Does Test cricket need to have tiers to move forward?

[Owzat]

TMS were discussing this last night when play had halted, it is something I have been advocating for years now.

There's too many Test sides around, too many mismatches, so does cricket have to face the harsh reality that they can't ignore the hectic schedule and continue with an elite group of 9/10 sides while snubbing the rest.

Here's the stats from 2007-2012 :

Matches

Australia : P57 W30 D11 L16 (Won 52.63%)
South Africa : P46 W24 D11 L11 (Won 52.17%)
England : P66 W31 D20 L15 (Won 46.97%)
India : P57 W22 D19 L16 (Won 38.60%)
Sri Lanka : P48 W17 D18 L13 (Won 35.42%)
Pakistan : P40 W12 D14 L14 (Won 30.00%)
Zimbabwe : P4 W1 D0 L3 (Won 25.00%)
New Zealand : P39 W9 D12 L18 (Won 23.08%)
West Indies : P48 W5 D19 L24 (Won 10.42%)
Bangladesh : P27 W2 D2 L23 (Won 7.41%)

Series

England : P20 W12 D2 L6 (Won 60.00%)
South Africa : P17 W10 D6 L1 (Won 58.82%)
Australia : P19 W11 D3 L5 (Won 57.89%)
India : P19 W11 D4 L4 (Won 57.89%)
Sri Lanka : P18 W7 D5 L6 (Won 38.89%)
Pakistan : P16 W5 D5 L6 (Won 31.25%)
New Zealand : P18 W5 D3 L10 (Won 27.78%)
Zimbabwe : P4 W1 D0 L3 (Won 25.00%)
West Indies : P17 W2 D4 L11 (Won 11.76%)
Bangladesh : P14 W1 D0 L13 (Won 7.14%)

Zimbabwe have played four one-Test series, their one win over Bangladesh. This does not include current series, simply because the series haven't been decided.India have lost two series 0-4 in recent years, to England and to Australia.

New Zealand have boosted their wins in both matches and series by playing Bangladesh three times and Zimbabwe twice, winning six Tests and accounting for all five of their series wins

While India may be considered one-day merchants, they've played FOUR four-Test series and only England have played more Tests and indeed series in this period. Despite the death knoll on Test cricket there have been 216 Tests in 81 series over this period.

It may not look like there is a lot between them all, but counting results only against the better sides, this is the mini-table for Zimbabwe, New Zealand, West Indies and Bangladesh.

Tests vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SAF/SRI

New Zealand : P30 W3 D9 L18 (Won 10.00%)
West Indies : P42 W4 D16 L22 (Won 9.52%)
Zimbabwe : P1 W0 D0 L1 (Won 0.00%)
Bangladesh : P17 W0 D0 L17 (Won 0.00%)


The only series win registered against the top six sides was a 1-0 win by West Indies over England where England collapsed all out for 51. If that doesn't cry out for a smaller league structure with relegation and promotion then what does? And I can't see how else the likes of Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Canada, Holland and Afghanistan are going to get Test cricket exposure with a proper progression set in place. Personally I don't think Ireland are ready, the odd upset against the big guns doesn't mean they are Test ready by a long shot.

So vote now for the concept of a Test league structure with promotion, relegation and indeed a proper Championship.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

no, not with a relegation and promotion system.

league systems only work with a kind of buffer zone at the bottom to prevent the best teams being relegated and/or with such a healthy economic situation it's possible to function in the lower tiers, and there's not enough teams to provide that in two tiers. you would probably need 6 in the top tier.

people will then start saying "oh but ireland could..." not yet, the problem is the current system works economically. teams need to host and tour india, australia and england because they provide the foundation of their boards funding (and sometimes a valuable economic boost to the countries tourist trade)

you have to bear that in mind when you want to tear down the current system. when people suggest an india, england, australia and south africa top tier, they don't realise this would spell economic doom for sri lanka, new zealand and the west indies and effectively demolish any hope bangladesh have of improving and playing ireland and zimbabwe would probably lose teams money and tours would be avoided like the plague. (pakistan would probably be ok) it would also lead to india dominating the cash situation even more thoroughly, the BCCIs TV rights would double since they are playing double the number of marquee series.

there's also the fact that every two years or whatever you'd dump say australia into the second tier. bye bye ashes.

a shorter term FTP I am in favour of, but cricket won't work in leagues.

 

[6ry4nj]

You should just say: "Mark my words - it'll all end in tiers!" - and leave it at that...

 

[SaiSrini]

Instead of trying to bring in new teams into test cricket, we should look into improving the quality of test cricket with the existing teams. Until and unless you see a really extraordinary team dominating across the shorter formats, I don't see the need to induct more teams into test cricket. Already Bangladesh have raised questions as to why they were given test status.

A proper test championship and day/night tests are something that the ICC should seriously look into and implement it soon.

 

[War]

Instead of trying to bring in new teams into test cricket, we should look into improving the quality of test cricket with the existing teams. Until and unless you see a really extraordinary team dominating across the shorter formats, I don't see the need to induct more teams into test cricket. Already Bangladesh have raised questions as to why they were given test status.

A proper test championship and day/night tests are something that the ICC should seriously look into and implement it soon.

Yea exactly. Cricket has 8 strong nations, its a small community. We aren't a massive community so talk of relegating teams and bringing in new test teams in quite naive.

The ICC should be focusing on doing things to make test competition between all the top teams competitive.

But as the all know the ICC is worst sporting governing body in the planet manipulated by the BCCI, so logical cricket development projects is not their forte.

 

[sifter132]

I like the general idea of having tiers But as stinky says, it all comes down to money. A top tier of 6 would feature great cricket, but it would effectively cripple NZ and WI because they would be cut out of the money loop. So the top tier would have to be 8, and it would just be tough luck for Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland etc. I don't mind that RIGHT NOW because those teams aren't good enough, and would just clog the calendar anyway. But the burden would be on the ICC to distribute money appropriately.

If you could get the system so that there isn't too much cricket AND it's good financially for those marginal teams, it'd be great.

Hypothetically, I'd go like this:
tier 1 8 teams (traditional top 8 teams)
tier 2 7 teams (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland & 'A' teams from Aus,Eng,Ind & SA)
tier 3 7 teams (Netherlands, Afghanistan, Kenya & 'A' teams from NZ,WI,SL & Pak)
tier 4 6 teams (best of the rest eg. Canada, Scotland etc.)

I wouldn't relegate the top tier unless one team is REALLY struggling, they need surety at the top to maintain money yes, and other things like Aus-NZ rivalries etc. Relegate and promote in the other tiers though, you'd just need to ensure that there are regular tours going on - hard when some of the players are still not professional.

 

[qpeedore]

Without going into too much detail, I firmly disagree with the notion that Bangladesh should not be playing Test cricket. Yes, they suffer losses almost every time. Yes, they are often the victims of 4-day maulings. But the fight that they show is second to none, and cricket is huge in Bangladesh, win or lose.

You really want Tests with 10 spectators in the ground? Or you want a Test with 8,000 fans who know their team will lose but they're in it for the fight?

LEAVE THE TIGERS ALONE.