It will all end in tiers - tiers in Test cricket

[Owzat]

Test cricket: ICC has talks over two-tier structure

A two-tier Test system with promotion and relegation is to be discussed by the International Cricket Council.

The ICC has drafted a plan which would see greater control of world cricket given to the governing bodies of England, Australia and India.

A 21-page "position paper" sent to full members will be discussed at the ICC's executive board meeting on 28-29 January.

It is understood the future of Test cricket is a key issue on the agenda.

They will discuss it at this month's meeting, along with the future of Test cricket and the possibility of a two-tier Test structure.

That system, which would involve promotion and relegation, could potentially allow the likes of associate countries such as Ireland the chance to play Test cricket.

Cricket Ireland has set a target date of 2020 to win approval for inclusion in Test cricket under the ICC's current specifications.

While associate nations may prosper from the chance to win promotion, part of the plan reportedly includes making England, Australia and India immune from relegation.

That would ensure the three most economically powerful nations would be guaranteed to play Test series against each other during each cycle, including the Ashes

BBC Sport - Test cricket: ICC has talks over two-tier structure



I think it is inevitable, the only way forward, but I can see the Test nations not wanting to 'lose' what they have, so if it comes to a vote I can see selfishness take precedence over the greater good.

If they do go this way I hope they will offer non-championship matches so the teams can play each other across the tiers but not counting towards their tier results.

I'd also make sure ODIs are somehow more organised, maybe more mini-tournaments rather than having to squeeze in tours simply to maintain the current ODI schedule

I hope they go with it anyway, refine it if need be and if it absolutely doesn't work, look at an alternative rather than go back. But the current set up can't continue without blocking progress and the inclusion of more teams to the fold.

It needs to be a decision based on CRICKET not on $$$$$ or selfishness. Not sure the protecting the Ashes and 'big three' will help the proposal

 

[blockerdave]

Giles Clarke - the man who brought us Allen Stanford and the current England set up - is one of the driving forces behind this.

I can think of few proposals more damaging. Plenty of the smaller (financial) nations play very little test cricket as it is, and now we're proposing to cut off their most lucrative series why will they play it at all.

One of the most disgusting proposals I have ever seen. I will seriously consider turning my back on cricket if this comes to pass.

 

[barmyarmy]

Ultimately no system is sustainable which guarantees a place at the top table in perpetuity for three sides.
Only 15 years ago England were bottom of the test rankings. Under this system they'd remain in the top tier.

 

[MattW]

Something that needs to be gotten past is test status being permanent. If you don't have a way of ever relegating teams back to associates, then you can't ever accept new test teams, because they'd just be thrown into a bigger pool, left struggling even more to get tours.

The floating of excluding England, India and Australia comes about only because the plans for tiers seem set in the short term.

Promotion/Relegation from tests should be on the scale of a decade of performances, not four years. Being low ranked in a cycle is normal enough - being consistently unable to beat or draw other test teams over an extended period of time would show a systemic problem in a country's cricket structure and ability to produce world class players.

If you set a 'tier' system out with a long enough timeframe, cricket would basically need to die in Australia/England/India for them to be on the verge of relegation. It should never need to come up, because a system that would relegate any nation should be subject to enough balances that it would be right to relegate everyone not meeting that standard.

The amount of test playing teams should be flexible, not a set 'top 8' of test playing nations. If there are 11 countries in the world that can for the most part field a test cricket team that could strongly match the others, great. If there's only 7, that's fine too.

One thing that's a must though is a requirement to all play against each other. You cannot establish a team's skill if they aren't playing enough matches - the comparative amount of tests that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have played essentially already puts them in a second tier.

A future tours program covering about 10 years of tours and tournaments, followed by adjusting the teams to play in the next program based on the result of that and Intercontinental Cup matches would be reasonable.

If you don't have a future tours program requiring teams play each other, you don't just have tiers, you have a tier within the top tier that can totally dictate proceedings. The situation that just occurred with India's tour of South Africa is a dangerous sign of what would be to come if it totally fell to the different boards to make decisions.

Assuming that does happen, because of course it will, then why not give every top associate team a now meaningless test status? Test status must mean test matches, even if it doesn't make good TV - if they can't sell the rights, put it on the web.

I would go slightly in that direction regardless. I think if the teams with ODI status play a first class match against a test team, it should be a test match. If a test team is willing to play the match, why not?

 

[Slowcoach]

This angers me a lot...this tiered crap will make Test cricket even more boring to the average fan because we will just be seeing the same two teams every year...fans love having the chance to see players from all round the world pit their skills against the top teams in the toughest form of the game there is.

Seems keeping teams like Ireland out of Test Cricket is more about not overpacking our FTP than anything to do with adding the richness of the game and giving teams and fans what they deserve.

The schedule is too packed because of IPL crap, not because of too much Test cricket or too many teams.

 

[Skater]

The authorities always look at the big picture. Announce plans for something to happen in about 5 years from now with no real idea of how they are going to deliver them.

My thoughts would be to start off small. Address issues right now. First of all, the farce that is a 2 Test series needs to be abolished. Every series should be at least 3 Tests, and for the prestige series like of course the Ashes and maybe Australia v South Africa they should be 5 Tests.

 

[cricket_icon]

I hope the idea of having tiers in test cricket (which I like) is not overshadowed or hijacked by the absurd proposal of the ICC being run by the BIG THREE...Man sounds like something Star Wars, the Evil Empire LOL

I can't actually believe this is being proposed in a modern sporting environment, it just seems so medieval to me.

 

[swacker]

The two tier test system is fine as long as they put a proper Promotion/Relegation system in place and not just some arbitrary rankings or even more arbitrary system where a committee decides who plays where.

Put in a system where Associate teams can get a chance to promoted to get test status as well.

 

[Owzat]

Something that needs to be gotten past is test status being permanent. If you don't have a way of ever relegating teams back to associates, then you can't ever accept new test teams, because they'd just be thrown into a bigger pool, left struggling even more to get tours.

That's not very forward thinking, "taking away" Test status just reinforces the very dated process of awarding it in the first place, something the ICC should have moved past long before Bangladesh were given Test status.

It reinforces the elitism that Test cricket conveys, as unfortunately does the suggestion of three teams being "protected" which is the worst element of the proposal.

Hopefully discussions can be constructive and no assurances made about any teams, and I hope the voices of those teams who would complete the second tier, assuming it isn't just two divisions of 10, are heard too.

Promotion/Relegation from tests should be on the scale of a decade of performances, not four years. Being low ranked in a cycle is normal enough - being consistently unable to beat or draw other test teams over an extended period of time would show a systemic problem in a country's cricket structure and ability to produce world class players.

It most certainly shouldn't be over 10 years, tiers are meant to reduce the cycle and if you get relegated in four years then you can prove yourself worthy with "a decade of performances" by rectifying it via promotion.

I would go slightly in that direction regardless. I think if the teams with ODI status play a first class match against a test team, it should be a test match. If a test team is willing to play the match, why not?

I've not quoted all of your post, but essentially why would sides play against non-Test sides with no advantage to it?!?!?

Bottom line is TEST cricket needs to recognise that this isn't the 20th Century anymore, or indeed the 19th which is where a lot of its 'values' and set up is rooted. Sports worldwide need to open themselves to a GLOBAL participation, not elitist. A big mistake of recent years was trying to exclude the non-Test playing teams from the World Cup.

Maybe Ireland, Holland, Afghanistan and others aren't strong enough for Tests, but chopping off Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and/or giving two others 'a go' as some might think is the way forward most certainly is not.

Let the teams decide who is and isn't good enough. How? Promotion and relegation determines who plays in the English Premiership in football and most other countries. Sure there are seven ever present teams in England's top flight since 92/93, but teams get their chance and that is the key.

It would be far more interesting than it is now, routinely playing sides like the West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh because you have to, beating them 99 times out of 100 and then moving on to a 'more important' series.

The top sides gain nothing, nor does it help those sides listed. Four years playing sides of their own standard would aid their development, and the pick of the sides pit themselves against the best.

I might lean towards two tiers of seven though, with one automatic promotion and relegation spot, maybe a play-off series between 2nd bottom in the top tier and runners-up of the 2nd tier.

Even if you axed the "weak links" by taking away Test statuses and stuck with the current set up with fewer teams, it would still be an empty "championship". There is no start, no end, just rankings and who is top. Let's have proper World Test Champions decided after home and away matches in a 4-5 year cycle, open it up to everyone (eventually) with promotion.

One of the things that I've loved about cricket in the past 15-20 years is that Durham went from new boys in an outdated structure to champions of the 1st division in a new structure. Talk about zero to hero legends.

I bet plenty were sceptical about switching to two divisions in county cricket, I doubt many would go back. What is the difference between being bottom of a big pile, or bottom of the second tier of two piles half the size? Not a lot. (money I anticipate hearing from somewhere, hell cricket fans worrying about money is just, well words fail me)

----------

The authorities always look at the big picture. Announce plans for something to happen in about 5 years from now with no real idea of how they are going to deliver them.

My thoughts would be to start off small. Address issues right now. First of all, the farce that is a 2 Test series needs to be abolished. Every series should be at least 3 Tests, and for the prestige series like of course the Ashes and maybe Australia v South Africa they should be 5 Tests.

Nice idea, but sides want to fit in seven Tests in a summer/winter and 3+5 <>7. If they could realistically do it, don't you think they would?!?!?

Series aren't decided by the ICC, but agreed by the boards of the sides involved. The only series England would definitely not reduce below 5 Tests is the Ashes, but that would still leave one series that summer/winter, or playing 8 Tests to fit in a 3 Test series.

And the biggest problem with your proposal is that sides want to fit in 3-6 ODIs and at least 1 T20I. Throw all that together.

And why would ANYONE want a 3 Test series with Bangladesh or indeed Zimbabwe? (other than the named sides for $$$$ reasons)

With tiers I think what you're suggesting will inevitably have to be discussed, a proper championship structure with promotion and relegation would have to be standardised otherwise if your points are on Test wins then teams will just play more Tests, or if they are over series and points for series results, then just decide which number best suits you to win.

I mean do you think England would want to play in India over more than maybe 1-2 Tests if they could get away with it? But in England they'd want 3-4 Tests minimum. It would be stupidity of the highest level to bring in tiers and then let sides decide how many Tests to play.

And of course recognising that the England vs Australia series might have to be cut to 3-4 Tests I will add that you could play the full 5 Tests to decide the Ashes, the first 3 Tests to decide the result for Championship purposes.

Got to be two tiers of seven, 3 Tests per series with bonus points for winning 3-0, and one automatic promotion/relegation and a play-off between tiers for the other place

1 : England, Australia, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, New Zealand
2 : West Indies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland, Holland, Afghanistan, TBC

Tier 3 and/or the final tier 2 place to be decided by some competition between members. I would trust the non-Test nations would accept the sides I've nominated as the pick, at least I believe they are the more consistent performers out of the rest, but they could vote to include them in competition if they think they would gain more than they'd lose by insisting.

 

[MattW]

Let the teams decide who is and isn't good enough. How? Promotion and relegation determines who plays in the English Premiership in football and most other countries. Sure there are seven ever present teams in England's top flight since 92/93, but teams get their chance and that is the key.

Test cricket isn't premiership football or county cricket. With both of those, sides can simply recruit their way to the standard created by promotion or relegation - if you're on top in the lower division and get promoted, you use the additional revenue associated with the top level of the sport to attract better players.

You can't do that with international cricket, you're tied to the standard of cricketers a country can produce for itself. That's why cricket can't be a short term 4 year cycle of whether teams are at the elite level or not, there's simply not the chance to establish success at a new level in that time, and if a top tier team was demoted, playing against Kenya and Scotland isn't going to set them up for a return in four years time - it would just entrench it.

A longer cycle weeds out the natural dips in performances and gets to the point of a strong cricket structure. When Zimbabwe had that, they were able to assemble a side that could compete reasonably well with a lot of the other test nations, in their current state, they can't.

Just being numerically the bottom of a fixed size promotion/relegation scheme doesn't reflect the difference in performance. The recent ODI between New Zealand and India for example - they are 1st vs 8th according to the rankings, the match certainly didn't suggest that, and a promotion/relegation shouldn't reflect that.

Deciding it on the basis of a tournament would reflect only the current strength of a side - an upset win in a World Cup is great to see - a competitive side being locked out of top tier cricket for years because of a few matches certainly isn't.

 

[blockerdave]

i disagree with any tier structure whatsoever the fact is if you have a structure where the likes of NZ, WI, Zim, Ban, are cut off from playing tests against India, England, Australia - their most lucrative tours to host - and told to play loss-making series against Ireland, Afghanistan and each other, they are not going to play tests to empty grounds, they will stick to ODI or T20. (Which presumably, they will also still play against "tier one" test teams?

Basically this proposal will kill Test cricket in half of the cricket-playing world. We already have a situation where outside of the Ashes there are no 5 Test series. This will probably mean that outside the Ashes there will be almost no Test cricket at all.

 

[karolkarol]

i disagree with any tier structure whatsoever the fact is if you have a structure where the likes of NZ, WI, Zim, Ban, are cut off from playing tests against India, England, Australia - their most lucrative tours to host - and told to play loss-making series against Ireland, Afghanistan and each other, they are not going to play tests to empty grounds, they will stick to ODI or T20. (Which presumably, they will also still play against "tier one" test teams?

Basically this proposal will kill Test cricket in half of the cricket-playing world. We already have a situation where outside of the Ashes there are no 5 Test series. This will probably mean that outside the Ashes there will be almost no Test cricket at all.

You took the words out of my mouth BD. Currently Ireland play a few showcase ODI's against England and the tourists every year and I am pretty sure in terms of revenue that would secure more than a 3 test series at home to the Netherlands in a Tier 2 showpiece.

Only with the money generated by the touring Indias, Englands and Australias of this world will the smaller countries be able to invest in infrastructure at the very basic level and improve.

These proposals in my eyes completely contradict the ICC principal of spreading cricket around the world. The rich get richer and the poor are cast aside.

 

[sifter132]

Test cricket isn't premiership football or county cricket. With both of those, sides can simply recruit their way to the standard created by promotion or relegation - if you're on top in the lower division and get promoted, you use the additional revenue associated with the top level of the sport to attract better players.

You can't do that with international cricket, you're tied to the standard of cricketers a country can produce for itself. That's why cricket can't be a short term 4 year cycle of whether teams are at the elite level or not, there's simply not the chance to establish success at a new level in that time, and if a top tier team was demoted, playing against Kenya and Scotland isn't going to set them up for a return in four years time - it would just entrench it.

Heartily agree - preach it brother!

 

[Owzat]

Test cricket isn't premiership football or county cricket. With both of those, sides can simply recruit their way to the standard created by promotion or relegation - if you're on top in the lower division and get promoted, you use the additional revenue associated with the top level of the sport to attract better players.

Actually some countries can recruit, if you think all Scotland and Ireland are born and bred Scottish and Irish you're na?ve.

But to cite the transfer possibilities is only taking one angle, and if all clubs/counties didn't bring in new recruits then there wouldn't be a difference so the constant changing factor to try and gain an edge would be negated

You can't do that with international cricket, you're tied to the standard of cricketers a country can produce for itself. That's why cricket can't be a short term 4 year cycle of whether teams are at the elite level or not, there's simply not the chance to establish success at a new level in that time, and if a top tier team was demoted, playing against Kenya and Scotland isn't going to set them up for a return in four years time - it would just entrench it.

A longer cycle weeds out the natural dips in performances and gets to the point of a strong cricket structure. When Zimbabwe had that, they were able to assemble a side that could compete reasonably well with a lot of the other test nations, in their current state, they can't.

People are saying money will improve the weaker sides, nonsense. They'll overpay moderate cricketers and you can't turn a talentless person into a Lara.

The teams need to be playing cricket at the right level, Bangladesh have learned nothing from 10+ years of getting thrashed except how to lose. The money hasn't changed that, the cricket peaks and troughs they experience are typical of any country over a period.



There's no way forward that involves adding or taking away Test nations, and who says Bangladesh have less right to Test status than say Ireland? Noone with the right to dictate it certainly because no one has that right.

Whether you think Test cricket is comparable with other sports/levels that are tier structured, and get a few head in sand clamours of support, or not, is irrelevant. Something needs to change in the structure, there are too many Test sides causing a schedule overload.

Ireland might buck the trend and suddenly become superb, but I doubt it and we'd still have 2-4 countries well below par getting beaten.

Why do you think New Zealand have been in Test cricket donkeys years and are still regularly beaten by top sides? It is like putting a conference side in the top division, transfers possible or otherwise, they are going to get beaten most times regardless if they win or draw the odd game.

Just being numerically the bottom of a fixed size promotion/relegation scheme doesn't reflect the difference in performance. The recent ODI between New Zealand and India for example - they are 1st vs 8th according to the rankings, the match certainly didn't suggest that, and a promotion/relegation shouldn't reflect that.

Sides can perform above/below themselves producing a close contest, doesn't mean that over a period of time tables somehow lie

Deciding it on the basis of a tournament would reflect only the current strength of a side - an upset win in a World Cup is great to see - a competitive side being locked out of top tier cricket for years because of a few matches certainly isn't.

There is no other fair way of doing it, you have to go on current strength. Current form is what makes any sport interesting, and with tiers a team has a chance to find their form and bounce back.

Perhaps you believe we should play the World Cup over 1000s of games and over decades, it's much the same thing. It is a TOURNAMENT/COMPETITION, they are meant to last a limited cycle before you have another, then another, then another.

It is also only right to let everyone have at least a chance to participate, that's why the FA Cup has qualifying rounds, that is why the ICC u-turned and let the non-Test nations back into the World Cup, that's why World Cup qualifying in football is open to all nations and current form decides who goes to a World Cup or not.

Somehow everyone wants cricket to be special by being elitist, cricket isn't special and most people I know knock it whenever cricket comes up in any discussion. You should worry more about it dying out because heads are in sand than about the possible "consequences" of tiers which is actually positive despite a lot trying to make it out to be the end of the world - a bit like those that said T20 would kill the dinosaur that is Test cricket. And in fairness it is a dinosaur in terms of its evolution, barely changed (significantly) at the supposed top level since its inception (the top level's inception that is).

No doubt you'll pick on minor points as if that disproves what I'm saying, you'd be better off grouping with the nay sayers and starting a petition. Sadly you and others are living in the (distant) past, while I don't like change for change's sake, this is necessary and IMPROVEMENT

----------

You took the words out of my mouth BD. Currently Ireland play a few showcase ODI's against England and the tourists every year and I am pretty sure in terms of revenue that would secure more than a 3 test series at home to the Netherlands in a Tier 2 showpiece.

Only with the money generated by the touring Indias, Englands and Australias of this world will the smaller countries be able to invest in infrastructure at the very basic level and improve.


These proposals in my eyes completely contradict the ICC principal of spreading cricket around the world. The rich get richer and the poor are cast aside.

Nonsense. The ICC can distribute the wealth to make sure money is spent on the right things, TV money can be shared, everything can be. It's na?ve to think that attendance and TV money can only go to those involved in the game.

----------

This will all stumble anyway I'm sure, the ICC inclusion of "greater control" for ECB, CA and BCCI has already made CSA object

BBC Sport - Test cricket: CSA asks ICC to withdraw 'flawed' proposal

Test cricket: CSA asks ICC to withdraw 'flawed' proposal
Cricket South Africa has called on the International Cricket Council to withdraw the 'fundamentally flawed' proposal to give England, Australia and India greater control of the sport.

As short sighted as a fair few views in here, just because they don't agree with elements of it doesn't mean it should be scrapped. That's the whole point of the word DRAFT, it is to be discussed, refined and FINAL drafts be submitted for agreement (or rejected somewhere along the line)

Makes me laugh, about the only remotely interesting series in recent times were one sided, Test cricket as a championship and generally is pretty dull, but people want to keep it as it is, and think letting Ireland come in, maybe at the expense of Bangladesh, is a good idea!

Trust me, if it doesn't end in tiers then Ireland will be left waiting for years. The mere fact the ICC is looking at tiers should tell everyone that they are looking for an alternative to awarding more teams Test status and indeed equally not looking to take it away.

I wouldn't be too sure about the reaction of the Asian teams if Bangladesh were stripped of Test status, few cared when Zimbabwe struggled through the wilderness and certainly there is/was little support for how they are financially, their struggles etc, but Ireland are the new favourites of some

 

[MattW]

Actually some countries can recruit, if you think all Scotland and Ireland are born and bred Scottish and Irish you're na?ve.

But to cite the transfer possibilities is only taking one angle, and if all clubs/counties didn't bring in new recruits then there wouldn't be a difference so the constant changing factor to try and gain an edge would be negated

Born and Bred no - but they have some degree of attachment to the country to be eligible to play for the country, just like every other sport that is played on the basis of nationality. But you don't and wouldn't see the best of the New Zealand team spread out and play for all the other countries that remain in the top tier if they were relegated, and thus maintain their skill level and match fitness against the top tier competition.

In football, the top levels of club competition are comparable to international matches. I'd suggest in cricket a top IPL team would probably beat most of the international T20 sides - but there's no equivalent for test cricket, so there's no avenue to take for a cricketer in a relegated national team to keep playing at a test level.

Something needs to change in the structure, there are too many Test sides causing a schedule overload.

When the current FTP has England playing 30 tests against Australia and 4 tests against Bangladesh over 10 years, I'm not sure the number of test teams is what's causing a schedule overload.

Why do you think New Zealand have been in Test cricket donkeys years and are still regularly beaten by top sides? It is like putting a conference side in the top division, transfers possible or otherwise, they are going to get beaten most times regardless if they win or draw the odd game.

So what good would putting New Zealand in a second tier and consistently thrashing all of their competition do?

If you go by the ICC's test ranking table, there is a very clear drop off after New Zealand. There is a top 8 in test cricket, with the next drop off of any significance between Pakistan and Sri Lanka to leave you with a top 5. New Zealand aren't orders of magnitude worse than the West Indies.

I can't think of anything worse than a series between the bottom two teams on the verge of relegation - the side on top would have no reason to not play extremely negative and defensive cricket to get a draw to maintain their position - why would you take risks and play for the win if the downside is falling to a lower tier if taking the risk means you might lose?

The retrospective application of the ICC's ranking system is interesting. If you did it based on Test rankings after the 1999 World Cup, the team in 8th place you would have demoted to the second tier ended up being ranked 6th by the time of the 2003 World Cup and were 2nd by the end of 2005. But because you've demoted them, they were never given that chance to perform against test teams and would instead have been pushed further down in strength because they'd have spent 4 years playing against weak competition, and assuming they got promoted (again, you'd play extremely negative cricket if you were the side that had to just draw to maintain their place in the top 7) they'd have had to rebuild again from the bottom.

Perhaps you believe we should play the World Cup over 1000s of games and over decades, it's much the same thing. It is a TOURNAMENT/COMPETITION, they are meant to last a limited cycle before you have another, then another, then another.

If only the teams that made it to the Top 8 of the football World cup were able to play matches that counted as 'internationals' - I'd certainly be against that.

But it doesn't - the World Cup only shows the current form of the national teams - giving the best some recognition, without having an impact on their ability to play matches at the elite level in the years between World Cups. We should certainly have a test championship playoff to award the 'best' test team, but test status shouldn't depend on it.

It is also only right to let everyone have at least a chance to participate, that's why the FA Cup has qualifying rounds, that is why the ICC u-turned and let the non-Test nations back into the World Cup, that's why World Cup qualifying in football is open to all nations and current form decides who goes to a World Cup or not.

Which is why my preference is to let non-test nations play matches against test sides that are considered Test matches.

I would see them replacing the role of tour matches - instead of a side touring England playing a match against a county side, they could play a Test against Ireland; a country going to the UAE to play Pakistan could play a Test against Afghanistan as well.

Performances in those kind of matches could then demonstrate a team's ability to play tests and if a side that starts to bridge the gap with the lowest ranked test side they could be included in the next FTP.

No doubt you'll pick on minor points as if that disproves what I'm saying, you'd be better off grouping with the nay sayers and starting a petition. Sadly you and others are living in the (distant) past, while I don't like change for change's sake, this is necessary and IMPROVEMENT.

"Let's drop New Zealand as well!" is hardly a leap into a modern era of cricket.