Test Championship in doubt again... ICC are toothless

[melanChronic]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/701969.html

Couldn't find any discussion on this elsewhere, but sounds like broadcasters aren't too keen on the scheduled 2017 test championship, mainly out of fears that England or India won't be in the top 4.

Whilst normally I would detest revenue being placed ahead of the spectacle, I think that the current 4 team model the ICC are running with is flawed. If they want this event to be as big as the ODI World Cup, then all teams need to be involved.

Here's what they should do.

FRAMEWORK
-Top 8 in the test rankings qualify. This makes it a global event (in cricketing terms) and gives Zimbabwe and Bangladesh a reasonable medium/long term goal to strive for.
-To be held over 5 weeks in a host country that can provide 7 test match quality venues.
-All matches are 5 day affairs, following the current test match guidelines. To reduce the impact of weather, a 6th day is held in reserve if and only if 90 or more overs are lost. This will prevent teams playing for 6 days from the outset. A possible exception is to make the final a timeless test.
-In the event of a non rain affected draw/tie, the higher ranked team progresses. However, to prevent defensive cricket/deter the draw option, a team that progresses via a draw subsequently loses their seeding i.e. if they draw again they will be eliminated.
-Every team is guaranteed at least a 5 day break between matches.

PROGRAM
Lets take the current rankings and assume this occurs at the beginning of June in England.
Seeds:
1. South Africa
2. India
3. England
4. Pakistan
5. Australia
6. Sri Lanka
7. West Indies
8. New Zealand

Quarter-finals:
1st-5th(6th) June: South Africa vs New Zealand at Cardiff.
4th-8th(9th) June: Pakistan vs Australia at Headingly.
7th-11th(12th) June: India vs West Indies at The Oval.
10th-14th(15th) June: England vs Sri Lanka at Edgbaston.

Semi-finals:
16th-20th(21st) June: South Africa vs Pakistan at Old Trafford.
19th-23rd(24th) June: India vs England at Chester-le-Street.

Final:
30th June until finished (rest day on 3rd July): South Africa vs India at Lords.

-Concurrently there could be an associate tournament where the 9th and 10th test sides (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) play off against the top two associate sides (Ireland and Afghanistan) in one of the associate nations (Ireland most probably!). If one of the associate nations can win this, then they would be granted test status. The final of this could also fill the gap between the semifinals and the final of the WC.

Semi-finals:
1st-5th(6th) June: Zimbabwe vs Afghanistan (first class match)
7th-11th(12th) June: Bangladesh vs Ireland (first class match)

Final:
25th-29th June: Zimbabwe vs Bangladesh

This format is concise and engages the whole cricket world whilst giving context to the test match calendar. The broadcasters should be happy because it provides cricket on every day for at least 5 weeks.

 

[Marshland]

You can attribute this to the Poms being smashed in the Ashes.

 

[Underarm]

The icc is right. If the host nation doesn't play, that's a huge blow. Crowds were probably going to be scarse as it is. Would you take a day off work in June to watch New Zealand vs India?

 

[The Passenger]

The biggest issue is drawn matches and getting crowds to neutral games.

Your idea for drawn games and a team losing their seeding is good. I assume if the teams playing each both drew their previous game than the seedings are retained.

I would rather just play a full round robin of home and away test series in a 4 year period. 2 points for a series win, 1 for a series draw, 0 for a series loss regardless of series length. If two teams play each other more than once either home or away, then only the most recent series counts towards this ladder. At the conclusion the top 2 teams play a 3 test series in the host nations country.

The problem with that is getting all teams to play each other. There are plenty of gaps in the calendar, for instance when did we last play bangladesh or zimbabwe?

You could run the current ICC rankings alongside them as well. In reality they should roughly reflect each other, though there are more permutations in the current system in regards to the strength of a series victory.

 

[red+black]

I'm not super keen on a Test world championship. My opinion could change in future.

I would like to see the length of Test series to be fluid depending on the positions of competing teams.

1-South Africa v 2-India should be a 4 or 5 Test series. That should be the current Test Championship.

 

[rickyp]

I'm a massive fan of test cricket, but this will never work

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

You can attribute this to the Poms being smashed in the Ashes.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Personally I think a 4 team test championship would be awesome. If India and England missed out I would be delighted!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I've never been a fan of the format, but it would be a step forwar from where we are.
For me, though, the more important thing is to ensure every nation plays each other regularly. That means removing weighs from the rankings and over a 4-5 year perod all nations play each other home and away.

Any Test final should be a series. The rest of the time Tests are played in series, except the occasional one-off match Zim gets lumped with, it shoudl be the same for the sport's highest point.

 

[El Dubya]

Say it was held in Australia, how many people would turn up to neutral games? I feel the answer is very few, only pretty hardcore cricket fans. I imagine it would be similar in England, and were it held in India the result would be even worse, with continually declining test attendances for their own matches. I feel England and Australia would be the only countries with enough of a migrant population to break even on a match between India and Pakistan, whereas Australia v. England in India would not.

 

[Ashton Agar]

I don't want a Test Championship anyway...

 

[frankrizzo]

I don't get the appeal, a team like SA does quality work year in year out and then it's reward is to go to somebody else's country and play a few knock out matches to determine who the best test team is?

it devalues the years of quality test cricket that they played leading up the event, they have an off day or two lose one match overseas and suddenly they aren't the best anymore?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I don't want a Test Championship anyway...

I do, in theory. But getting a meaningful one is hard. It requires flexibility in the calendar so the #1 team can play at home. It would also require no other internationals and no domestic T20 to be played in that time in order for the cricket world to focus on it. The boards are not going to allow that.
It also requires the FTP to be fixed to have all teams play each other home and away and make the rankings meaningful. Again, the big nation boards will not allow that (or will just ignore the FTP again).

A quick and nasty knockout just doesn't fit with Test cricket being played over series the rest of the time.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I can't see it ever happening. Test cricket is completely the wrong format for this style of World Cup comp, not to mention the problems with the top nations controlling everything and only wanting to play each other as often as they can. If it can't make money, they won't ever agree to it.

 

[Wallaby]

Dont want it.

Test cricket is unique - local conditions are so different around the world, plus the fact that a visiting side has to play in the foreign environment for 5 straight days - it means there is an enormous home ground advantage. In 2013, there were 2 tests won by the away team. 2 out of more than 40. And both of those involved Zimbabwe being beaten. So, not England, not India, Australia, South Africa - no one won a single meaningful test away from home.

Winning away from home is hard - it's the nature of the game. You are supposed to win your home series. It's why the poms celebrated like mad after beating us in 2010-11 - that was a great win, and probably a better performance than our 5-0 win just recently.

So then to have a tournament of one-off games in a single country to decide the Test Championship - well, that just doesn't reflect what Test Cricket is all about.

 

[Yoda_]

How about the proposed two - tier test cricket Cricinfo are reporting

ICC mulls two-tier Test cricket


World cricket's custodians are to consider a revolutionary proposal to bring relegation and promotion to Test matches as a partial sop to the imminent death of the World Test Championship (WTC).
The ICC executive board is expected to consider the proposal at the next round of meetings later this month, the same gathering expected to end any hopes for the WTC due to the reluctance of broadcasters and the lack of certainty around the format of an event that was postponed from its original 2013 launch date and re-launched for 2017 last October.
ESPNcricinfo understands that the board will instead entertain the promotion/relegation plan, which will open up the possibility of nations like Ireland and Afghanistan earning their way into Test matches while at the same time placing the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh on the precipice. It will be introduced on the "no disadvantage" condition that none of the current ICC Full Member nations would lose that status and its financial advantages.

Dont mind this at all, would give the better associate sides a chance to actually play against better quality sides.

Might also actually make the top ranked division one sides play ALL division one sides and not the same god damn 3 - 4 sides Australia seems to have played in the past 5 years.

Would allow the associate sides like Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Kenya a chance to play against better sides.

 

[Yoda_]

Would allow the better ranked associate sides like Ireland and Afghanistan to play against better quality sides.

Could possibly be made up like this

Division one (current test ranking in brackets)

Australia (5)
England (2)
India (2)
New Zealand (8)
Pakistan (4)
South Africa (1)
Sri Lanka (7)
West Indies (6)

Division two (current test ranking in brackets)

Afghanistan (n/a)
Bangladesh (10)
Canada (n/a)
Ireland
Kenya
Netherlands
Scotland
Zimbabwe (9)


Pushing the top tier division two sides up to division one and allow them to mix it with the middle division one sides and give them the opportunity to play against better opportunity.

Obviously the top division one sides would only have the chance to play the lesser division one sides every now and again whilst the likes of Australia (currently ranked 5th) would be able to push up the rankings quicker.

For the lower ranked division two sides, using the intercontinental cup could be the qualifying event to get that opportunity at the top level.

One thing that may have to occur is the top ranked division two playing a qualifying match against the relegation ridden bottom ranked division one side. You don't want a side like New Zealand (currently ranked 8th) beating up on the associate sides for a year and then vice versa (Bangladesh being beaten up on for a year by top international sides).

 

[Kyptastic]

Wouldn't have 9 in the second division, especially if you're going with 8 in the first. No more than 6 for me.

The UAE's probably the best side outside of Ireland and Afghanistan right now as well. Would go:

Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland
Afghanistan
UAE
Scotland/Namibia (based on the Intercontinental Cup results).

 

[Yoda_]

Wouldn't have 9 in the second division, especially if you're going with 8 in the first. No more than 6 for me.

The UAE's probably the best side outside of Ireland and Afghanistan right now as well. Would go:

Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland
Afghanistan
UAE
Scotland/Namibia (based on the Intercontinental Cup results).

Id just go the 8/8 across the two divisions.

 

[The Speaker]

Those tiers are too large. All that would do is solidify the top eight and lock out the associates.

Six and six would make more sense, with Afghanistan joining the latter only when they have established a first class competition. The tiers can be expanded when the time is right.

 

[augiewaz]

Maybe 6 and 8 is a good way to go.
Top teams in tier 1
Average teams in tier 2

Either way, it should also be setup that teams in tier 2 can also be relegated to the Associate level and that Associates can be promoted to tier 2.

 

[Yoda_]

Who out of Australia (5), England (2), India (2), New Zealand (8), Pakistan (4), South Africa (1), Sri Lanka (7), West Indies (6) will play in the second division then? I would have thought they were a lock for the top division.

As the two bottom ranked sides, New Zealand and Sri Lanka would pummel associate teams in division two.

 

[Oaktree]

Those tiers are too large. All that would do is solidify the top eight and lock out the associates.

Six and six would make more sense, with Afghanistan joining the latter only when they have established a first class competition. The tiers can be expanded when the time is right.

I am for six and six aswell, with the second tier up for review if certain associates can be added later on.

I wonder how test records will be considered, etc. if NZ were relegated for instance, guys like Ross Taylor and McCullum can really pump up their averages. The same with their bowlers.

 

[The Passenger]

with these tiers i'd only be in favour if the top teams still played the bottom tier teams every now and then.

Something like playing everyone in your tier home and away within a 4 year cycle (5 teams in your home division), and a home and away against each team in the other division every 10 years.

so in an 5 year cycle you would have:
v your tier:
3 x series v 3 teams (9 series)
2 x series v 2 teams (4 series)
-----------------------------------
v the other tier:
1 x series v 6 teams (6 series)

At an average of 3 tests per series (19 series), that is around 57 tests per nation in a five year cycle.

At the end of 5 years you re arrange the tiers according to the world rankings.

But you know what, as soon as India, Australia or England drop out of the top six or threaten to drop out of the top six then this will be abandoned.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I have a philosophical issue with tiers of Test cricket. Tests are the pinnacle of the game, and a pinnavle can only have one level. I'd rather just see more effort (and money) put into the leading Associates, with first class and "A" tours to try and bring them up to Test cricket.

Yes, that means one-sided games when they play the powerful nations but every sport deals with lopsided match-ups. They might play short series against the top four or something, but if a nation is deemed worthy of Test cricket they deserve to get to play against the best.

Oh, and obviously fix (and find a way to enforce) the FTP. With more teams it may mean a 5 or 6 year cycle rather than a year one - but I'm sure the big nations would find time to play each othr more often than the FTP demanded.

 

[The Speaker]

Who out of Australia (5), England (2), India (2), New Zealand (8), Pakistan (4), South Africa (1), Sri Lanka (7), West Indies (6) will play in the second division then? I would have thought they were a lock for the top division.

As the two bottom ranked sides, New Zealand and Sri Lanka would pummel associate teams in division two.

Whichever two teams are seventh and eighth at the time it begins. If they want to be in the first division, they should start winning more often.