Two-Tiered Test Cricket.

[BGman]

What are your views on the ICC introducing a two-tiered Test cricket program?
The second tier to comprise Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands, Scotland, Zimbabwe, Nepal.. perhaps Namibia. US or PNG.

 

[jle101]

It's a terrible idea that should never happen imo. I just don't see the point of awarding nations Test status if they aren't going to be considered to be equal with the rest of the Test cricketing fraternity. Even now, we seem to be in an unofficial two-tier scenario.

 

[BGman]

Even now, we seem to be in an unofficial two-tier scenario.

You have that correct with Ireland and the Afghans in WTC limbo. In addition they have played so few matches since gaining Test status in 2018. If the two-tiered structure does get the go ahead surely that is a vital first step in growing cricket as a global game.. and may just ensure the survival of Test cricket.

 

[Hamingja]

It's already two tier test cricket.

India, Australia, England.

Everyone else.

Room at the table for one other team that is performing well at the time so currently NZ, previously SA, then before that WI.

5 day tests surely just puts the costs through the roof for these other countries and presuming most of their players are only semi pro it makes it tougher for them to get time away from their other commitments, whether it is domestic leagues the world over or working as a accountant or whatever.

 

[jle101]

You have that correct with Ireland and the Afghans in WTC limbo. In addition they have played so few matches since gaining Test status in 2018. If the two-tiered structure does get the go ahead surely that is a vital first step in growing cricket as a global game.. and may just ensure the survival of Test cricket.

I'm not sure it would help grow the game, but rather stymy it. It would be like FIFA granting exclusive upper-tier membership to the top 10 football nations in the world, placing more emphasis & prestige on matches featuring those nations only & allowing just minimal competition between the upper-tier & lower-tier nations.

Considering that matches against India are these days the holy grail of paydays & international cricket today is governed by finance then disallowing Zim, Afg, Ire any chance to play against them, or other top nations, whatsoever will cripple their finances & quickly dwindle public interest.

Besides, international cricket is already divided into several tiers. Afghanistan & Ireland spent years battling away in the lower tiers for decades before finally earning their places at Test level. To knock them back down again so soon after being promoted would be such a cruel blow & arguably the death knell for a whole host of emerging cricket nations worldwide. Longstanding Test teams such as the Windies & Sri Lanka would suffer immensely as well.

 

[BGman]

I'm not sure it would help grow the game, but rather stymy it. It would be like FIFA granting exclusive upper-tier membership to the top 10 football nations in the world, placing more emphasis & prestige on matches featuring those nations only & allowing just minimal competition between the upper-tier & lower-tier nations.

Considering that matches against India are these days the holy grail of paydays & international cricket today is governed by finance then disallowing Zim, Afg, Ire any chance to play against them, or other top nations, whatsoever will cripple their finances & quickly dwindle public interest.

Besides, international cricket is already divided into several tiers. Afghanistan & Ireland spent years battling away in the lower tiers for decades before finally earning their places at Test level. To knock them back down again so soon after being promoted would be such a cruel blow & arguably the death knell for a whole host of emerging cricket nations worldwide. Longstanding Test teams such as the Windies & Sri Lanka would suffer immensely as well.

I dont see it as knocking the Afs and Ireland back. Surely those two and others that are promoted will gain greater exposure playing against the top tiers so therefore will develop faster. You are aware that all those nations I mentioned already have ODI status.

 

[BGman]

The two tier system is a quicker way for the promotion of the next level players than this 2014 proposal that never saw the lite of day. I think that a four year gap was seen as too long. So why didn't they amend it to two years before dumping the concept..

ICC opens door for Associate Members to play Test cricket

The International Cricket Council paved the way for Associate Members to earn Test status by introducing the 'ICC Test Challenge', which will take place every four years between the lowest-ranked Test team and winner of ICC Inter-Continental Cup.

www.rediff.com

 

[jle101]

I dont see it as knocking the Afs and Ireland back. Surely those two and others that are promoted will gain greater exposure playing against the top tiers so therefore will develop faster. You are aware that all those nations I mentioned already have ODI status.

If teams such as Ireland & Afghanistan are stuck in Div 2 then how will they get the chance to play against the big fish? Unless of course you're suggesting a two-tier system where sides from both divisions still play against one another occasionally.

Even then, I still see it as a step backwards for those teams. Essentially the second division would be just a glorified version of the old intercontinental cup.

 

[Belnakor]

Considering that matches against India are these days the holy grail of paydays & international cricket today is governed by finance then disallowing Zim, Afg, Ire any chance to play against them, or other top nations, whatsoever will cripple their finances & quickly dwindle public interest.

to be honest India have done a much better job than CA. We are actually the worst for refusing to tour the "minnows"

 

[Belnakor]

If teams such as Ireland & Afghanistan are stuck in Div 2 then how will they get the chance to play against the big fish? Unless of course you're suggesting a two-tier system where sides from both divisions still play against one another occasionally.

lets see if we actually play the test against Afghan, otherwise its basically a tier 2 system anyway and they actually don't get a chance to play against us.

 

[cricketnut14]

it's been 2 tiered for the past 20 years or so now.

-do we keep the top 9 and have another 9 nations in the second tier ?
-stats get distorted - its a bit like some odi/20-20 stats by players in associate teams etc
-do we have 2 tiers of 8 and just immediately relegate Bangladesh based on ladder position of WTC ?
-the ICC will ALWAYS want india, england, australia in tier 1
-we have 12 test playing nations - do we go 2 tiers of 6 and just keep the current 12 teams?

the 2 tiers of 6 could work ensuring you play ALL 5 oppositions over the current 2 year period for the WTC - but again the ICC will never want india, england, australia relegated.

the problem then with tier 2, would be almost a forgone conclusion for the final eg. sri lanka v west indies with bang, zim, afg & ireland behind.

crunching the games into 2 years is a problem since the birth of 20/20 and all these domestic comps around the world.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Part of the appeal of Test cricket is it is the pinnacle to the sport. Once a Test nation, all should be treated as top tier. Ideally, all should be in the WTC.
What may work is bringing back the Intercontinental Cup, and including the lower ranked Test nations who aren't getting many games in that.

When they get Tests the likes of Ireland get to improve by learning from games against more established nations. Likewise the second tier would get to measure themselves against the lower Test nations. Both are sets of nations who need more long form cricket. If Scotland, Netherlands, whoever else starts putting results up against Ireland, Afghanistan and co, and can show they can develop a player base if given the chance (no problem for Nepal) then a pathway to Test status is there.

Of course, money is always an issue. There is only so much to go around, even if the big three were prepared to give up some of the spoils for the good of the game. And many nations struggle to host Tests now, money for the least financially viable format is not likely to be forthcoming just to promote more sides likely to struggle to produce dollarrupeepounds.

 

[cricketnut14]

Part of the appeal of Test cricket is it is the pinnacle to the sport. Once a Test nation, all should be treated as top tier. Ideally, all should be in the WTC.
What may work is bringing back the Intercontinental Cup, and including the lower ranked Test nations who aren't getting many games in that.

i agree, all test nations should be treated as equal.

the ICC need to have full responsibility of the fixturing and get everyone to play as evenly as possible.

make all series 3 or 4 tests at the home teams discretion (ditch the one offs, 2 test series and yes the 5 test series - as much as i hate saying that).
so you'd get 2 countries visiting for each home summer eg if bang & eng toured - bang play 3 tests and england 4.

if zimbabwe are hosting bang & aust, they could organise 4 v bang and 3 v aust etc.
nothing wrong with a 7 test summer

people will go to boxing day test v afghanistan or west indies or england - the MCG only gets one test a year etc etc so it shouldn't matter who the opposition is.

problem is if everyone is playing everyone evenly it will mean 5-6 years to do a full cycle eg. ashes every 5-6 years etc.

 

[BGman]

If teams such as Ireland & Afghanistan are stuck in Div 2 then how will they get the chance to play against the big fish? Unless of course you're suggesting a two-tier system where sides from both divisions still play against one another occasionally.

Even then, I still see it as a step backwards for those teams. Essentially the second division would be just a glorified version of the old intercontinental cup.

Not sure what the exact proposal currently is before the ICC . It must be a scheme where the second tierers get to play the top tierers.. otherwise why have it. Perhaps along lines of the defunct ICC Test Challenge. Then we may have the lower level second tierers play the lower level top tierers to get experience with the lower tier winner getting a crack at one of the top three. The point is, whichever format they use, the chance for the best of the Associates to play the leading Test nations will inspire others to follow.

 

[BGman]

the ICC need to have full responsibility of the fixturing and get everyone to play as evenly as possible.

Can we trust them.. many say they are a BCCI puppet. Is the MCC permitted to carry out any other function than set the laws of the game. Recko theyd do a better job and the only thing those old foggies would be kow towing to is the game and its traditions. I do agree we have to remove series scheduling from the national boards of India, Australia and England specially.. Minnows Ireland the Afghans and those that follow have to be allowed to fulfill their Test status and play all nations home and away.

 

[BGman]

I also like the idea of promotion and relegation. If say Bangladesh loses a majority of its matches and say Nepal win theirs then at season end demote the Banglas and promote the Nepalis. This will also inspire those Associates waiting their turn.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

cricketnut14
True equality might not be possible, for some of the reasons you have outlined.
However, a 12 team WTC with series across six years should be. Boards would still be free to organise series outside of that, so Ashes, Border-Gavaskar, Pataudi Trophy, etc could still be played more often. A final (or final series) could still be played every two years, points can carry over between two year cycles within the six year cycle.

Sadly I don't think Zimbabwe, Ireland, even West Indies or New Zealand hosting seven Tests a summer is going to be viable. Australia, England and India are the only countries which make money from most Tests (some don't make money from ODIs or T20Is either). Other than ICC revenues they basically rely on the rare hosting of England or India to make anything at all, in some cases (guessing NZ and South Africa) add hosting Australia to that.

Two Test series, as much as I dislike them, may be as much as is practical in some cases - without the big three taking over a hell of a lot less money from ICC events than they ever will agree to.

The plus side of that is would leave some time in the calendar, though money again is an issue, for those nations - usually lower ranked - to play in a re-instated Intercontinental Cup, or at least to play FC games against the top sides from that competition. Playing the whole Cup might be too much, given the ICC would have to fund the whole event.

 

[cricketnut14]

cricketnut14
True equality might not be possible, for some of the reasons you have outlined.
However, a 12 team WTC with series across six years should be. Boards would still be free to organise series outside of that, so Ashes, Border-Gavaskar, Pataudi Trophy, etc could still be played more often. A final (or final series) could still be played every two years, points can carry over between two year cycles within the six year cycle.

love the idea of all 12 test nations being a part of the WTC.

not sold on the 6 year cycle - far too long - but what you said works.
i'd be frothing at the mouth for 6 years for the final.
where does it leave fringe nations and the hope for them to gain test status though?

and if teams played their odi and 20/20 component on the same tour then teams would only tour twice a year - and keep the odi's and 20/20 to a maximum of 3 each.


you could play everyone in a home & away test series and schedule in extra series at the boards discretion:
eg. aussie home summer
year 1: eng (4/5) afg (3)
year 2: ind (4) ire (3)
year 3: wi (3) nz (3)
year 4: pak (3) sl (3)
year 5: ENG (4/5) zim (3)
year 6: sa (4) bang (3)

aussie winter
year 1: pak (3) sl (3)
year 2: nz (3) wi (3)
year 3: eng (4/5) afg (3)
year 4: ind (4) zim (3)
year 5: sa (4) bang (3)
year 6: IND (4) ire (3)


then reverse it in the next cycle so we are touring india and england evenly and still playing them at home every 4 years.

 

[PhatBoy]

I get that it’s not viable for the strong teams to play series against the Afghans or Irish or Zimbabwe.

however if the top 8 sides every year played just one test each, against, say, two of those sides, preferably against all three, then suddenly they are getting genuine development-quality exposure to strong sides and it will ultimately make them better

 

[Santana]

I believe the ICC is having their AGM right now where the 2nd Division for Test Cricket is being discussed so watch this space I guess.

 

[Seedsfan]

We need to grow the game of test cricket, we need to weed out the corruption in the game. Despite Cricket in India being self sufficient they got $405m USD in funding from the ICC from 15-23. While all 93 associate nations shared 160m in funding over an 8 year window. When their was an increase in funding to Ireland and Afghanistan after becoming full members those funds were taken from the associate nations.

 

[Seedsfan]

I believe the ICC is having their AGM right now where the 2nd Division for Test Cricket is being discussed so watch this space I guess.

I don’t believe in tiers they should look at how it’s done in rugby. There are 10 tier one nations the sides that compete in the 6 nations or Rugby Championship. Now the tier two nations play against tier one nations and all games are given equal status as test, the tier two nations also play a lot of rugby against themselves in tier two tournaments

I feel if this is the way Cricket is to go then they still need to maintain the top sides playing the lesser sides and they can’t give less weighting to games that are played by tier two nations