Time for Divisions in International Cricket?

[Neil Pickup]

There is a precedent of rugby teams improving significantly, hence we now have Six Nations rather than Five.

I also remember Argentina didn't do too badly in the last World Cup.

Cricket's scheduling problem doesn't have any easy fixes due to the clash of interests.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Dont agree with the arguement there mate.
Ireland never beatan the All Blacks, Wales havent done for 60 years. So i guess we should never play them? What about England, they have only 6 victories over 100 years. Maybe we should just play them at world cup time to?

Would certainly boost our win rate, just the sight of the Webb Ellis trophy is usually enough...

 

[silentstriker]

The only changes I'd make is to make it mandatory to play a minimum of 10 Tests per year, and also have an official Test championship every two years where the #2 team goes to #1 team's home and plays a four or five match Test series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Asif would end up having lowest ever bowling average for a seamer if he only gets to bowl to NZL,WI and Bangla regularly also Mahela and Mo Yo to average 70+ in test cricket.

Since when is WI good for fast bowlers?

 

[Jarquis]

Could have a 3/4 match series between the side that finished bottom in Division 1/2 against the side top of Division 2/3. If Bangladesh are as woeful as they're being made out as then surely the worst team in Division 2 should still be able to beat them in a series like that? However as they improve over time then they could possibly win that series and get themselves promoted.

 

[popepouri]

There will be Portsmouths in every league system. IMO, a tiered solution for the current crop of test playing nations would ultimately kill test cricket in non-top tier teams. If it were to be implemented, a 2nd tier should be implemented for teams for non-test playing nations with a possible promotion spot after 4 years or so.

1st tier:
Australia
Bangladesh
England
India
New Zealand
Pakistan
South Africa
Sri Lanka
West Indies

2nd tier:
Zimbabwe
Afghanstan
Canada
Ireland
Kenya
Netherlands
Scotland
USA
U.A.E.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Presuming that promotion is tied to relegation, it would have to be more than every 4 years. A 4-year wait in the 2nd tier would kill any team that starts in the top tier.

 

[Jarquis]

Presuming that promotion is tied to relegation, it would have to be more than every 4 years. A 4-year wait in the 2nd tier would kill any team that starts in the top tier.

2 year cycle IMO

 

[Faisal1985]

I was thinking more along the lines of we have the IPL, the Champions League and the on-set of a lot of Twenty20 cricket. Something has got to give now surely?

It seems your average fan is more interested in the KFC Big-Bash than what they are in WIndies/Aus or Pak/Aus. Likewise in NZ with the Twenty20 Domestic League compared to the Bangladesh series.

You're killing international cricket with these series I tend to think.

I beg to differ, i think the battles that i saw in the test series of Pak vs. Aus were thrilling..Yes Yousuf's blunders made it a 3-0 series which in the after math looks like a dud...but in essence as i watched the whole series, it was not boring at all....it was very exciting....

 

[popepouri]

Presuming that promotion is tied to relegation, it would have to be more than every 4 years.

I say 4 years because it's around that time that each team plays each other once. It doesn't really matter.

A 4-year wait in the 2nd tier would kill any team that starts in the top tier.

Maybe a playoff series home and away between the possible relegated and promoted side could distinguish who should go where. For teams like Ireland who has a few decent players and could possibly beat Bangladesh in tests, I believe they should be given the chance to prove themselves. All in all, it adds a competitiveness for the lesser teams which hopefully should lessen the quality gap.

 

[Jarquis]

In my suggestion it would be the current Test sides minus Bangladesh in Division 1. Whether the matches in the tier below are classified as Test matches is another matter, though there should be an improvement in the current system with regards to how a side can achieve Test status.

 

[slugger]

thats kind of what Ireland have been asking for a clear ( objectives, goals and required achievements on the field) path into becoming a test status team

 

[GuyFromLancs]

This might have been said already and some may think it does not matter - but divisions will make player stats utterly meaningless and the debates on Cricketweb will go on forever.

Imagine an average all-rounder averaging 50 with the bat and 25 with the ball in his test career, but only because he avoided playing Australia, South Africa, India, England etc.

The horror the horror

 

[Jarquis]

This might have been said already and some may think it does not matter - but divisions will make player stats utterly meaningless and the debates on Cricketweb will go on forever.

Imagine an average all-rounder averaging 50 with the bat and 25 with the ball in his test career, but only because he avoided playing Australia, South Africa, India, England etc.

The horror the horror

Well it'd just mean that stats have to be used in context. Even as it currently is with players playing against the opposition people aren't happy with taking stats purely for what they are.
Whether it be because the games were played on a certain type of pitch or when an opposition player was absent/underperforming.
Statistical arguments will always happen, regardless.

 

[Flem274*]

This might have been said already and some may think it does not matter - but divisions will make player stats utterly meaningless and the debates on Cricketweb will go on forever.

Imagine an average all-rounder averaging 50 with the bat and 25 with the ball in his test career, but only because he avoided playing Australia, South Africa, India, England etc.

The horror the horror

Easy. Have Tier 1 and Tier 2 records.

Not a fan of this system. None of the big four will ever step down. They'll find some loophole. Also what about the Ashes if the two were in different tiers?

 

[Point]

Four years is too long of an exodus from the highest level and would really hurt a team badly.

So let's go with 2-year cycles. To keep interest in test matches, let's limit it to two series per year and possibly one playoff for relegation and one for the winner (and one more in the other year if teams are desperate e.g. Ashes). So you can have 5 teams in two divisions.

 

[silentstriker]

There are a lot of problems with cricket, but too much Test cricket is not one of them.

 

[Matt79]

Rubbish premise James. The results might be whitewashes but there was some very good competitive cricket this summer eg Adelaide and Sydney.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Well it'd just mean that stats have to be used in context. Even as it currently is with players playing against the opposition people aren't happy with taking stats purely for what they are.
Whether it be because the games were played on a certain type of pitch or when an opposition player was absent/underperforming.
Statistical arguments will always happen, regardless.

Yes but not to this extent. It's all very good saying Kallis scored his runs in the noughties and not the more difficult 90s etc but we are talking about setting up a system in which some players will only ever play 3rd rate opposition.

This will also-

1. Ruin the chances of top players playing for poor test teams really making something of themselves. Think Shane Bond, Andy Flower, Martin Crowe wasting away.

2. Poor teams will never improve playing against other poor teams. They need exposure to the best to improve. Sri Lanka would never have got to the level they are at now playing against 3rd raters in the past 20 years. Now they have numerous genuinly world class players.

It's a terrible idea, sorry!

 

[Burgey]

We need to be in the bottom tier of international T20. ****ing horrible performance tonight with the bat.