Why a two-tier system is best for Test cricket

If a two-tier Test system were put in place RIGHT now, would Australia be put in the second tier? Well this really is food for thought, especially since Bangladesh drew one all with England in Bangladesh, Australia was spinwashed 3-nil in Sri Lanka,West Indies came back heroically to win third test vs Pakistan just recently and just now Australia has suffered a humiliating home series defeat vs SA. Given these results, and Pakistan's recent form, Australia would join the second tier. Fair's fair.

There are two problems I have with the two-tiered concept. The first might appear to be one of semantics, but strikes at what makes Test cricket special. It is the peak of the sport, you can't have a second tier of the game's peak. The second is deeper. Why would the lesser nations with little prospect oif promotion continue to play long form cricket? If they aren't going to host any of the money-making tours, why bother with it at all? Its hard enough now for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; and very soon West Indies; to get games against anyone they don't make big financial losses playing. Instead of being a way to grow Test cricket, it may well contract to just a few nations. (That may well happen anyway, as it is West Indies, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka are on the brink of Test collapse, but being stuck with no prospect of a profitable series would risk making that more likely, or accelerating it if it is to happen anyway). Instead, I would prefer to see a multi-year championship where all nations MUST play each other home and away - other than for security reasons. And significant penalties for failing to do so, such as expulsion from 50 and 20 over world cups. A simple points system based on series results could then be implemented, giving context and unlike the current weighted rankings something which fans can understand and follow. A final series of five Tests, with no other internationals or professional T20 allowed over that period would follow the four years (five years if Ireland and Afghanistan come in as they should) - so the cricket world can focus on one series in the same way as World Cups become the focus for two months every four years. It gives Test cricket context, and a focal point, while ensuring that the lesser nations get much needed tours by the financial powerhouses. Yes,. it means we get more summers like last with a lopsided series or two in the short term. If that's the price that needs to be paid to make Test cricket healthier and more competitive over the longer term, then so be it.

Why is the risk for SA worth it ? I still see them as a team in transition and poorly affected by their internal politicking and quotas

This is an excellent point; Today India fears to have a series against England or South Africa for four matches in their backyards-the only reason is their poor record and the possible embarrassment on offer. The last test series in SA got curtailed to just two matches.

The problem I have with many of the tier systems being advocated is that it prevents certain nations playing against each other during a given period. I am in favour of a 3 tier system whereby the tiers simply dictate the minimum number of matches one must play against the other teams within their tier and others, thereby allowing extra matches to be played if desired. This is how it would work: Tier 1: 1 to 4 Tier 2: 5 to 8 Tier 3: 9 to 12 Tier 1 plays other tier 1 teams in minimum 4 test series both home and away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 1 plays tier 2 teams in minimum 2 test series, home or away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 1 plays tier 3 in 1 test each, home or away in a 4 year cycle. At the start of each cycle tier one teams play in world championship tournament in predetermined country round robin + final. Minimum matches: 39/40 per 4 year cycle. Tier 2 plays tier 1 teams in minimum 2 test series, home or away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 2 plays tier 2 teams in minimum 3 test series both home and away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 2 plays tier 3 teams in minimum 2 test series, home or away in a 4 year cycle. Minimum matches: 34 per 4 year cycle. Tier 3 plays other tier 3 teams in minimum 3 test series both home and away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 3 plays tier 2 teams in minimum 2 test series, home or away in a 4 year cycle. Tier 3 plays tier 1 in 1 test each, home or away in a 4 year cycle. Minimum matches: 30 per 4 year cycle. At the end of each cycle rankings will dictate which team will be i which tier and which top 4 teams will contest the world championship in the first year of the cycle. The reason for having the championship in the first year of the cycle is there is little delay between qualification and contesting the championship. This system allows for aus, eng and ind to be in different tiers yet still contest the desired number of tests per series yet at the same time gives more matches between teams of different strengths.

Young cricket fans are told by the establishment itself that long form cricket is boring. When ever CA tell kids that T20 cricket is the super exciting version of cricket, those kids have to then draw the conclusion that the long form game is the boring version. T20 will not draw more fans to Test cricket, at least not many people, despite what CA says.

Hi James, I am not commenting as to whether I would like it. It would be fun I am commenting that I cant see the 3 big guns going for it. Practically what would happen to the reciprocal Ashes series if either Aus or England got relegated? Would they have them anyway and work around it? - which would defeat the object as the Test Championship would get the raw end of the deal. You cant have the Test Championship schedule getting cast aside I am not surprised SA would support it. For SA it would work as long as we can spend most of our time in the top tier... Getting the other 4 into our country to play cricket would be a huge money spinner for us. We are obviously (over)confident at maintaining our place. In short. For SA the risk is worth it. For India, Aus and England the risk is too great

The various bodies, such as Cricket Australia seem to be hell bent on killing off test match cricket. I think eventually people will bore of white ball cricket so I don't think it is a smart path to go down. It just lacks any real long term value. It is like the X Games compared to the Olympics. Just a bit of fun, hardly competitive.

It would be very signficant step for associate memebers like Afghanistan and Ireland, if ICC introduce the two tier test system...

My view is that you decrease the number of tests in a series from 3 to 2, and increase the group size to 7. If you're playing 3 tests year in, year out against the same opponents, things will get stale, regardless of promotion relegation 2 tests home & away means you can go on meaningful tours of the Sub-continent, South Africa & Australasia without fear of player burnout, maximizing broadcast dollars and minimizing calendar space. With there being an odd number of teams(7), simple creative scheduling for cross-conference matches when there's a bye means that teams will play 8 or 9 different nations over a two year period. That's a win for test cricket. Australia and England don't change a thing and take it in turns hosting the ashes every 2 years with the 5th test not counting towards Test Chamiponship points.

Test Cricket outside school holidays is slowly dying globally. That is why the Gabba Test Match was moved to December to utilise the start of the Queensland School Holidays to boost number turning up to the D/N Pink Ball Test Match. which I am not a fan of this concept. MCG and SCG Test Matches still go ok due to the Christmas New Year period in Australia.

Hi James Thanks for the article. I don't disagree that test cricket has been in decline in terms of viewing audiences. But it has been in this decline for some time now, and doesn't appear to have got worse in the last few years. There are heaps of reasons, most of which stem from cricket itself following the $ from the short forms providing more bang for the buck, plus an avenue to a new audience. The young cricket fans you talk about who are drawn to T20 are not suddenly going to switch on to 5 day cricket, however you package it up. 17 year old Red Bull drinkers aren't suddenly going to appreciate an aged Coonwarra Shiraz. Taylor Swift fans aren't suddenly going to switch on to Bonnie Raitt. They might later on in life, as their tastes invariably mature, but it's pointless chasing them and risking changing the essence of what makes test cricket so great. There will always be kids who get and appreciate test cricket from a young age, as I did, but I think an acceptable goal for test cricket is more modest than chasing an audience who aren't the right fit for the subtleties and slower pace of the game. As long as it is self-sustainable (admittedly through TV rights more than gate receipts), and sustains reasonable crowds (which it does in many places) and provides the ultimate test for players, then I think the problem you're talking about is overstated.

I definitely see your point and agree that a relaxing day at the cricket is a great experience. that's fine if you want test cricket to be amateur but the players are professional and need to be paid. If they're paid more to play 20/20 (or other sports)then test cricket will gradually lose talent and air time. you'll only be able to get the long form on cable tv, or not at all, similar to what's happened to the domestic comp. I don't think it's sustainable for the short forms to keep propping up the longer forms (unless everyone gets bored with 20/20). I think Test cricket is the best format, but it needs a bit of a revamp to make it able to stand on its own two feet financially.

To me there are a few ways to do a Test championship. A multi year championship where everyone plays each other home and away. I would prefer a 8 team league and another 8 team league below that. Maybe a 7 team league. Then it is just do you have finals or a straight league with promotion relegation. I prefer more teams as it will bring minnows up to speed quicker and teams like Sri Lanka need to be in the top tier to start with. Or you can go with a world cup style group system. That will reduce the length of the comp and if you went with 4 groups of 4 a few minnows would get real exposure, Aus could send these games to the top end as well. A world cup system could be run over two or even one year. Third is a Davis cup style system, straight knock out. Something I am not a fan of as the root problem with Test cricket would not really be tackled, as teams would still play other tests and those would remain largely meaningless.

But JW, who does everyone have to chase the same thing? Why does the success of test cricket have to be measured by comparing crowds with basketball or soccer? Going to an indoor stadium for 90 minutes with a whole lot of noise and razmatazz can be a great experience but it is a totally different experience. If Taylor Swift sells out Rod Laver Arena for a week, but Bonnie Raitt only does one show at the Forum, does that mean that Bonnie Raitt has it wrong, and she needs to change her act to sell more tickets? Of course not.

i think the crowds at the WACA of 10,000 on Sat and Sun, which were beaten by the NBL and A-league, shows there is a lack of interest. The only series that generates crowds in australia is the ashes. why? because people seem to care about the result. as you point out, the games have been interesting enough, so it's not necessarily the product that's not interesting, rather the format. Cricket, like baseball, relies mainly on tension to be engaging. Watch the world series, then watch one of their 160 or so regular season games - you will be on the edge of your seat in the first and you will fall asleep in the latter even if the regular season game is a closer result. test cricket needs to create a format where there is more riding on each match in order to generate that tension, buzz and interest. People's expectations may have changed, but if you give them a reason to care about the result then the product will hopefully meet their expectations.

i think it's a good idea. the fact that the top countries dont want to be relegated for financial reasons means there will be even more riding on the outcome of each match. a test championship would hopefully generate more interest, hence bigger crowds and tv audiences and hence revenue. If the cricket boards could come up with an agreement to divide up the tv revenue amongst themselves, then all countries would be sharing in a bigger pool and hopefully better off. Also, Austalia only tour India once every 4 yrs as it is. If India or Aus were relegated you would expect them to bounce back up into the top group 2yrs later, so you would end up with them touring the other country roughly every 4 years anyway. Unless of course the other team is relegated that year, then they will not play each other for another 2 yrs. The problem is that with 12 tests per year already locked in, there isnt really any room in the calander to schedule another series. If Engalnd and Aus are in different pools consistently it will be difficult to find room for the Ashes. They either just have to accept that (imagine the excitement and interest if they do play again after not playing for some years), or perhaps they should try 2 tests in each country for the test championship (back to back ideally if that could work with summer/winter in each hemisphere), or 2 in one, 3 in the other, depending on the higher team's ranking, and leave some room for additional series. You may actually need to do this, because if all teams in one pool were from one hemisphere, it may be difficult to fit all the matches in. Hopefully something like this could be made to work, think test cricket needs it.