ICC planning two Test divisions, revision of full membership criteria *UPDATE* Also ODI League

[The Speaker]

Promotion and relegation could be introduced into Test cricket as early as 2019, if ICC chief executive David Richardson has his way. Richardson admitted that Test cricket required added "meaning and context" if it is to survive and revealed that the ICC hopes to unveil plans for the introduction of two divisions and, potentially, a number of new Test nations within the next few weeks.

Speaking to promote the 2017 Champions Trophy, Richardson also confirmed an intention to stage an extra World T20 tournament in 2018. The event would, he said, involve "a minimum of 16 teams" and be staged in either South Africa, Sri Lanka or the UAE. The final decision over the event's go-ahead will be made by the ICC's broadcasting partner, Star.

But it was the plans to reinvigorate Test cricket that were the most eye-catching and radical. Accepting the diminishing returns of current bilateral series, Richardson offered the prospect of Test status to the likes of Nepal, Ireland and Afghanistan, but warned more established nations - notably West Indies - that they could find themselves playing Division Two cricket if they are unable to improve their red-ball form.

...

Richardson also suggested that membership rules could be changed, to decouple Test status and Full Membership.

"We're reviewing the criteria for Full Membership, which will enable countries like Ireland and Afghanistan to become Full Members. But we don't want to link it to Test cricket. The competition structure is set separate to membership status. It's about voting or funding opportunities."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1022445.html

Most of this article is basically good news, and confirmation that Richardson was the mouthpiece for Srini, Clarke and Edwards when they took over. Now that someone who actually cares about cricket is in charge, he can care about cricket too.

M A N O H A R
A
N
O
H
A
R

 

[The_Reaper]

The annoying thing is that there are 6 teams that deserve to be in division 1.

Would hate for one of them to miss out

Will hasten the death of the Windies

 

[The Speaker]

The annoying thing is that there are 6 teams that deserve to be in division 1.

Would hate for one of them to miss out

Will hasten the death of the Windies

Given the plan is to have seven teams in div 1 I don't think that will be an issue. This season of the ICup finishes next year, so they'll probably make it that the top two teams (as if they'll be anyone other than Ireland and Afghanistan) are promoted to div 2.

The Windies are more or less a walking corpse in anything that isn't T20 at this point. This will actually make it easier for them to do the right thing and split them up.

 

[The_Reaper]

Given the plan is to have seven teams in div 1 I don't think that will be an issue. This season of the ICup finishes next year, so they'll probably make it that the top two teams (as if they'll be anyone other than Ireland and Afghanistan) are promoted to div 2.

The Windies are more or less a walking corpse in anything that isn't T20 at this point. This will actually make it easier for them to do the right thing and split them up.

Well Irish and Afghanistan test status is a good thing.

Hopefully there continues to be pro/rel so hypothetically Namibia or Nepal (just to pick two random teams) might be able to earn test status without having to go through the crap Ireland has had to

 

[SwampCreature]

Will never work. Will go the way of the test championship, an embarrassing failure to launch.

If it does comes in it will only last until India refuses to be relegated, when it will then fall apart.

 

[corbies]

I think this would be great if there is some sort of table and an actual winner at the end but a test championship/divisions has been announced that many times only for nothing to come of it that I am not getting my hopes up.

The weirdest thing about that article is the intention to play a t20 world cup in 2018 before the one in Australia in 2020. Why? Just why? (in b4 $$$$$).

 

[SwampCreature]

Why? Just why? (in b4 $$$$$).

You answered your own question.

They announced taking the 20/20 WC to 4 years about the same time as the last test championship I think.

Then the cheques for the last one started coming in and, well, here we are.

The might even demand the 2020 be shifted from Aus to India. It happened in 2011.

 

[The_Reaper]

Will never work. Will go the way of the test championship, an embarrassing failure to launch.

If it does comes in it will only last until India refuses to be relegated, when it will then fall apart.

India will never be relegated.

 

[The Speaker]

If enough countries get to the point where India is in danger of relegation, then cricket would actually be in quite good health.

 

[Cleavy]

no faith in the ICC making this work.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Well, if this doesn't kill off smaller nations test ambitions I would be highly surprised. No chance of playing tests that bring in money (not that Zim or Ban get many chances anyway), good bye to the idea of even fielding a Test team.
We were in danger of going back to five or six Test nations in the next decade or so anyway, this would hasten and ensure the demise of some.

Simply put, the second division isn't Test cricket anyway. Test cricket is the ultimate, you cannot have a second tier. Its basically relegating some nations to the Intercontinental Cup and relabelling the games, albeit with a (probably unrealistic if India, Australia or England look like being relegated) prospect of promotion thrown in.

 

[The Speaker]

Well, if this doesn't kill off smaller nations test ambitions I would be highly surprised. No chance of playing tests that bring in money (not that Zim or Ban get many chances anyway), good bye to the idea of even fielding a Test team.
We were in danger of going back to five or six Test nations in the next decade or so anyway, this would hasten and ensure the demise of some.

Depends on whether they decide on another funding model.

 

[The_Reaper]

Link bilateral test series to bilateral ODI series.

That gives Sri Lanka and the like the incentive

 

[JackOutback]

Well, if this doesn't kill off smaller nations test ambitions I would be highly surprised. No chance of playing tests that bring in money (not that Zim or Ban get many chances anyway), good bye to the idea of even fielding a Test team.
We were in danger of going back to five or six Test nations in the next decade or so anyway, this would hasten and ensure the demise of some.

Simply put, the second division isn't Test cricket anyway. Test cricket is the ultimate, you cannot have a second tier. Its basically relegating some nations to the Intercontinental Cup and relabelling the games, albeit with a (probably unrealistic if India, Australia or England look like being relegated) prospect of promotion thrown in.

A legitimate concern, but one possible solution would be to leave time in the calendars for series that don't fit into the championships. This would not only allow rivals to stage additional series, but also teams from both divisions to play each other. Give the second tier teams something to look to.

 

[Weagleman]

Love the idea of a relegation test format, for starters in makes bottom or close to bottom teams more accountable for the growth and improvement of cricket in it's region, and gives associate level nations the ability of playing test cricket. I would rather have divisions of test cricket so all countries can play tbh.

 

[SwampCreature]

Don't kid yourselves: this isn't about growing the game, this is about ensuring countries like India, Aus and Eng don't have to play non-profitable test series against teams lije Bang, WI etc.

Just chuck them in another division and say "look, we're growing the game."

 

[The Speaker]

Don't kid yourselves: this isn't about growing the game, this is about ensuring countries like India, Aus and Eng don't have to play non-profitable test series against teams lije Bang, WI etc.

Just chuck them in another division and say "look, we're growing the game."

porque no los dos

 

[melanChronic]

How would promotion/relegation work? I would have it like this:

Bottom placed 1st Division side plays a series against the top Division 2 side, and the Division 2 side gets to host the series. Could even have Div 1 2nd lowest plays Div 2 2nd as well. Movement between divisions must be encouraged. These could be run in conjunction with the 1st Division final series.

 

[The Speaker]

Another new proposal: a 13 team ODI league over three years - much like the already existing World Cricket League - with 36 ODIs per team across the three years.

Plans are well-advanced to create a new league from 2019 for 13 nations - believed to be the ten Test teams, Afghanistan, Ireland and one other Associate, with Nepal reportedly a favoured option. The league will see all countries play each other over three years, with the top two nations playing a play-off series to determine the overall winner of the ODI league.

It is hoped that the proposals will give ODI cricket a new context and sense of purpose, amid fears that the format fits awkwardly between Test and Twenty20 cricket, insufficiently loved either by traditionalists or newer fans.

Under the plans, each team would play a three-match series, either home or away, against every other country, amounting to 36 ODIs each over a three-year basis. The fourth year of each cycle would be reserved for World Cup preparation.

It is envisaged that the ODI league would progress towards a play-off series, likely to be either three matches or five, to determine the overall winner, giving bilateral ODI cricket a global showpiece it has previously lacked.

The system, if adopted, would also be used to determine automatic qualification, and seedings, for the World Cup. The side finishing bottom after three years would face relegation to the World Cricket League Championship, the second tier of one-day cricket, possibly after a play-off with the winners of the World Cricket League Championship.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1027577.html

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

How would promotion/relegation work? I would have it like this:

Bottom placed 1st Division side plays a series against the top Division 2 side, and the Division 2 side gets to host the series. Could even have Div 1 2nd lowest plays Div 2 2nd as well. Movement between divisions must be encouraged. These could be run in conjunction with the 1st Division final series.

It would work so that if India, Australia or England looked like they might be relegated there would be no relegation that time around.

 

[eth-dog]

If they're going to split it into 2 groups of 6 (with both Afghanistan and Ireland coming in) then probably something like:

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

Would work. Think there's a big enough difference between Sri Lanka and Pakistan that it's clear cut.

 

[The Speaker]

Another new proposal: international tv rights for bilateral series to go in a common pool.

A radical shake-up to the existing ecosystem of selling television rights is under discussion by Full Members and will be examined further at the ICC's annual conference in Edinburgh later this month. The change, one part of a broader reworking of cricket's international calendar, is aimed at giving member boards better value for their television rights in overseas markets. If implemented, a new model could see boards take greater control than broadcasters of monetising the value of bilateral cricket as well as its promotion and visibility in untapped markets.

The crux of the proposal, made at the ICC chief executives committee meeting in April, is this: once the current cycle of television rights ends for respective Full Members, each board will continue to sell rights for its home territory and avail of those profits entirely as is already the case. But each board will place the rights to telecast its home series in overseas markets in a common pool into which other boards will also put those rights. The rights in the common pool will then be sold collectively as bundles by a committee of Full Members and the profits will be divided and distributed in certain percentages to the contributing boards.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1027619.html

 

[SwampCreature]

I have no idea what any of that really means, but I assume it means India makes more money that way?

 

[The Speaker]

I have no idea what any of that really means, but I assume it means India makes more money that way?

In the sense that it will create money where there was none before, because it means that broadcasters would have to buy a package of different international bilateral series if they want to show any of them.

So if Sky wants to show a theoretical Australia vs New Zealand series in the UK, they would also have to buy the rights to Sri Lanka vs Pakistan and Bangladesh vs South Africa, and all of those boards would receive their slice of the revenue, whereas currently Sky might only buy the rights to one of those series, leaving the other two unaired in the UK.

 

[JackOutback]

In the sense that it will create money where there was none before, because it means that broadcasters would have to buy a package of different international bilateral series if they want to show any of them.

So if Sky wants to show a theoretical Australia vs New Zealand series in the UK, they would also have to buy the rights to Sri Lanka vs Pakistan and Bangladesh vs South Africa, and all of those boards would receive their slice of the revenue, whereas currently Sky might only buy the rights to one of those series, leaving the other two unaired in the UK.

I imagine that would actually decrease revenue in terms of the most popular series. Using your example, if Sky was going to pay X for the Australia vs New Zealand series, they are not going to pay substantially more for series they have little to no interest in. They might pay a little more for the package which, when shared among all the nations, would probably mean less for Australia and New Zealand, more for Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. Now that might be counterbalanced but he fact that Australia and New Zealand pick up revenue in other markets where they weren't going to be shown, but for big nations like Australia and India, it would probably mean less overall, since their series are already picked up in most cricketing regions.