brilliant for the windies yeah? they play associates and bangladesh constantly for 2-4 years, at which point they switch places with new zealand (or possibly sri lanka if they go through a bad patch with players emerging), and we repeat the process.
, say lets ramp pakistan and windies up to 1980s level when they were two of the best teams in the world.
Tier One - West Indies 1980s, Pakistan 1980s, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India,
Tier Two - England, New Zealand , Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Kenya
just lost the ashes, the most iconic series in cricket.
pretty much anything you do screws it up, it only looks good because it's been engineered based on the teams current abilities. It can't work like that, it has to be a good system for the progress of the game and one that can handle that progress.
It has to be based on something, you can't just say "you, you and you are in the top tier because that keeps that iconic series going and we like you"
You've immediately thrown up an obstacle to progress, it's rather ironic that you should oppose progress and speak of it in one sentence.
You're looking at it very much from the selfish and old school perspective, "we want to play the aussies" - well they probably would, if not then they would need to improve. There's nothing worse than a one-sided Ashes, the English may not say that but I bet you (quite) a few aussies would. With fewer games then there is every chance they could fit in Ashes anyway, you need to think laterally and not just traditionally. Your referral to the PAST is exactly why no progress is made, this isn't the 80s or any past series, we now have ODIs as common as Tests with some players racking up silly levels of caps in ODIs, T20 has arrived and something has to give. With views like your's it is likely Test cricket will take a back seat as it is stuck in the past and that might "suit you sir" but you can bet your life not all the Test nations are hell bent on Test matches, tradition and the Ashes
And sorry for the West Indies but cricket can't revolve around them, or England, or any of the "elite". You talk of "progress" but all your arguments focus around what teams WANT. You sure you're not on the ICC panel because those who propose a tier system do realise the potential situation of sides not playing their regular series, but what has that got to do with PROGRESS? With the prospect of winning and winning promotion, the West Indies might recover from their ongoing slump, losing all the time is no way to promote cricket to the West Indies.
Or perhaps you think Test sides improve by getting beat out of sight like West Indies and Bangladesh do?!?! I know someone who reckons the only way to improve at snooker is to play someone better than you. I agree to a certain extent, someone SLIGHTLY better than you, but if you play someone much better than you then all you are doing is putting colours back on their spots and watching then you aren't getting much PRACTICE and your confidence takes a hit. You are way better off playing someone around your level. Were Wolves and Burnley better off contesting the top of the Championship last season, or struggling to gain points to try and stay in the Premiership? Either way at least they will either go back down and face teams of their level, or stay up and hopefully progress.
Promotion and relegation is the lifeblood of football, for the sides outside the top flights where there is more to football than winning and of course more than just the old firm, manchester, Merseyside and north london derbies - not to mention Liverpool vs Man Utd. You've considered everybody but the non-Test nations in your analysis, they get mentioned only in the tiers. How does the Ashes improve cricket in Ireland, Kenya, Canada, Scotland, Bermuda etc? Do you think that their participation in the World Cup hasn't improved them and the popularity of the sport in their countries?!? They will inevitably gain more mercenaries, but have become higher profile and if only ICC would pull their heads out their Rses then they would look at more ways to get these teams involved in ALL cricket - if only they'd done it a lot sooner. 1992 there were only Test countries, I think since then there have been 3 or 5 non-Test nations at the World Cup and one or two have disappeared off the radar. Cricket needs to be a worldwide sport, not just as it is now seen as a game for the upper classes, "elitist" and so wrapped up in "the Ashes" and series against buddies that it overlooks what makes up a greater percentage of the globe.
I do think there needs to be a test championship though. Look at india V SA, india having to play a wicket keeper as a batsman cause they got an unexpected injury they couldn't cover. Would a football team ever needing to resort to playing a goalie in defense in a world cup match? no way, it matters too much to be that underprepared. Same with raqibul retiring from cricket on the eve of a match out of spite, ridiculous, would never happen in football.
Test cricket needs to be the focus, they need to shoot ODI series dead, play them sparingly as warm ups for tests only, there does need to be a winner of a championship every 2 or 4 years, it needs to matter. India need to play teams like the west indies and not saunter to a 1-0 lead and then bat out the other two matches, they need to be sweating to get a 3-0 because they have one eye on an australian tour in 4 months.
You're flogging a dead horse if you think ODI cricket will be done away with, you mention India in one paragraph then talk about "shooting ODI series dead". Why do you think India want to play SEVEN ODIS all the time!?!?!?
You seem to be living in the past, an era when West Indies were a great side and our series against them were competitive, and building up the Ashes which I agree is iconic, but then a fair few neutrals don't agree and it wouldn't be gone, chances are England would sustain themselves in the top tier. If not, so be it. It could just as easily be seven teams, it doesn't have to be six. It could also be some other system, the problem is we've got a situation like would occur if the English Premiership extended to 30 sides - too many team, too many fixtures and the top sides would thrash the bottom sides. BUT unlike the top flight of football, albeit that is club and this is country, there is a way for the non-top flight teams to reach the top tier whereas the only way non-top flight cricketing nations can reach the top tier is to be awarded Test status by ICC selection and there isn't room for that.
Over the last 30 years exactly THREE teams have been promoted to Test status, with South Africa's ban lifted. Sri Lanka struggled for 10-15 years before establishing themselves, Zimbabwe took 6-10 and Bangladesh are still working their way up to it. Something has to give, promotion and relegation works in county cricket and you don't hear sides bitching about how they don't get to play their neighbours, they realise the structure is for the good of the game. The shame is the minor counties, like the non-Test nations, are overlooked even more than in the past. I for one am bored with one-sided Test series like we play against the kiwis, windies and Bangladesh, and even Pakistan weren't up to much when they last toured England. We'd probably be in the top tier, we might get relegated, but then I'd rather play the aforementioned sides having been relegated than just to fill fixtures and give a false impression of how good England are.
Owzat added 7 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...
There's not much between them, but Carberry's an excellent player of fast bowling, so I personally feel he'd be a better option in Australia. I still think we should go for Trott to open with Cook on this tour though and then pick a 5th bowler or Wright.
I doubt Carberry will play down under, will/should be the same top six bar Strauss back in for Carberry. Wouldn't pick Wright for ODIs let alone Test cricket, if he was going to play Tests then he should have come in and played in this series - maybe giving Collingwood a rest/
Pakistan a tier above New Zealand is pretty laughable too.
I can't remember who is above who, could easily dump then both in tier two. But from memory Pakistan have caused us more problems in the noughties than the kiwis have since 1999 so I figured it had to be Pakistan higher (without having checked or checking) We lost there in 05/06 although we thumped them in 2006 2-0 or 3-0, depending on whether you count the Oval Test as a win or not. Last series against the kiwis didn't we win 2-0 home and 2-1 away? Vaughan had an easy time against the kiwis as captain, playing them, West Indies and Bangladesh boosted his wins.
And besides anything else, whether one is slightly better than the other or vice versa, which do you think would avoid relegation and which would draw more interest - kiwis vs aussies or Pakistan vs India?! Assuming of course the latter could go ahead, not sure anyone would want to visit Pakistan at the moment - the aussies haven't since 1999 I believe
