2 Tier test system

[Goughy]

But the problem is that right now it's elite in name only.

I would say seven countries in Tier 1. Seven more in tier 2, and top one moves up to tier 1 while bottom 1 moves down every three years. All should be full tours, in both tiers.

It is a lot more elite and deserving of the name Test cricket with 9 teams than your proposed 14 teams.

By all means have 2 tiers but the 2nd tier cannot be Test cricket. Test cricket is the highest classification of cricket and by definition a 2nd tier isnt.

 

[silentstriker]

It is a lot more elite and deserving of the name Test cricket with 9 teams than your proposed 14 teams.

By all means have 2 tiers but the 2nd tier cannot be Test cricket. Test cricket is the highest classification of cricket and by definition a 2nd tier isnt.

Really though, you are getting hung up on the name. I'd much rather have seven teams who are all competitive than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and call it Tests and be all elite.

There is nothing wrong with separating out stats, if you want, by Tier 1 and Tier 2. Who cares on the name - isn't the goal good, competitive, hard fought matches?

NZ, who are eight, would get so, so bored of smashing up the likes of Zimbabwe. Come on, be nice

Well, every two or three years, they'd get a chance to move up and displace the 7th team. What I would be afraid of is a big team like England ever being relegated, that could really hurt the game, being that it is one of two or three remaining Test-matches first nations (Australia and SA probably the other two, though not sure about SA).

 

[NUFAN]

Bangladesh's test status is the killer to this line of argument, because there's no way there's a concrete difference in quality between them and the leading Associates.

Personally I'd have a system where the top tier contains all the main test nations and one or two Associates (10 is a reasonable number but 9 would probably be better for now). Every couple of years, the leading Associate and bottom test side could change places. Hence teams like Ireland and Bangladesh can play tests when they have a strong generation of players but won't make a mockery of the leading format when there's a major drop in standards (as Bangladesh are currently doing now).

The second tier would be something similar to the Intercontinental Cup, but taking place across different countries.

I like this idea but would definitely prefer a play-off match being tier 1's worst and tier 2's best before the change can happen.

So basically every year or two the rating period ends. If Bangaladesh is last and Ireland first, they could maybe play 2 5-day first class matches at home and away, if it's a draw Bangladesh through, if Ireland win they are through.

 

[Flem274*]

Really though, you are getting hung up on the name. I'd much rather have seven teams who are all competitive than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and call it Tests and be all elite.

There is nothing wrong with separating out stats, if you want, by Tier 1 and Tier 2. Who cares on the name - isn't the goal good, competitive, hard fought matches?



Well, every two or three years, they'd get a chance to move up and displace the 7th team. What I would be afraid of is a big team like England ever being relegated, that could really hurt the game, being that it is one of two or three remaining Test-matches first nations (Australia and SA probably the other two, though not sure about SA).

Then it would be their stupid fault for getting relegated.

Thats the issue with the tier system. If England or another money laden big nation got into the top tier based on money and reputation, then that in itself makes a mockery of the tier system.

EDIT: The only way it can work and keep the natural top teams relatively safe is to have 8 teams in the top tier, or 9 if we want to include a minnow to play with the bigger teams.

 

[aussie]

I dont like the idea because none of the top 8 nations should ever be relegated or lose test status IMO. That would cause madness in the game.

Tier 1 by default, should always be AUS, ENG, SA, IND, PAK, SRI, WI, NZ.

Tier 2 should be all the teams that participate in the intercontinental cup, plus ZIM & BANG. If they perform well enough move them up to tier 1 for a period of time (2 years) - if/when they slip again send them back down - but if they perform, give them an extended 2 years.

 

[four_or_six]

It does depend who is in which tier. If it's only Bangladesh that drop out of the 'top tier' then it's hardly different to now, so I don't see the point - better to spend more effort developing cricket in Bangladesh, it's a massive cricket-mad nation, surely it's only a matter of time before they step up.

If a team like WI or NZ (for example) move into the bottom tier, then that's probably it for tests in that country, no-one is going to care about WI vs Ireland or NZ vs Holland, including probably the players. Can you imagine Chris Gayle actually turning up for West Indies versus Ireland?

 

[Uppercut]

I like this idea but would definitely prefer a play-off match being tier 1's worst and tier 2's best before the change can happen.

So basically every year or two the rating period ends. If Bangaladesh is last and Ireland first, they could maybe play 2 5-day first class matches at home and away, if it's a draw Bangladesh through, if Ireland win they are through.

I thought about this, but i don't agree with it. You can't play like **** for two years then reclaim test status because you won a two-match "series" against someone. Players could be injured, one team could be bailed out by rain, 2-match series will often end in a draw (then what?), often the pitches in the second test are prepared so that it's effectively a one-match series. I don't think it's anywhere near enough to justify cancelling out both two years of good performances on one team's part and two years of bad performances on another's.

 

[Uppercut]

It does depend who is in which tier. If it's only Bangladesh that drop out of the 'top tier' then it's hardly different to now, so I don't see the point - better to spend more effort developing cricket in Bangladesh, it's a massive cricket-mad nation, surely it's only a matter of time before they step up.

If a team like WI or NZ (for example) move into the bottom tier, then that's probably it for tests in that country, no-one is going to care about WI vs Ireland or NZ vs Holland, including probably the players. Can you imagine Chris Gayle actually turning up for West Indies versus Ireland?

Seriously, i can't believe people make these points in cricket and aren't taking the piss. Imagine if someone made that point in football:

"Sure, relegation is all well and good, but it depends who is relegated. If Liverpool were relegated then that would be just about it for football in that club. I mean, can you imagine Steven Gerrard even turning up for a game against Ipswich? Therefore we shouldn't have relegation. Bollocks to the team who wins the first division every year, it's more important to let the worst team in the top division keep playing so their players don't decide not to try."

 

[NUFAN]

I thought about this, but i don't agree with it. You can't play like **** for two years then reclaim test status because you won a two-match "series" against someone. Players could be injured, one team could be bailed out by rain, 2-match series will often end in a draw (then what?), often the pitches in the second test are prepared so that it's effectively a one-match series. I don't think it's anywhere near enough to justify cancelling out both two years of good performances on one team's part and two years of bad performances on another's.

I was thinking 4 matches overall (2 at home and 2 away), if it's still level similar to boxing the holder retains the spot in the Test tier.

The last point you made about 2 years of good performance vs 2 years of rubbish, well it's all relative and it's easier to look rubbish against say South Africa compared to Netherlands.

On second thoughts I'm undecided yet if these 4 matches should be considered Test Matches or just First Class.

 

[four_or_six]

Seriously, i can't believe people make these points in cricket and aren't taking the piss. Imagine if someone made that point in football:

"Sure, relegation is all well and good, but it depends who is relegated. If Liverpool were relegated then that would be just about it for football in that club. I mean, can you imagine Steven Gerrard even turning up for a game against Ipswich? Therefore we shouldn't have relegation. Bollocks to the team who wins the first division every year, it's more important to let the worst team in the top division keep playing so their players don't decide not to try."

I don't think the comparison to the Premier League is relevant at all. If Liverpool were relegated then Stephen Gerrard, and many other players for that matter, would just leave.

Although, perhaps it is relevant. If WI were relegated from the top tier of tests, I expect many of their top players would just retire from tests. And I don't think that's what the ICC are looking for. Plus they would absolutely smash the associate teams.

 

[Uppercut]

I was thinking 4 matches overall (2 at home and 2 away), if it's still level similar to boxing the holder retains the spot in the Test tier.

The last point you made about 2 years of good performance vs 2 years of rubbish, well it's all relative and it's easier to look rubbish against say South Africa compared to Netherlands.

You make it sound like a horrendous punishment inflicted upon the test side. If they're not competing, and they obviously aren't, what's the harm in giving them two years out of the spotlight to rebuild while someone else gets a chance to see what they can do? Would only be good for cricket i reckon. And it's not like they don't get the chance to come back stronger two years later (which really isn't that long a time).

A four match series is obviously a lot better than a two match one but i still don't think it's necessary.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think the comparison to the Premier League is relevant at all. If Liverpool were relegated then Stephen Gerrard, and many other players for that matter, would just leave.

Although, perhaps it is relevant. If WI were relegated from the top tier of tests, I expect many of their top players would just retire from tests. And I don't think that's what the ICC are looking for. Plus they would absolutely smash the associate teams.

If they were relegated then it would be because they were the worst side in the top tier. Why is it so much worse for West Indian cricket for their team to be smashing small nations as opposed to being smashed by larger nations? It's not like it's a permanent thing. If they're really far too good for the lower division they'll be back in the top tier within a very short period of time.

West Indies getting relegated wouldn't be what's bad for cricket, what's bad for cricket would be the West Indies being bad enough to be the eighth or ninth-ranked test side. Personally i don't see why they should get preferential treatment because they're a traditional cricket-playing nation. They currently are, and always have been, good enough to maintain test status on merit. But if ever a situation arose where they weren't, why should they have more right to it than a theoretical better-quality Associate nation?

The situation i describe isn't being harsh on anyone, it's the same rules for everyone. As opposed to the current system.

 

[four_or_six]

If they were relegated then it would be because they were the worst side in the top tier. Why is it so much worse for West Indian cricket for their team to be smashing small nations as opposed to being smashed by larger nations? It's not like it's a permanent thing. If they're really far too good for the lower division they'll be back in the top tier within a very short period of time.

West Indies getting relegated wouldn't be what's bad for cricket, what's bad for cricket would be the West Indies being bad enough to be the eighth or ninth-ranked test side. Personally i don't see why they should get preferential treatment because they're a traditional cricket-playing nation. They currently are, and always have been, good enough to maintain test status on merit. But if ever a situation arose where they weren't, why should they have more right to it than a theoretical better-quality Associate nation?

The situation i describe isn't being harsh on anyone, it's the same rules for everyone. As opposed to the current system.

Personally, I think the WI being relegated would be bad for their cricket, because I don't think there'd be much incentive to actually play FC cricket in the WI any more, the focus would all be on the shorter form of the game, and tests will basically die out there.

I agree with you totally that if an associate nation becomes better than them, then they should definitely swap places. I think that's a long way off though. The argument can only even be considered at the moment with Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, and I agree with some other posters in that the best way to find that out is a two-match home and away series between Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and, for example, Ireland. The first step to that is, I guess, to see how Zimbabwe go in the Intercontinental cup, which will be very interesting indeed.

 

[Uppercut]

Personally, I think the WI being relegated would be bad for their cricket, because I don't think there'd be much incentive to actually play FC cricket in the WI any more, the focus would all be on the shorter form of the game, and tests will basically die out there.

I agree with you totally that if an associate nation becomes better than them, then they should definitely swap places. I think that's a long way off though. The argument can only even be considered at the moment with Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, and I agree with some other posters in that the best way to find that out is a two-match home and away series between Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and, for example, Ireland. The first step to that is, I guess, to see how Zimbabwe go in the Intercontinental cup, which will be very interesting indeed.

The problem with the current system, as is the complaint coming from Cricket Ireland, is that there's no means for an Associate to demonstrate that they're good enough for tests. I only suggested a vague blueprint, but the bottom line is that they have to tell us what we need to do. When you hold the Intercontinental Cup, comfortably win the 2011 World Cup qualifiers, win the T20 world cup qualifiers (tied with Holland) and beat Bangladesh at two World Cups (not to mention Pakistan) you start to wonder what more you can do to be recognised. And this is what we mean when we talk about a glass ceiling.

People can argue about the quality of Ireland relative to the bottom-ranked test side, in this case Bangladesh, but in truth none of us know whether we're yet at that level. The ICC don't give us the means to find out. As Warren Deutrom said, all we want is to be told what we need to do.

 

[four_or_six]

The problem with the current system, as is the complaint coming from Cricket Ireland, is that there's no means for an Associate to demonstrate that they're good enough for tests. I only suggested a vague blueprint, but the bottom line is that they have to tell us what we need to do. When you hold the Intercontinental Cup, comfortably win the 2011 World Cup qualifiers, win the T20 world cup qualifiers (tied with Holland) and beat Bangladesh at two World Cups (not to mention Pakistan) you start to wonder what more you can do to be recognised. And this is what we mean when we talk about a glass ceiling.

People can argue about the quality of Ireland relative to the bottom-ranked test side, in this case Bangladesh, but in truth none of us know whether we're yet at that level. The ICC don't give us the means to find out. As Warren Deutrom said, all we want is to be told what we need to do.

I totally sympathise with Irish Cricket. I would imagine winning more games would push the case, and turning over major nations in ODIs and T20s on a more consistent basis. The T20 WC will be good from that point of view, it gives the associate nation an opportunity to play the major nations a lot more often.

I guess the question is, how would Ireland perform in FC cricket against Zimbabwe to start with? If they can consistently compete with them, then there should definitely be FC matches against Bangladesh.

 

[Flem274*]

How about Bangladesh face off with whoever the top associate is, home and away? Or alternatively, if its eight teams and we put Bangladesh down, then whoever is worst at the end of some time period (probably us, or WI or England) faces off with the top associate home and away?

I think its important to have the home and away too, because for example Bangladesh at home and Bangladesh away are completely different, as we and SL found.

 

[brockley]

Bangladesh vs ireland,zimbabwe vs ireland cracker of games.

 

[NUFAN]

You make it sound like a horrendous punishment inflicted upon the test side. If they're not competing, and they obviously aren't, what's the harm in giving them two years out of the spotlight to rebuild while someone else gets a chance to see what they can do? Would only be good for cricket i reckon. And it's not like they don't get the chance to come back stronger two years later (which really isn't that long a time).

A four match series is obviously a lot better than a two match one but i still don't think it's necessary.

Yeah but if the top 2nd tier team can't beat the bottom top tier team there really is no point in giving a team that isn't better a chance.

 

[Jamee999]

I would only support this if it doesn't have automatic promotion and relegation - at the moment there are eight top tier teams - just because (for example) New Zealand do the worst in Tier 1 - and Ireland do the best in Tier 2, doesn't mean they should swap. I would only like teams to move between Tier 1 and Tier 2 if they are consistently dominating Tier 2, or consistently out-classed in Tier 1. I'd much much rather have nine good teams in Tier 1, than eight good teams in Tier 1, and one good team in Tier 2.

 

[andruid]

I dont like the idea because none of the top 8 nations should ever be relegated or lose test status IMO. That would cause madness in the game.

Tier 1 by default, should always be AUS, ENG, SA, IND, PAK, SRI, WI, NZ.

Tier 2 should be all the teams that participate in the intercontinental cup, plus ZIM & BANG. If they perform well enough move them up to tier 1 for a period of time (2 years) - if/when they slip again send them back down - but if they perform, give them an extended 2 years.

What happens to the teams that are already banging on the door in the intercontinental cup? Do they remain there without prospect of ever having a decent shot at the big boys?

It does depend who is in which tier. If it's only Bangladesh that drop out of the 'top tier' then it's hardly different to now, so I don't see the point - better to spend more effort developing cricket in Bangladesh, it's a massive cricket-mad nation, surely it's only a matter of time before they step up.

If a team like WI or NZ (for example) move into the bottom tier, then that's probably it for tests in that country, no-one is going to care about WI vs Ireland or NZ vs Holland, including probably the players. Can you imagine Chris Gayle actually turning up for West Indies versus Ireland?

The two of three years that a team would spend playing associates would likely (or even the risk of such an eventuality) should be spur enough to make the likes of gayle to actually start caring about the priviledges of being in a Test team methinks.