, and fly to England. Meanwhile, The Windies and Sri Lanka would do the same (so the Windies would play 4 home tests and one in Sri lanka, while Sri Lanka would have played 4 home tests and 1 in the Windies.) As at the end of September this is how the ‘played’ table would look Group A England: played 4 home 1 away Pakistan: played 4 home 1 away South Africa: played 2 away New Zealand: played 2 away Bangladesh: played 2 away Group B West Indies: played 4 home and 1 away Sri Lanka: played 4 home and 1 away Australia: played 2 away India: played 2 away Zimbabwe: played 2 away In October / early November you’d expect India and Bangladesh would then host their 4 home games. The tables at the end of this phase would be this: Group A England: played 4 home 2 away Pakistan: played 4 home 2 away South Africa: played 3 away New Zealand: played 3 away Bangladesh: played 4 home 2 away Group B West Indies: played 4 home and 2 away Sri Lanka: played 4 home and 2 away Australia: played 3 away India: played 4 home 2 away Zimbabwe: played 3 away From mid November to mid Jan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe would host their 4 home games. In this period these 4 teams would also need to fly out for an away game (and Australia would fly to Zimbabwe when the groups were configured this way.) Anyway, by the end of Jan, all teams would have played each in a home and away game. You would then have the final (and it would all be wrapped up in 8 months) Also, I see starting the next tournament in the southern hemisphere summer with it of course then finishing in the northern summer.