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

[cricketnut14]

2 divisions for test cricket - don't we already have that, without making it official ?

australia last played bangladesh in a test in 2006 and zimbabwe in 2003.

whether its 7/5 or 6/6 format, movement would only be between south africa, sri lanka, pakistan, new zealand (and possibly west indies and bangladesh).

not sure these countries would be interested in such.

one thing is for certain, we do need more context and meaning towards test cricket, we just need to find the solution.


for the odi league, if the 36 odi's are played over 3 years, and we have a winner, is there a point in having the world cup?

don't like the 12 x 3 odi's format as it would not be home and away - aust v nepal etc in australia - ummm i don't think so.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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

The BCCI are not, as yet, a party to this. Its been cooked up by a few other boards.

 

[The_Reaper]

Oddly enough this seems pushed by people with a genuine interest in the welfare of the game beyond T20 leagues.

It seems Nepal is the 13th team because out of the associates they actually do have a cricket loving population

 

[Wallaby]

One of the issues here is stats. Cricket has a love affair with statistics - it always has, and it's part of the problem for the smaller nations.

Other sports - soccer, rugby, water polo, you name it - they have no problem playing matches between number 1 and number 100 in the world. That's how number 100 gets better. No one cares when Australia play Samoa at Rugby (except when they beat us).

But because cricket has its stats, purists decry games against the smaller nations as 'artificially boosting the career stats' (see Tendulkar and Murali for examples). Hayden made his 380 against Zimbabwe. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have played in less than 10% of all test matches played, but between them they have 10 of the 20 biggest innings defeats. (You know when Bradman slaughtered India in 1947/48, up to that point, India had only played 10 tests, all against England, been thrashed 6 times and had 4 rainy draws? Great way to pad the average, Don!).

Now, stats ARE a huge part cricket history - look at any argument over 'A was better than B' and you will see the stats analysed to ridiculous levels - 'Only scored big in dead rubbers/on flat tracks/in 3rd innings to set a declaration' etc. We need to keep that history and relevance - even if only for the pub/BF conversations. It's part of cricket culture. Think of the important numbers - 19/90, 99.94, 51 centuries, the 50+ average - these are iconic.

But it doesn't matter how many times Australia play Norfolk Island or England play some random Scandinavian outpost - it doesn't lessen the importance or quality of an Australia-England series. That remains. What we lose is the stats comparisons because certain players have made 500 and taken 8/8 against Norfolk Island.

We need to either:

a) Forget stats entirely
b) Work out what are A-class and B-class stats (Two-tier cricket, where the top sides wont play the lower sides)
c) Treat all stats equally - and that's going to take a culture shift.

 

[The Speaker]

I personally have no issue with all limited overs internationals being counted as T20Is/ODIs.

 

[Sammo360]

2 divisions for test cricket - don't we already have that, without making it official ?

australia last played bangladesh in a test in 2006 and zimbabwe in 2003.

whether its 7/5 or 6/6 format, movement would only be between south africa, sri lanka, pakistan, new zealand (and possibly west indies and bangladesh).

not sure these countries would be interested in such.

one thing is for certain, we do need more context and meaning towards test cricket, we just need to find the solution.


for the odi league, if the 36 odi's are played over 3 years, and we have a winner, is there a point in having the world cup?

don't like the 12 x 3 odi's format as it would not be home and away - aust v nepal etc in australia - ummm i don't think so.

I think the idea is to spread the ODI league over the 3 year non World Cup period to give those games more purpose and context. It can be cricket's version of the English Premier League. The ODI league won't be played in the World Cup year.

 

[Grandsun]

Will the ashes still happen?

 

[The_Reaper]

Will the ashes still happen?

Yes

 

[Sammo360]

The BCCI are not, as yet, a party to this. Its been cooked up by a few other boards.

News out today.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/1041749.html

"The BCCI is against the two-tier Test system because the smaller countries will lose out and the BCCI wants to take care of them," Thakur told the New Indian Express. "It is necessary to protect their interests."

 

[SwampCreature]

I guess they figured they couldn't support sonething which might see them relegated.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

News out today.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/1041749.html

"The BCCI is against the two-tier Test system because the smaller countries will lose out and the BCCI wants to take care of them," Thakur told the New Indian Express. "It is necessary to protect their interests."

From memory my comment was about the revenue sharing, not the two tiered system. Another thing raised was to pool (away team) TV money, in order to distribute more evenly among nations. The BCCI was not part of that concept.

As for the two tiered system, I agree with them. Not being in the top flight would destroy what little interest there is in the smaller nations, to the point where they would probably stop fielding Test sides altogether (not that the second tier should be called Tests anyway, Test cricket is the game's pinnacle). Although, yes, the BCCI are probably against it due to the potential for relegation.

 

[Cleavy]

India are "generously" hosting a test series against Bangladesh. That is a single test.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

India are "generously" hosting a test series against Bangladesh. That is a single test.

That's more generous than Australia have been to Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for a long time. Still just pathetic tokenism of the highest order though.

 

[Cleavy]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1055073.html

The proposal for a two-tier structure in Test cricket has been withdrawn by the ICC, at the meeting of its chief executives committee (CEC) in Dubai on Wednesday, despite six Full Members reportedly being in favour of it. There was no vote at the meeting but the consensus was to take the proposal "off the table" for the moment.

 

[melanChronic]

Footage of the ICC CEC in Dubia:

 

[Sammo360]

He said the BCCI, Sri Lanka Cricket, the BCB and Zimbabwe Cricket had opposed the proposal, which had found support from the boards of Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies.
.

I'm surprised the Windies supported the proposal.

Proves how powerful the BCCI really is. They get what they want.

 

[melanChronic]

Also, SLC is becoming BCCI lite.

Like what was with their ruling to have Australia's mace presentation behind closed doors, so as not to bring down the spirits of Sri Lankan players?

Admittedly, it seemed to work rather well.