Test cricket Tiers?

[sami ullah khan]

Nah, I don't think we need tiering. Test cricket is as healthy as a bison atm.

 

[angryangy]

Don't pretend that's not already how it works. Australia have played 5 away matches against Pakistan in the last 10 years, one third of the number of Tests played in England in that time. The Ashes of course follows a slightly irregular 4 year calendar, but currently Australia and South Africa are running their double tour extravaganza on a 3 year cycle. For old friends New Zealand and West Indies, they can manage to tour about once every 5 years, but Australia has toured neither Sri Lanka nor Bangladesh in six years, a period in which they have toured India thrice.

 

[War]

Well to be fair with AUS with their tours to Pakistan. Since 1998 with the 9/11 attacks, their 2002 to PAK had to be relocated to UAE & SRI when nobody wanted to go to Asia - not just PAK.

Then when PAK camned down between 2004-2008 & everyone toured them, AUS just didn't have any tours to PAK scheduled then. AUS next scheduled national tour to PAK in 2008, then had to be postponed since the terror threat their esclated again. Since IIRC an Australia (A) team toured PAK in late 2005.

 

[angryangy]

No tour scheduled between 2002 and 2008 is a mere case in point. They don't shun them like Zimbabwe, but they don't prioritise it.

 

[Owzat]

LOL, that series was two high scoring draws and the India smashed NZ. That's not excitement

I have to agree.

And I find it funny someone included the aussies in the top tier and cast poor old Sri Lanka aside into the bottom tier - Sri Lanka have only lost one series in their last 10, England have lost three and the aussies four! But the main objections seem to be :

How do the weaker sides improve? Well by playing other weaker sides, getting thrashed heavily is not a good way to improve. You're better off playing someone around your level, it is testing and to beat the other sides around your level then you have to improve. It also avoids having confidence destroyed, had Bangladesh played West Indies, Zimbabwe and say Ireland and Scotland instead of getting beaten heavily by the likes of England, Sri Lanka etc then maybe they'd be a better side now.

There might not be Ashes or similar rivalries Well frankly if the Ashes are one sided then I see no great gain in playing them. The best Ashes are closely fought, the Ashes of 06/07 and 10/11 were not the best and in fact 06/07 was rather direly one-sided. I can't see the aussies staying down for that long.

Besides, when did anyone say that a tier-system meant you couldn't have other series? Reduce the number of sides in the top and bottom tier means less matches in a Championship and there might be scope for those Ashes to be squeezed in.



The Test 'structure' at the moment lacks a proper Championship, it is merely who is ranked top side at any given time with no set number of Tests per series and series still arranged by the respective boards and not by the ICC in a structured manner. England waste so much time playing and beating West Indies, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and Bangladesh (no offence) I don't mind the series from a pure cricketing point of view, but as a contest they aren't normally even close with the four combined inflcting like one series defeat on England since what, 1999? If that isn't pointless cricket then what is?

England vs BAN/NZE/WIN/ZIM (99/00-10/11)

TESTS

vs BAN : P8 W8 D0 L0 (Won 100%)
vs NZE : P12 W8 D2 L2 (Won 67%)
vs WIN : P23 W15 D6 L2 (Won 65%)
vs ZIM : P4 W3 D1 L0 (Won 75%)

Total : P47 W34 D9 L4 (Won 72%)

SERIES

vs BAN : P4 W4 D0 L0 (Won 100%)
vs NZE : P4 W3 D1 L0 (Won 75%)
vs WIN : P6 W5 D0 L1 (Won 83%)
vs ZIM : P2 W2 D0 L0 (Won 100%)

Total : P16 W14 D1 L1 (Won 88%)

Sorry but in what universe is that anything other than going through the motions?!?!?! One series defeat inflicted by West Indies in West Indies in a dour series decided by one England collapse of epic proportions. The win percentages are ridiculous, only FOUR defeats suffered in 47 Tests makes for predictability, it isn't even like the series are close most of the time.

I'm sure the other top Test nations have similar records, perhaps it is time boards and fans moved away from their comfort zone and appreciated that while the 'elitist' set-up of Test cricket remains, as in 'by invitation only', then cricket will never become a major sport. But then why not remain selfish and assume that it is best to keep it as it is, make sure the series we want are protected and ignore the possibilities tier cricket could bring. How about having Ireland and Scotland, Kenya and Holland etc come into the fold? Because a Tier system would pave the way for that, and if they are pitched at the right level then they may make it up the tiers and England vs Scotland could be a Test series at some point (through England being weak or Scotland strong)

I think with Bangladesh struggling and the excess of fixtures, not least because T20 is increasing in its presence, the ICC are simply not prepared to bring in more Test nations. Maybe if the structure was better then those sides wouldn't be denied. Some on here just seem to wallow in the pity of what might happen to a precious little series and ignore the bigger picture. You won't get new people interested in cricket while it is only open to a few countries, by invitation only, and some of the cricket is just played for the sake of it - and the past. West Indies vs England is not the fixture it once was, while some may enjoy mismatches, they are all too dull and predictable. A new tier system in itself would bring more excitement and unpredictability than a lot of series, I for one would love to see how some of the better non-Test nations would fare against Bangladesh, West Indies and Zimbabwe in particular.

----------

Don't pretend that's not already how it works. Australia have played 5 away matches against Pakistan in the last 10 years, one third of the number of Tests played in England in that time. The Ashes of course follows a slightly irregular 4 year calendar, but currently Australia and South Africa are running their double tour extravaganza on a 3 year cycle. For old friends New Zealand and West Indies, they can manage to tour about once every 5 years, but Australia has toured neither Sri Lanka nor Bangladesh in six years, a period in which they have toured India thrice.

The aussies have maintained that Pakistan isn't safe to tour, hence why they played a series in England last year I think it was.

The aussies don't play Bangladesh much, England have played the Bangladeshis in eight Tests over four series, the aussies have played themj in just four Tests over two series and not since 05/06. So aussies opposing a tier-system already shun some countries - they've only ever played Zimbabwe in three Tests, the last in 03/04 but that's three Tests in 12 years between Zimbabwe becoming a Test side in 1992 and their last series (against the aussies)

Australia and England play West Indies so much because of tradition, the word I couldn't think of when I said "and the past". But that tradition will fade given time as the West Indies continue to. England now play four Tests instead of a regular 5-6 against West Indies, it isn't the same intensity of fixture, and even shorter series have been played and may be in the future.

I am half expecting the Asian teams to break away at some point, maybe that is the one danger of a tier-system with the three main Asian sides likely to be split. Will India and Sri Lanka mind so much not playing Pakistan? Well India might not, they've played Pakistan in just 16 series since the first back in 52/53

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Really good points Owzat, unfortunatly, the proposal about Scotland, Ireland, Hollant etc won't work.

It's easy to forget and think test status is allocated to teams based on quality but it's not. Bangladesh are a test nation because they can run a sustainable FC cricket, because there is scope for expansion (because the economy is developing), an interested public etc etc.

Ireland and scotland are not test nations because we have no FC competition, we could not run one that would get close to breaking even, the public are apathetic towards the sport, participation and spectatorship are low and our potential for development is poor.

We could not afford to be a test nation, nothing to do with talent, but our team is made up of people with full-time jobs, they can't take a month off to go to South Africa, and then another 2 months for a world cup, and then another 2 months while India tour. cricket scotland can afford to pay 2 full-time cricketers, and it will be looooooow wages, and we certainly can't afford to send 20 people to australia, put them up in hotels for 2 months and feed them and provide them with equipment and training facilities.

as it is, we have to make do with the nations we have. Kenya possibly could sustain a cricket team, I don't know though.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Ireland and scotland are not test nations because we have no FC competition, we could not run one that would get close to breaking even, the public are apathetic towards the sport, participation and spectatorship are low and our potential for development is poor.

This confuses me Stinky - why are England, Scotland, Wales etc treated as different nations when it comes to sport? You all have the same central government, same nationality etc, so why such difference in sporting culture?

 

[MUFC1987]

How do the weaker sides improve? Well by playing other weaker sides, getting thrashed heavily is not a good way to improve. You're better off playing someone around your level, it is testing and to beat the other sides around your level then you have to improve. It also avoids having confidence destroyed, had Bangladesh played West Indies, Zimbabwe and say Ireland and Scotland instead of getting beaten heavily by the likes of England, Sri Lanka etc then maybe they'd be a better side now.

Totally disagree with this. How would Bangladesh (in your example) become better by thumping Scotland all the time? That is rubbish. They'd become better than Scotland, sure, but they already are. The only way you improve is to Test yourself against better opposition. Sure, it might result in getting beaten, but you learn more from a batsman scoring 50 against Australia, than you do the same batsman scoring 250 against Scotland. Bangladesh are becoming a lot better at ODI cricket because of that exposure to the best teams, in tricky conditions, not because they rout Afghanistan on a dust bowl at home every other week.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

This confuses me Stinky - why are England, Scotland, Wales etc treated as different nations when it comes to sport? You all have the same central government, same nationality etc, so why such difference in sporting culture?

it stems from football and rugby. the first ever international in football was between scotland and england, there were regional leagues in england and scotland (because travelling in the early amatuer times of the game wouldn't be practical) scotland issued a challenge to england in a paper, england accepted and the first ever international was formed.

I think it has a lot to do with lots of sports being invented in britain (rugby, cricket, tennis, football, baseball (yep), golf, snooker) and in the early days scotland, wales and englands natural rivalry was a motivating factor in playing them. so when we formed sporting bodies we formed our own seperate ones and they stuck. UEFA famously wants us to join and become a UK team because they think that's proper (also, there are political power reasons as well but we'll leave them) but we refuse.

Altough cricket scotland was not formed that way, we seperated from the ECB fairly recently to keep with the tradition of having seperate sporting bodies from england.

 

[Brook]

This confuses me Stinky - why are England, Scotland, Wales etc treated as different nations when it comes to sport? You all have the same central government, same nationality etc, so why such difference in sporting culture?

Also the weather in Scotland is so bad that cricket doesn't ever get a look in because it's so impractical. Not to mention Scotland has a much smaller population than England.

 

[War]

it stems from football and rugby. the first ever international in football was between scotland and england, there were regional leagues in england and scotland (because travelling in the early amatuer times of the game wouldn't be practical) scotland issued a challenge to england in a paper, england accepted and the first ever international was formed.

I think it has a lot to do with lots of sports being invented in britain (rugby, cricket, tennis, football, baseball (yep), golf, snooker) and in the early days scotland, wales and englands natural rivalry was a motivating factor in playing them. so when we formed sporting bodies we formed our own seperate ones and they stuck. UEFA famously wants us to join and become a UK team because they think that's proper (also, there are political power reasons as well but we'll leave them) but we refuse.

Altough cricket scotland was not formed that way, we seperated from the ECB fairly recently to keep with the tradition of having seperate sporting bodies from england.

Ye basically. But sometimes i do wish FIFA would/could have made the home nations play as one UK team, like they do in the olympics though.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Ye basically. But sometimes i do wish FIFA would/could have made the home nations play as one UK team, like they do in the olympics though.

I always wondered if you were australian or english.

so, australian I guess.

 

[War]

I always wondered if you were australian or english.

so, australian I guess.

Ha no sir, im 100% English. Just that sometimes in the recent past with Welch players especially like Giggs in the 90s, it was obvious that it was a great shame he couldn't play for ENG instead of Wales who will never have a international future.

While over the next decade the same disappointment will repeat itself with Gareth Bale & Aaron Ramsey.

So i guess i have no problem with Scotland having their own national team (although i love to have Darren Fletcher in England's midfield these days). But Wales are wasting time having a national team.

 

[Themer]

But Wales are wasting time having a national team.

Bollocks.

I never want to see a united UK team unless its in the Olympics.

 

[War]

You do realise Wales haven't qualified for a world cup since 1958 & no EURO since 1976 right?

Wales are as useless a EURO football nation unfortunately as San Marino, Albania, Luxemborg, Liechtenstein, Latvia,, B & H, Cyrpus, Estonia, Montenegro, Faroe Islands, Lithuania, Andorra, Albania, Malta, Georgia, Moldova.

The few star players they have are better of playing for ENG.