Test Proposal to split test cricket into two divisions

[PhatBoy]

Maybe because the UK nations compete separately in CG and Northern Ireland send athletes?

No I knew NI competed separately I just had it in my head the Irish did too for some reason. Not sure why. I love the place, best holiday I’ve ever been on.

 

[corbies]

Anyone in the know seems to be suggesting that at the next ICC meeting the WTC will be split into two tiers but it won't be promotion and relegation. It will simply be who India (and this is very much India led, England have already said they're in favour of pro/rel) decide is worthy enough to play in their tier and the rest in the other tier.

 

[Jack Mundy]

Anyone in the know seems to be suggesting that at the next ICC meeting the WTC will be split into two tiers but it won't be promotion and relegation. It will simply be who India (and this is very much India led, England have already said they're in favour of pro/rel) decide is worthy enough to play in their tier and the rest in the other tier.

That's not tiers that's just removing full membership

 

[Gough]

Colonisation sucks when the boot's on the other foot.

 

[corbies]

Colonisation sucks when the boot's on the other foot.

Pretty sure it sucked the other way too.

 

[Gethelred]

They non competitive most of the time for 30 years and just got dismissed for 27. Even Bangladesh are tough at home.

On their most recent tour of Australia, they drew the series.

Your posting in here is arrogant.

 

[Jack Mundy]

On their most recent tour of Australia, they drew the series.

Your posting in here is arrogant.

Since 2000, Australia has won 27 matches vs west indies and lost just two. Very competitive.

 

[PhatBoy]

Since 2000, Australia has won 27 matches vs west indies and lost just two. Very competitive.

Since 1989 Australia has won 26 matches against New Zealand and lost just two. Very competitive.

 

[cricketnut14]

the last 30 years for australia :

v England/India/South Africa 181 88-61 (32 draws)

v The Rest 145 107-18 (20 draws)

its really only the 3 teams that can consistently match it with Australia in recent times.

 

[cricketnut14]

based on the above do you perhaps have 3 tiers:

div 1 - aust. eng, ind, SA
div 2 - NZ, pak, WI, SL
div 3 - bang, zim, afg, ire

then it could be a genuine home (3 series) & away (3 series) over the 2 year period which is the current format.

teams could then squeeze in extra games if they wanted too, against others outside their division outside the WTC.

gets a bit gimmicky when top 2 of a 4 team comp make the final though.

 

[corbies]

based on the above do you perhaps have 3 tiers:

div 1 - aust. eng, ind, SA
div 2 - NZ, pak, WI, SL
div 3 - bang, zim, afg, ire

then it could be a genuine home (3 series) & away (3 series) over the 2 year period which is the current format.

teams could then squeeze in extra games if they wanted too, against others outside their division outside the WTC.

gets a bit gimmicky when top 2 of a 4 team comp make the final though.

Yuck

 

[PhatBoy]

the last 30 years for australia :

v England/India/South Africa 181 88-61 (32 draws)

v The Rest 145 107-18 (20 draws)

its really only the 3 teams that can consistently match it with Australia in recent times.


View attachment 2370663

At one point it was only Australia’s standing that meant they played any consistent cricket against anyone at all. Australia was allowed to play 35 tests and won 3 of them.

Between April 1983 - which was against Sri Lanka who had just debuted in Test cricket - and June 1989, Australia won 1 away test.

Now that’s a six year period, not the sort of quarter century period that’s being spoken of with a team like the West Indies. But it is also a lot worse in terms of being able to win matches. It’s diabolically bad.

one match in 23 across 6 years.

The West Indies have won 5 of their last 23 away matches.

Now Pakistan, they are a furious case because they have won 8 of their last 23 away test matches, to use that number as an arbitrary sample size. But they seem to have - understandably - a real love for Sri Lanka where they’ve won 3 of their 4 matches (they’ve also won 2 in Bangladesh).

They’ve won 8 matches out of Asia in 16 years and 4 of them were against Zimbabwe and Ireland. I can appreciate that this is a country that didn’t have a home base for a long time and it gets treated like shit by India, but it also has SLIGHTLY more resources financially and in terms of population than the West Indies. Just an extra 250 million.

Sri Lanka still hasn’t so much as drawn a test in Australia.
It’s win 7 of its last 23 away games. Recently non-competitive across FIRST innings against Australia: at least West Indies were competitive until the second.

Why do all these teams get a free pass.

the Kiwis have had the best part of a century to win more than 2 tests in Australia. They’ve had 30 years to win agains over there. They’ve managed neither.

But the west indies going 3 games without a win, and getting rolled for a score 9 less than what the Indians did at Adelaide 2 tours ago is what should be the tipping point for them getting demoted to swim in the kiddy pool?

God help penniless South Africa if they ever go more than 2 years where their performances reflect their financial state. Good thing for them they continually stick it to the rich boys

 

[big_e]

Anyone in the know seems to be suggesting that at the next ICC meeting the WTC will be split into two tiers but it won't be promotion and relegation. It will simply be who India (and this is very much India led, England have already said they're in favour of pro/rel) decide is worthy enough to play in their tier and the rest in the other tier.

The ICC was essentially formed to keep certain countries out at the expense of expanding the game internationally. So really nothing has changed, other than the nationality of those with the power to decide who is inside the tent.

 

[Rabish Binney]

At one point it was only Australia’s standing that meant they played any consistent cricket against anyone at all. Australia was allowed to play 35 tests and won 3 of them.

Between April 1983 - which was against Sri Lanka who had just debuted in Test cricket - and June 1989, Australia won 1 away test.

Now that’s a six year period, not the sort of quarter century period that’s being spoken of with a team like the West Indies. But it is also a lot worse in terms of being able to win matches. It’s diabolically bad.

one match in 23 across 6 years.

The West Indies have won 5 of their last 23 away matches.

Now Pakistan, they are a furious case because they have won 8 of their last 23 away test matches, to use that number as an arbitrary sample size. But they seem to have - understandably - a real love for Sri Lanka where they’ve won 3 of their 4 matches (they’ve also won 2 in Bangladesh).

They’ve won 8 matches out of Asia in 16 years and 4 of them were against Zimbabwe and Ireland. I can appreciate that this is a country that didn’t have a home base for a long time and it gets treated like shit by India, but it also has SLIGHTLY more resources financially and in terms of population than the West Indies. Just an extra 250 million.

Sri Lanka still hasn’t so much as drawn a test in Australia.
It’s win 7 of its last 23 away games. Recently non-competitive across FIRST innings against Australia: at least West Indies were competitive until the second.

Why do all these teams get a free pass.

the Kiwis have had the best part of a century to win more than 2 tests in Australia. They’ve had 30 years to win agains over there. They’ve managed neither.

But the west indies going 3 games without a win, and getting rolled for a score 9 less than what the Indians did at Adelaide 2 tours ago is what should be the tipping point for them getting demoted to swim in the kiddy pool?

God help penniless South Africa if they ever go more than 2 years where their performances reflect their financial state. Good thing for them they continually stick it to the rich boys

It was a shocking time for Australian cricket.

Its off topic but it just goes to show how good Allan Border was during that dark period....

 

[Jack Mundy]

The ICC was essentially formed to keep certain countries out at the expense of expanding the game internationally. So really nothing has changed, other than the nationality of those with the power to decide who is inside the tent.

This is big point people are missing. Promotion and relegation provides path for teams to become test nations. Right now it's a closed shop and a number of teams haven't been decent for a long while.

 

[Jack Mundy]

At one point it was only Australia’s standing that meant they played any consistent cricket against anyone at all. Australia was allowed to play 35 tests and won 3 of them.

Between April 1983 - which was against Sri Lanka who had just debuted in Test cricket - and June 1989, Australia won 1 away test.

Now that’s a six year period, not the sort of quarter century period that’s being spoken of with a team like the West Indies. But it is also a lot worse in terms of being able to win matches. It’s diabolically bad.

one match in 23 across 6 years.

The West Indies have won 5 of their last 23 away matches.

Now Pakistan, they are a furious case because they have won 8 of their last 23 away test matches, to use that number as an arbitrary sample size. But they seem to have - understandably - a real love for Sri Lanka where they’ve won 3 of their 4 matches (they’ve also won 2 in Bangladesh).

They’ve won 8 matches out of Asia in 16 years and 4 of them were against Zimbabwe and Ireland. I can appreciate that this is a country that didn’t have a home base for a long time and it gets treated like shit by India, but it also has SLIGHTLY more resources financially and in terms of population than the West Indies. Just an extra 250 million.

Sri Lanka still hasn’t so much as drawn a test in Australia.
It’s win 7 of its last 23 away games. Recently non-competitive across FIRST innings against Australia: at least West Indies were competitive until the second.

Why do all these teams get a free pass.

the Kiwis have had the best part of a century to win more than 2 tests in Australia. They’ve had 30 years to win agains over there. They’ve managed neither.

But the west indies going 3 games without a win, and getting rolled for a score 9 less than what the Indians did at Adelaide 2 tours ago is what should be the tipping point for them getting demoted to swim in the kiddy pool?

God help penniless South Africa if they ever go more than 2 years where their performances reflect their financial state. Good thing for them they continually stick it to the rich boys

Tiered system would give regular schedule for all teams

 

[PhatBoy]

Tiered system would give regular schedule for all teams

And who wants to see them playing against the same teams repeatedly. I will watch cricket between basically anyone and I’m already sick to death of England and India. And I LIKE watching those two teams even if I don’t especially like the teams themselves.

 

[big_e]

And who wants to see them playing against the same teams repeatedly. I will watch cricket between basically anyone and I’m already sick to death of England and India. And I LIKE watching those two teams even if I don’t especially like the teams themselves.

The majority of cricket fans, if we're really being honest. Cricket Australia are pretty open about the fact that summers against England and India make a profit, everything else makes a loss.

 

[PhatBoy]

The majority of cricket fans, if we're really being honest. Cricket Australia are pretty open about the fact that summers against England and India make a profit, everything else makes a loss.

Really? You want to just keep seeing that, game after game? Last summer wasn’t even good cricket. Bumrah was the only Indian that bowled well. Jaiswal and occasionally Rahul was the only Indian that batted well. The Aussie bowlers bowled well. Smith and Head batted well with a few cameos from some other players.

You want to know who the best bowler is, statistically, that New Zealand has ever had (yes Hadlee is their greatest I’m not disputing that)?
Kyle Jamieson. We keep hearing about all these current greats breaking records with strike rates under 40 or averages under 20 etc.
There’s a guy across the ditch who has taken 80 wickets at 19 with a strike rate of 44 (and he averages 20 with the bat) who has never played against Australia and under such a system probably never will.
Matt Henry who has taken 83 wickets in his last 19 tests or something at 22 and took 17 wickets at 15 against Australia last year probably won’t play Australia again.

But that’s ok because Australia, India and England are dangerously underfunded and have been about 3 months without two of them staging a five match series against one another.

Jayden Seales is approaching 100 wickets at a strike rate nearly equal with Kagiso Rabada but won’t be able to display it against anyone but Pakistan, NZ, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Great.

Kamindu Mendis has started his career like a freight train but I’ll have to sign up to a streaming service no one in the western world has ever heard of to watch him bat.

 

[corbies]

The ICC was essentially formed to keep certain countries out at the expense of expanding the game internationally. So really nothing has changed, other than the nationality of those with the power to decide who is inside the tent.

Pretty sure it sucked the other way too.

I wasn't alive to complain about it back then.

 

[corbies]

Really? You want to just keep seeing that, game after game? Last summer wasn’t even good cricket. Bumrah was the only Indian that bowled well. Jaiswal and occasionally Rahul was the only Indian that batted well. The Aussie bowlers bowled well. Smith and Head batted well with a few cameos from some other players.

You want to know who the best bowler is, statistically, that New Zealand has ever had (yes Hadlee is their greatest I’m not disputing that)?
Kyle Jamieson. We keep hearing about all these current greats breaking records with strike rates under 40 or averages under 20 etc.
There’s a guy across the ditch who has taken 80 wickets at 19 with a strike rate of 44 (and he averages 20 with the bat) who has never played against Australia and under such a system probably never will.
Matt Henry who has taken 83 wickets in his last 19 tests or something at 22 and took 17 wickets at 15 against Australia last year probably won’t play Australia again.

But that’s ok because Australia, India and England are dangerously underfunded and have been about 3 months without two of them staging a five match series against one another.

Jayden Seales is approaching 100 wickets at a strike rate nearly equal with Kagiso Rabada but won’t be able to display it against anyone but Pakistan, NZ, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Great.

Kamindu Mendis has started his career like a freight train but I’ll have to sign up to a streaming service no one in the western world has ever heard of to watch him bat.

big_e didn't say that's what he wanted to see. He said that's what the majority of cricket fans want to see, which is true. They only get excited for India and England, every one else is not worthy.

 

[PhatBoy]

big_e didn't say that's what he wanted to see. He said that's what the majority of cricket fans want to see, which is true. They only get excited for India and England, every one else is not worthy.

Fair enough probably wasn’t meaning to take a specifically personal shot at him but people will get sick of it. They get sick of an oversaturation of virtually anything.

The other thing that the two tier idea neglects to really address is this:

One of its purposes is allegedly to try and not just make for better cricket but I would assume to drive the lower teams to improve, by playing regularly against teams around their own standard, get better, earn their way to a spot against the better sides.

Well what if the opposite happens.

What if only playing in that environment becomes a hindrance while the other teams merely solidify their strength and when any side gets ‘promoted’ they get destroyed.

 

[big_e]

Fair enough probably wasn’t meaning to take a specifically personal shot at him but people will get sick of it. They get sick of an oversaturation of virtually anything.

The other thing that the two tier idea neglects to really address is this:

One of its purposes is allegedly to try and not just make for better cricket but I would assume to drive the lower teams to improve, by playing regularly against teams around their own standard, get better, earn their way to a spot against the better sides.

Well what if the opposite happens.

What if only playing in that environment becomes a hindrance while the other teams merely solidify their strength and when any side gets ‘promoted’ they get destroyed.

Yeah, as corbies said, I don't want to see only Australia vs England vs India. I've been slammed in the past for saying the Ashes is nothing special - it rolls around every 18-24 months, 98% of the cricket followers of the world find it utterly meaningless, etc - but ticket sales for this summer's Ashes are huge, so go figure...

The point you're missing is that we already have two tiers in test cricket, as Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan's absence from the WTC means their players will hardly get a look-in either.

Actually, it's three tiers, because there are some bloody good associate cricketers who would love to play tests, but are prevented from doing so because apparently you have to earn your spot. Ignoring that most of the current test teams didn't have to earn their seat at the table, but anyway...

Divisions without promotion and relegation is offensive, but with promotion and relegation (I'll say two up and two down, on the same three-year cycle that the WTC is on) gives those cricketers a chance. And it gives cricket a chance to build on the explosion in international cricket since they opened up T20Is to anyone.

Will it mean that some teams and players get stuck in Division 2 for ages? Yeah, probably. But Rashid Khan has played six tests, the all-time record number of test wickets taken by an Irish bowler is 25, and Max O'Dowd can be the second-highest scorer in a T20WC but the thought of playing test cricket is apparently fanciful.

 

[cricketnut14]

Yeah, as corbies said, I don't want to see only Australia vs England vs India. I've been slammed in the past for saying the Ashes is nothing special - it rolls around every 18-24 months, 98% of the cricket followers of the world find it utterly meaningless, etc - but ticket sales for this summer's Ashes are huge, so go figure...

it's funny, because most people want to see Australia host India and England every season.

how often do you hear people saying on here 'ohhh another crap summer coming up when we host the likes of west indies, pakistan' etc.

let's face it, playing everyone evenly is the only way, but not realistic.

it'd take 6 years for all countries to play each other home & away, that's with hosting 2 teams and 2 winter tours each year.

either way, i attend the boxing day test every year, regardless of the opposition, otherwise i miss out on getting my fix.
at the end of the day each venue in the major countries only host one test per year.

 

[big_e]

it's funny, because most people want to see Australia host India and England every season.

how often do you hear people saying on here 'ohhh another crap summer coming up when we host the likes of west indies, pakistan' etc.

let's face it, playing everyone evenly is the only way, but not realistic.

it'd take 6 years for all countries to play each other home & away, that's with hosting 2 teams and 2 winter tours each year.

either way, i attend the boxing day test every year, regardless of the opposition, otherwise i miss out on getting my fix.
at the end of the day each venue in the major countries only host one test per year.

I'd have seven teams per division. Three test series, two home and two away each year. Gets done in three years. (If you want to play five tests, you can, but the last two don't count for the WTC.