Test cricket and its future

[krishneelz]

The recent ashes series has opened our eyes to how great test cricket is and this has been the trend when big teams face off against each other especially if they have a rich history in matches between each other. It's not just been the ashes. The battle between india and pakistan and before that the rivalry between australia and india. But then we see pointless tests such as india versus zimbabwe. I remember reading somewhere that the ICC is considering introducing a two tier system where there are top teams that play each other and the second half play each other. After two or so years one side is promoted from the second half of teams and one side is relagated from the top tier. IMO this would create closer competitions and would revolutionise test cricket for the better.

My top tier

australia
england
south africa
india
pak

and the second tier

nz
windies
sri lanka
zimbabwe
bangladesh

another option could be to cut zimbabwe and bangladesh or give them an ultimation to win atleast 2 tests (not including games against each other) in around 5 years.

Atleast after these steps taking place there will be constant great test matches

 

[marc71178]

It is unfair on NZ, WI and SL to bracket them with the other 2.

 

[Burpey]

The NZ, WI, and SL fans are going love this

Personally, just get rid of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and Test cricket is sweet

 

[Pothas]

Sri Lanka are won of thr strongest teams in the world at home so it would be very harsh to put them in that group

 

[open365]

the 2 tier system with promotion and relegation wouldn't work unless we included bangladesh.

imagine what would happen to the game in the west indies if they got relegated and had to spend the next 4 years playing minnows.

theres no way you could put SL, the west indies and NZ into a lower division.

getting rid of ZIM and BAN from test cricket until they are good enough is the best solution IMO.

 

[Pothas]

.

getting rid of ZIM and BAN from test cricket until they are good enough is the best solution IMO.

I agree with that but it is very hard to tell when they will be able to compete, i also thik that they should still play the longer form of the game against each other and sides such as Kenya so i would agree with a 2 tier system. If they dont play the longer form of the game they will never learn to play test cricket

 

[Barney Rubble]

Personally, I think a two-tier system with all the top 8 teams in the top tier (i.e. everyone but Bangladesh and Zimbabwe), and then another 8 in the second tier (the other two plus teams like Kenya, Holland, Namibia, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada) would work.

The top tier would play Test cricket in a 5-year cycle as usual, and the bottom tier would use a similar cycle - however, the matches between the bottom tier sides would only be classed as FC, and not given Test status. Every 5 years, the situation would be reviewed, and if one nation consistently produces either outstanding performances in the lower tier, or poor ones in the top tier, the positions can be changed to allow the best 8 teams to be the ones contesting official Test matches.

I'm sure there's a flaw in this system somewhere, but it seems very logical to me, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work - if not perfectly, then at least better than the current system.

 

[Burpey]

Personally, I think a two-tier system with all the top 8 teams in the top tier (i.e. everyone but Bangladesh and Zimbabwe), and then another 8 in the second tier (the other two plus teams like Kenya, Holland, Namibia, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada) would work.

The top tier would play Test cricket in a 5-year cycle as usual, and the bottom tier would use a similar cycle - however, the matches between the bottom tier sides would only be classed as FC, and not given Test status. Every 5 years, the situation would be reviewed, and if one nation consistently produces either outstanding performances in the lower tier, or poor ones in the top tier, the positions can be changed to allow the best 8 teams to be the ones contesting official Test matches.

I'm sure there's a flaw in this system somewhere, but it seems very logical to me, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work - if not perfectly, then at least better than the current system.

I don't think any teams should drop a tier for the expense of a bottom tier country. So if Zimbabwe or Bangladesh do become good enough, they are added, not as a replacement for one of the top 8 teams

 

[Richard]

Personally, I think a two-tier system with all the top 8 teams in the top tier (i.e. everyone but Bangladesh and Zimbabwe), and then another 8 in the second tier (the other two plus teams like Kenya, Holland, Namibia, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada) would work.

The top tier would play Test cricket in a 5-year cycle as usual, and the bottom tier would use a similar cycle - however, the matches between the bottom tier sides would only be classed as FC, and not given Test status. Every 5 years, the situation would be reviewed, and if one nation consistently produces either outstanding performances in the lower tier, or poor ones in the top tier, the positions can be changed to allow the best 8 teams to be the ones contesting official Test matches.

I'm sure there's a flaw in this system somewhere, but it seems very logical to me, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work - if not perfectly, then at least better than the current system.

I hardly see that Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Namibia and Holland are fit to rank with Bangladesh and Kenya I'm afraid. Of course it'd be better than classing Ban\Zim vs Eng\Aus\SA\WI\NZ\Ind\Pak\SL as "Test-match" and the sooner this is done the better IMO.
Better would be Bangladesh playing in the Indian domestic competitions and Zimbabwe in the South African ones.
And eventually Namibia etc. being promoted into them, too.

 

[Richard]

Personally, just get rid of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and Test cricket is sweet

Obviously, but with short-term-thinking I$$ in charge it's unlikely.

 

[open365]

like richard says,having a 2 tier system with BAN and ZIM playing even worse sides than themselves wouldn't work.

we'd have the same situation as wehn ENG play Zim but at a lower standard.

 

[howardj]

The recent ashes series has opened our eyes to how great test cricket is and this has been the trend when big teams face off against each other especially if they have a rich history in matches between each other. It's not just been the ashes. The battle between india and pakistan and before that the rivalry between australia and india. But then we see pointless tests such as india versus zimbabwe. I remember reading somewhere that the ICC is considering introducing a two tier system where there are top teams that play each other and the second half play each other. After two or so years one side is promoted from the second half of teams and one side is relagated from the top tier. IMO this would create closer competitions and would revolutionise test cricket for the better.

My top tier

australia
england
south africa
india
pak

and the second tier

nz
windies
sri lanka
zimbabwe
bangladesh

another option could be to cut zimbabwe and bangladesh or give them an ultimation to win atleast 2 tests (not including games against each other) in around 5 years.

Atleast after these steps taking place there will be constant great test matches

I can see where you're coming from and that your intentions are good, however nobody is going to want to sponsor those second division teams. Furthermore, the money paid for TV rights for the second division matches would be negligible. Who's going to want to sponsor the NZ Test team - for five year cylcle, as you propose - when the best, and most prominent, side they are going to play is Sri Lanka? In summary, the whole second division would run at a huge loss.

 

[Richard]

And when I$$ are in charge - in other words, fat chance of that!

 

[howardj]

I'd just like the ICC to introduce into International cricket - and concentrate on pooring resources into - one team at a time. For instance, let's concentrate on either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh (preferably the latter) for the next ten years, and then look at things after that. Let's not spread resources and international exposure too thinly to too many developing countries.

 

[Richard]

You can concentrate whatever you want on Zimbabwe, you won't get anywhere while the Mugabe regime is in power.
Until the Mugabe regime falls Zimbabwe is doomed in every way.

 

[howardj]

Yeah, I agree, Zimbabwe is doomed at present, which is why I said 'preferably the latter'.

 

[open365]

i reckon bangladesh could become a proper test nation.

they have a massive following back home and some decent players.

If the majority of their national team could get contracts play FC cricket somewhere and they could get a decent coaching and development system in place then i don't see whats stopping them.

 

[howardj]

i reckon bangladesh could become a proper test nation.

they have a massive following back home and some decent players.

If the majority of their national team could get contracts play FC cricket somewhere and they could get a decent coaching and development system in place then i don't see whats stopping them.

For sure. Bangladesh are worth persisting with. That they've the population, and cricket - as you say - is very much on the radar over there.

 

[Maison]

go bangladesh

put it this way, when was the last time zimbabwe beat australia in a ODI? (okay its not 'test cricket' but its a good reference :P)

 

[Richard]

i reckon bangladesh could become a proper test nation.

they have a massive following back home and some decent players.

If the majority of their national team could get contracts play FC cricket somewhere and they could get a decent coaching and development system in place then i don't see whats stopping them.

If it were that simple India would be comfortably the best team in The World.
For whatever reason - and if anyone could explain it they'd be a rich man\woman - population and enthusiasm for cricket would dictate the World order and cricket would be very boring.