• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

2 Tier test system

Furball

Evil Scotsman
The important thing IMO is that the numbers for the top tier aren't set in stone.

I'd set the top tier at 8 teams right now. However, there should be no reason why the top tier can't include 9 or 10 teams, if Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe or whoever prove themselves worthy of a place at the top table. Equally, teams like New Zealand or West Indies should not be immune from demotion if they become as uncompetitive as the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have been recently.

This would be done over a period of years - the top teams in tier 2 should be able to challenge the teams in tier 1 - as opposed to playing them in a 1 off match or series which in isolation proves nothing.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Just restrict the IPL to players from Tier 1 players. I reckon that'd be enough of a spur on for Gayle to care for WI Test cricket. :happy:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
The point is just that a lot can happen in one series and it's not always a good idea to put years of work and development down to a few matches.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Another issue with how to get teams up to the top tier is that currently there's such different factors affecting the relevant countries. For Bangladesh, it appears to be consistency and getting the young players and their domestic system up to standard, it's a huge cricket-mad country so you'd think it would just be a matter of time. For Zimbabwe it's politcal issues that need to be resolved before anything else can be sorted. Whereas for countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands it seems to be more a case of numbers and getting a good number of younger players playing at a decent level for the future.

That's probably not a totally accurate reflection, but I hope it makes general sense.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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?.
Well either make tier 2 very big or let those other teams play in a new intercontinental cup , with the winner/best team allowed to qualify for tier 2.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
As others have said there should be no set numbers in the tiers. Staying in the top tier should be decided by how often that team wins/draws Test matches, if all teams are above the level then none of them should get relegated, with a maximum of one team being relegated at a time. Similar situation with promotion, with only one team being promoted at a time. To make it work the second tier sides need to play each other mainly, but also have games against top tier sides - which is tricky. For this bit I think you may need to limit how many of the tier two sides got matches against the best sides.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Zimbabwe v Bangladesh shouldn't be a Test match, whether on a par with any other or in some second tier. I'm happy for it to be deemed first class, but that's about it.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
As others have said there should be no set numbers in the tiers. Staying in the top tier should be decided by how often that team wins/draws Test matches, if all teams are above the level then none of them should get relegated, with a maximum of one team being relegated at a time. Similar situation with promotion, with only one team being promoted at a time. To make it work the second tier sides need to play each other mainly, but also have games against top tier sides - which is tricky. For this bit I think you may need to limit how many of the tier two sides got matches against the best sides.
That would be bad. A team ranked near the bottom facing relegation (and subsequent loss of money/pride due to change in opposition) would simply create pitches with 100% chance of a draw. It would be very negative cricket. It has to be by ranking, or by wins only, not draws.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
For those saying that Bangladesh having test status undermines the argument for not letting teams like Ireland play tests, there's a simple solution to that, and it doesn't involve extending the number of test nations. Surely there's enough evidence by now to say that giving Bangers test status was a sorry mistake that's hurt world cricket more than it's added to it.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
It would work if it also meant that Bangladesh and co could still play ODIs and T20 against the bigger sides. If there isn't the option of Afghanistan and Bangladesh to play regular international matches even if it is ODIs and T20 the game will die a quick death in those countries. Playing FC matches against Ireland, Scotland and co will hurt the countries development. But the growth in Bangladesh cricket has been based around ODIs and T20. They might survive without tests, but not without ODIs against the bigger sides.

Financially though it is impossible to have a proper Tier 2. As the smaller countries will lose all their money given to them by the ICC to host 2-match series that no one watches and these matches will have no TV coverage. They lose enough hosting a couple IC matches. Unless the ICC pays all the expenses, inlcuding players wages. All the boards will go broke with more FC matches.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
The point is just that a lot can happen in one series and it's not always a good idea to put years of work and development down to a few matches.
Tough cookies. If you can't get up for 4 matches played over say 1 1/2 month period every two years to beat the worst Tier 1 team or the best Tier 2 team you probably need a bit of a break from Tier 1 Cricket.

If the bottom place Tier 1 side was to change often enough then the ICC could look at making it 10 Tier 1 teams instead of the 9.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
One thing people have said a few times that makes no sense to me is that for a team in tier one that is struggling, going down to tier one will give them a chance to get their act together and improve. Surely the reverse would occur in all the countries that are likely to face such relegation.

If Aust, or India or England (to a degree) were relegated, I can see that it would prompt an effort to improve. Everywhere else it further marginalise the sport and probably seal it's fate in that country.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
One thing people have said a few times that makes no sense to me is that for a team in tier one that is struggling, going down to tier one will give them a chance to get their act together and improve. Surely the reverse would occur in all the countries that are likely to face such relegation.

If Aust, or India or England (to a degree) were relegated, I can see that it would prompt an effort to improve. Everywhere else it further marginalise the sport and probably seal it's fate in that country.
It depends on the situation as you say, but in general i suspect it would help more often than it would hinder. Look at Bangladesh, all they know is getting beaten and it shows every time they come anywhere near winning a game. Getting stuffed every time you play does more to marginalise cricket than playing teams on your own level more often IMO.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For those saying that Bangladesh having test status undermines the argument for not letting teams like Ireland play tests, there's a simple solution to that, and it doesn't involve extending the number of test nations. Surely there's enough evidence by now to say that giving Bangers test status was a sorry mistake that's hurt world cricket more than it's added to it.
Have argued that hundreds of times, but it ain't gonna happen. If the status of tests is going to be undermined then we may as well make a remotely fair system out of it.
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
It wont work and it would be boring to play the same 3 teams all the time.

The ICC rankings never made sense to me.

England will play Australia for 5 tests, then South Africa for 4 tests, (then India or Sri Lanka for 3 tests more than likely but nothing is confirmed), then Pakistan for 4 tests, then Australia for 5 or 6 tests.

Using the current rankings, we wouldn't play South Africa, India OR Australia.

So you're gonna do away with the Ashes if Asutralia and England aren't in the same tier.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That would be bad. A team ranked near the bottom facing relegation (and subsequent loss of money/pride due to change in opposition) would simply create pitches with 100% chance of a draw. It would be very negative cricket. It has to be by ranking, or by wins only, not draws.
It's a combination of wins and draws, not just draws.

Also you could pretty much prepare anything and Bangladesh would still lose on it. .
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Have argued that hundreds of times, but it ain't gonna happen. If the status of tests is going to be undermined then we may as well make a remotely fair system out of it.
So just be because maladministration of the game means we're stuck with one or two (depending on where Zimbabwe sits any given season) making a mockery of international cricket, we should just take the plunge and let another three worse teams join in?

Trying to in effect reduce the number of times we see India vs Aust, Ind vs Pak, or Aus vs Eng in favour of forcing matches only a small number of people in marginal countries want to see, like Ireland or Holland vs Aus or Eng is madness. Creatig some ridiculous two tier system to avoid that will inevitably lead to dramas when a team like Eng, Ind or Aus slip down briefly and get relegated. Plus it takes a dump from a great height as to what 'test' cricke is meant to be.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
One thing people have said a few times that makes no sense to me is that for a team in tier one that is struggling, going down to tier one will give them a chance to get their act together and improve. Surely the reverse would occur in all the countries that are likely to face such relegation.

If Aust, or India or England (to a degree) were relegated, I can see that it would prompt an effort to improve. Everywhere else it further marginalise the sport and probably seal it's fate in that country.
That's actually a very good point. During the 90s, both India and England would have been in danger of being relegated under this system. I am not sure what impact it would have had, but I don't think it would have been positive at all.

It's a combination of wins and draws, not just draws.

Also you could pretty much prepare anything and Bangladesh would still lose on it. .
That's not who we are talking about though.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
That's actually a very good point. During the 90s, both India and England would have been in danger of being relegated under this system. I am not sure what impact it would have had, but I don't think it would have been positive at all.
Yes but it wouldn't have taken them long to crawl into the top tier.
 

Top