My idea for a multi-tier test system.

[andrew_nixon]

Most people seem to want a two tier test system. However I would go for a four tier system. Two global tiers and then two extra feeder tiers around each of the 5 regions.

The top two tiers would have 6 teams each in them. The top 6 six ranked teams would be in tier 1, with the bottom 4 and the best two associate members in tier 2.

Tiers 3 and 4 would be split over each of the 5 ICC regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas and East-Asia Pacific. Each region would have two tiers of 3 teams each, ie. 30 teams in total.

Teams in tier one would be required to play 3 match test series home and away against each other over a 3 year period. This would be 10 series over 3 years, a lower workload than at present.

Teams in tier two would play 2 match "B-Test" series agianst each other, home and away, over the same 3 year period. B-Test matches would be four day affairs.

There would be no restrictions on two ICC full members playing a Test series against each other, even if the two teams were in different divisions. ie. if Australia were in the top tier, and England were in the 2nd tier, they could still play the Ashes series.

In tier 3, teams would play a 3 day match, under Intercontinental Cup rules, with first class status, home and away against each other in each of the 3 years, ie. each team would play 12 matches in total.

The same would happen in tier 4, but these matches would not have first class status.

After the three years were up points would be tallied and the fourth year would be a "play-off" year.

The top two teams in tier one would play a 3 match series with 6 day tests to determine the world champions.

The bottom team in tier one and the top team in tier two would play a 3 match test series (5 day games) to detiermine any promotion/relegation.

Now it gets a little bit complex.

The bottom team in tier two, and the top team from each regional tier 3 group will play in a 6 team tournament. Teams would be split in two groups of 3, with each group being played at one ground, to save on travel costs. The games would be four day matches, and the top team in each group would play a final. The winner of this tournament would be in tier two for the next 3 years.

The top team in each tier 4 regional group would play off in a 3 day first class game (under intercontinental cup rules) against the bottom team in the appropriate regional group for tier 3.

Any comments?

 

[Trescothick]

It seems more than a little complicated. Are you thinking.....

T1
Australia
England
India
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
South Africa

T2
New Zealand
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Kenya
Namibia

... for tiers 1 and 2? I have no idea what 3 and 4 would look like.


I'm not even in favour of a two-tier system, I don't see a problem with the current one.

 

[andrew_nixon]

It would probably like that for tiers one and two, but I'd have Scotland and Canada as the associate members.

Tier 3, split on regional grounds would probably look like this.

Americas: USA, Bermuda, Argentina
Europe: Ireland, Holland, Denmark
Asia: UAE, Hong Kong, Nepal
Africa: Kenya, Namibia, Uganda
East-Asia Pacific: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga

Tier 4, again split on regional grounds, would probably look like this.

Americas: Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Panama
Europe: Italy, France, Germany
Asia: Malaysia, Singapore, Oman
Africa: Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria

I probably wouldn't have a tier 4 for the East Asia Pacific region, as cricket isn't that strong outside the 3 tier 3 teams.

All the above is based on performances in recent regional tournaments and World Cup qualifiers.

I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the current one, does it not bother you that there is so many walk-over matches involving Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

 

[Trescothick]

I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the current one, does it not bother you that there is so many walk-over matches involving Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

But your system wouldn't combat that, as you said teams would still face teams outside their division?

It's not ideal having Bangladesh and Zimbabwe lagging behind the rest, but I believe they can be good enough. Not to climb the table, but to really compete with WI and NZ.

They're certainly not going to improve by not playing test cricket. To be honest I don't know much about Bangladesh, but I know Zimbabwe have some talented cricketers. They are very young, and inexperienced and need time to learn the game. I don't think there's a better way to do that than by playing the best. The same was true of players like Fidel Edwards and Tino Best last year.

I certainly understand the logic and the sense in your system, and I do believe that a lot more countries should be playing the longer version of the game, I'm just not convinced that's the right way to go.

I'd rather see your tiers 1 and 2 re-worked. The same 10 teams we have now remain in T1, with the points system amended to take into account the quality (points total) of the opposition. The top 4 teams only play teams from 8th (WI) upwards.

The second tier with the likes of Scotland, Canada, Kenya, Namibia, Holland etc play each other, and the top four can play Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Zim & Ban play tests against the best 4 sides from T2 and only the worst four above them in T1. That way they get the experience of playing better sides WI, NZ, SA and Pak, but also the opportunity to compete for victory against similar sides, which will help players a lot.

The "minnows" from T2 get experience against each other, as well as the chance to test themselves against "proper" test sides Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

It's about playing the teams closest to your own standard in both directions.

I think that's the best way for all countries concerned to improve their standard.

 

[andrew_nixon]

But your system wouldn't combat that, as you said teams would still face teams outside their division?

You get that slightly wrong. Teams can play teams outisde their division. They are not required to. If Australia don't want to play Zimbabwe, they don't have to.

They're certainly not going to improve by not playing test cricket.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe still can play Test cricket. Although their matches against New Zealand and West Indies would be 4 day matches, they could still play a Test match or 2 in addition to the 2 4 day games. And as I said above, they could still play Test matches against teams in the top tier.

I'd rather see your tiers 1 and 2 re-worked. The same 10 teams we have now remain in T1, with the points system amended to take into account the quality (points total) of the opposition. The top 4 teams only play teams from 8th (WI) upwards.

The whole point of my system here was to reduce the complexity. That system is even more complex than my system.

 

[Trescothick]

You get that slightly wrong. Teams can play teams outisde their division. They are not required to. If Australia don't want to play Zimbabwe, they don't have to.

Don't you think they'd want to play them though? It's a good morale boost, and nice PR exercise to thump a crap team around for a couple of weeks a year.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe still can play Test cricket. Although their matches against New Zealand and West Indies would be 4 day matches, they could still play a Test match or 2 in addition to the 2 4 day games. And as I said above, they could still play Test matches against teams in the top tier.

That's good.

The whole point of my system here was to reduce the complexity. That system is even more complex than my system.

Yeah, I noticed mine getting more complex the more thought I put into it!

 

[andrew_nixon]

Don't you think they'd want to play them though? It's a good morale boost, and nice PR exercise to thump a crap team around for a couple of weeks a year.

I'm sure they would want to play them. They could play them as a warm up for the championship series.

Yeah, I noticed mine getting more complex the more thought I put into it!

I find it's sometimes best to not think too much.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

But your system wouldn't combat that, as you said teams would still face teams outside their division?

It's not ideal having Bangladesh and Zimbabwe lagging behind the rest, but I believe they can be good enough. Not to climb the table, but to really compete with WI and NZ.

They're certainly not going to improve by not playing test cricket. To be honest I don't know much about Bangladesh, but I know Zimbabwe have some talented cricketers. They are very young, and inexperienced and need time to learn the game. I don't think there's a better way to do that than by playing the best. The same was true of players like Fidel Edwards and Tino Best last year.

I certainly understand the logic and the sense in your system, and I do believe that a lot more countries should be playing the longer version of the game, I'm just not convinced that's the right way to go.

I'd rather see your tiers 1 and 2 re-worked. The same 10 teams we have now remain in T1, with the points system amended to take into account the quality (points total) of the opposition. The top 4 teams only play teams from 8th (WI) upwards.

The second tier with the likes of Scotland, Canada, Kenya, Namibia, Holland etc play each other, and the top four can play Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Zim & Ban play tests against the best 4 sides from T2 and only the worst four above them in T1. That way they get the experience of playing better sides WI, NZ, SA and Pak, but also the opportunity to compete for victory against similar sides, which will help players a lot.

The "minnows" from T2 get experience against each other, as well as the chance to test themselves against "proper" test sides Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

It's about playing the teams closest to your own standard in both directions.

I think that's the best way for all countries concerned to improve their standard.

I like this Idea here, Top Ten play each other, Associates play each other and Zimbabwe and Bangladesh(Maybe Kenya in the future as well) play Best Associate Members and Worst of The Top 10 Teams. Makes good sense. And when Tables change,supposing Bangladesh makes the Top 10, The team(s?) that they overtook take Bangla's place and all drop down. Same with Associates if some go up the table. If a test team becomes weak it plays against the Minnows. Not bad. A test Chapionship can come in play here to allow teams who were in a slump to go back up.

 

[sohum]

The current ICC test championship does take into account the quality of opposition. But since the quality of opposition is based on the rating system, we enter a bit of an imperfect circle. Anyhow, this idea is quite good because it allows more teams to prepare becoming test cricket teams while making sure that the competition levels stay relatively high.

The only problem I can see is that the points table will have to be completely reworked and the ICC 10-year-goals will be ruined because when the tiers start changing depending on ranking, you may have a team who has only played half a series. I guess this is where the can play with other tier teams makes sense but it still does not mean that they have to. The current ICC test championship basically rewrites the stored points everytime a series is scored. For example when India played pakistan in 2003, they earned 3 points and Pakistan earned 1. In the next trip if Pak win 3-0 then those points will be rewritten with Ind-0 and Pak-4. This is where the averaging out to get the rating makes sense--you are expected to play each team over a certain period.

So basically the whole points system will have to be reworked.

 

[andrew_nixon]

The points table would not be too hard to accomplish. 12 points for a win, 4 points for a draw, 6 points for a tie, and perhaps some sort of bonus points system. At the end of the 3 years, total points is divided by number of games played, and you have your table.

I'm not sure what you mean by the tiers changing in the middle of the series. This isn't an issue at all. The original move to a new system wouldn't have much of an effect, but as in future there is a year gap between each of the 3 years the system runs over, this just wouldn't happen.

 

[J.Coney]

what i don't like is teams getting alloted differ'ent amount of games for a series 2 - 5. i think this is the thing that fails any fair system. if a team plays in a large amount of 5 test series they are always improving because they playing more games. i think the icc should implement all teams play in a 3 game seriers no more no less. furthermore each game has a differ'nt point system. game 1. is 3 points a win. 1 point for a loss. game 2. is 4 points for a win 2 points for a loss. game 3 is 5 points a win 3 points a loss. no points in any game for a draw. however a bonus of 3 points for series win.

australia vs eng
example. if australia win game 1 & 2 and lose game 3
Aust points 7 + 3 for the series win 10
Eng points 5 for winning the last game.

you should not reward any team for a draw. it's about entertainment there has to be a winner and there has to be a loser.

 

[angryangy]

There can be more to a draw than simply not playing to win. Furthermore, what is a tie worth?

 

[sohum]

In the current system, since there is one point up for grabs in each match, a tie would be the same as a draw - 0.5 points apiece for that match.

 

[sahil]

Tier 3, split on regional grounds would probably look like this.

Americas: USA, Bermuda, Argentina
Europe: Ireland, Holland, Denmark
Asia: UAE, Hong Kong, Nepal
Africa: Kenya, Namibia, Uganda
East-Asia Pacific: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga

Tier 4, again split on regional grounds, would probably look like this.

Americas: Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Panama
Europe: Italy, France, Germany
Asia: Malaysia, Singapore, Oman
Africa: Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria

what you wanna give these teams test status?

 

[sohum]

In the future, read more carefully.

In tier 3, teams would play a 3 day match, under Intercontinental Cup rules, with first class status, home and away against each other in each of the 3 years, ie. each team would play 12 matches in total.

The same would happen in tier 4, but these matches would not have first class status.

First-class and test-status are a little different.