Cricket can never have many teams

[Gooch20]

Cricket is a sport that can never have many teams, especially playing test matches, imagine even if we have 15 test playing nations, the schedules will be so hectic, travelling around and there will be no space to accomodate the matches in a year.

I think only 20/20 version can have many teams, because it only lasts couple of hours

 

[slugger]

accomodating 15 test nations would be a challenge, but if there is will there is a way. If proper league table existed something similar to the current super rugby comp it could be possible.

but i think 20/20 will be the version that will eventaully dominate, on a global scale.

 

[Hurricane]

15 teams would be fine you just wouldn't play teams very often. Will make each occassion more special.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yep. Obviously there'd be no way they could all play eachother all the time, there'd have to be some sort of divisional Test cricket. Which again would make every Test series more important.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The problem I have with this sort of argument is that it presupposes it's a necessity for every team to play every other team within a given timescale. It's just not.

The gradual reintroduction of Zimbabwe by them playing one-off tests against NZ, the Windies and Bangladesh brings a much welcomed dose of common sense to proceedings.

By all means give the likes of Ireland (I say "the likes of Ireland", but currently only really mean "Ireland") test status, but don't pitch them straight into the FTP. It hasn't done Bangladesh any good (number of wins against test strength sides still 0) so it'd be madness to repeat the mistake. Sides touring England could pop over for a test in Dublin whilst they were here and when results dictated Ireland could play more.

 

[Goughy]

Yep. Obviously there'd be no way they could all play eachother all the time, there'd have to be some sort of divisional Test cricket. Which again would make every Test series more important.

The problem with divisional Test cricket is that the 2nd division, by its very existence, would not be Test cricket. Test cricket is the top level of international FC cricket.

 

[GIMH]

The problem with divisional Test cricket is that the 2nd division, by its very existence would not be Test cricket. Test cricket is the top level of international FC cricket.

And just imagine the chaos it would cause in stat wars here in cricket chat

 

[Xuhaib]

I actually think the current number which is 9 is actually just about right to have a healthy test circuit, instead of trying to push cricket in places like Vietnam or Ghana its better if ICC puts its energy in making sure that the heath of the game remains strong in the weaker and smaller test playing nations.

 

[Howe_zat]

The problem with divisional Test cricket is that the 2nd division, by its very existence would not be Test cricket. Test cricket is the top level of international FC cricket.

Except it's already like that. New Zealand vs the West Indies or something just isn't going to be regarded as the top level because neither side is among the best in the world. So often we hear about a group of teams being on "a level above" the others. The only difference is that it's not literal. Divisional Tests would stop token two-test series and give every team something to aim at.

And just imagine the chaos it would cause in stat wars here in cricket chat

Quite. This is something we have to protect.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Except it's already like that. New Zealand vs the West Indies or something just isn't going to be regarded as the top level because neither side is among the best in the world. So often we hear about a group of teams being on "a level above" the others. The only difference is that it's not literal. Divisional Tests would stop token two-test series and give every team something to aim at.

That's equally a good argument against divisional tests though. We know some test nations are weaker than others so why is there a need to sanctify a streaming of them? The only argument in its favour are those of the "Won't someone please think of the stats?!" varieties.

To use an almost analogous situation from another sport, look at the all-time leading try scorer in test rugby union. It's not, as one might've thought David Campese, Rory Underwood or Bryan Habana, but rather Daisuke Ohata of Japan. No one seriously thinks he's in the same league as any of them as a player and most of his scores have come against lesser nations, but, as with cricket, the only possible reason to deny Japan test status would be a stats-preserving one.

Remove the FTP and apply common sense and we're good.

 

[Howe_zat]

I agree, Brumby. I like mucking around with stats but I've never taken them that seriously.

I just like the idea of divisions because then there's more prizes on offer. When I talk about divisional cricket I don't mean New Zealand should be cut off from playing Sri Lanka or England because obviously there's not much difference there - just some form of defined competition between teams on a similar level.

 

[Flem274*]

My beef with Divisional Test Cricket is there is no way in hell the big four would have the grace to be relegated without a hissyfit, especially if two or more of India, Australia, England and South Africa were relegated.

They'd remove the divisions if that happened, or give dispensation citing the Ashes an a previous example (because eventually Australia and England would be in different divisions).

The only way divisional tests will happen is financially, in that certain boards buy their way in and slam the door closed on everyone else.

Oh wait, that's already happening...Ah well, divisions gives them an excuse to legislate it eh?

 

[BoyBrumby]

My beef with Divisional Test Cricket is there is no way in hell the big four would have the grace to be relegated without a hissyfit, especially if two or more of India, Australia, England and South Africa were relegated.

They'd remove the divisions if that happened, or give dispensation citing the Ashes an a previous example (because eventually Australia and England would be in different divisions).

The only way divisional tests will happen is financially, in that certain boards buy their way in and slam the door closed on everyone else.

Oh wait, that's already happening...Ah well, divisions gives them an excuse to legislate it eh?

Fair points, well made.

Although the test rankings were unofficial back then, after NZ defeated us at home in 1999 England were rated 9 out of 9, below Zimbabwe, even.

Whichever way it was chopped England were a 2nd division team back then.

 

[jashan83]

The Test should be ruled out of FTP. The countries should be playing Tests against nations they want. It should be lead by market dynamics. If Aus are happy to play regularly against Eng, Ind, SA or Pak and not against Ire, Scot, Afg, Neth, Can, Ken (Assuming these nations were promoted as Test Nations ) or Bd, Zim then let it be like that way.

The FTP for ODI however should be fixed. Every nation over a period of time should play other nations. On these tours like if Aus is willing then it can play 1, 2 test against NZ or WI is sole discretion of Aus.

This would ensure the lesser teams still keep getting exposure against the big teams but we do not destroy the sanctity of Test with AUs marauding BD for a test that serves little interest.

Also the lesser teams will play test against teams of similar capability and over time if they are improving the other will automatically invite them. Eg if Ire get an clear dominance against the lower teams then they surely will get more invites from NZ or WI and further from Ind, Pak, SA or Aus

However playing a min no of tests should be mandated for all teams (Say 13 Test in a year)

 

[Flem274*]

The Test should be ruled out of FTP. The countries should be playing Tests against nations they want. It should be lead by market dynamics.

This is an absolutely horrific idea.

You're supposedly a minnow champion, and this is a good way to kill the minnows and several test nations off for good.

 

[jashan83]

This is an absolutely horrific idea.

You're supposedly a minnow champion, and this is a good way to kill the minnows and several test nations off for good.

Yes Flem I am a minnow champion and want more teams to play Cricket, but am also a fan of Test Cricket. I think Test Cricket has started to loose flavor when Aus is forced to play BD or will be forced to play Zim. It is this FTP for Test that has made the Power 3 to think for themselves and go absolutely against expansion of this exclusive club.

It is a tricky issue and you ask me frankly I can have many pros and cons for Both side. However instead of having communist regime in all forms let us have the most pure form of cricket been governed by the market dynamics

 

[CricTsunami18]

Cricket is a sport that demands respect. You can't bully the umpire or referee like in rugby, football, hockey etc.... so that circuit should be limited. Test cricket is the highest form of cricket on the international scale. Associate natons should stick to counties or T20s. You have to be the best to be a bigger part of it. That's the way it goes. Ofcourse, I want cricket to have more popularity.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes Flem I am a minnow champion and want more teams to play Cricket, but am also a fan of Test Cricket. I think Test Cricket has started to loose flavor when Aus is forced to play BD or will be forced to play Zim. It is this FTP for Test that has made the Power 3 to think for themselves and go absolutely against expansion of this exclusive club.

It is a tricky issue and you ask me frankly I can have many pros and cons for Both side. However instead of having communist regime in all forms let us have the most pure form of cricket been governed by the market dynamics

The current constant flouting of the FTP and series between the big four every five seconds, with an occasional token two test series with NZ or the WI is market dynamics in all but name.

If they make your idea official, they won't even need to give token series anymore.

 

[juro]

I love the idea of divisions in test matches. We have the divisions in the World Cricket League already for 50 over matches, which qualifies teams for the Intercontinental Shield, but then there is the glass ceiling. That is as far as the associates and affiliates can rise.

I'm making this up as I type, so bear with me...

What if we divided the top 12 teams into 3 divisions of 4 teams? Based on current test rankings, that would be:

Division 1 = India, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka
Division 2 = Australia, Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand
Division 3 = Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Scotland (these based on the latest Intercontinental Shield)

Over a 2 year period, teams play home and away 3 test series. That makes 18 tests over the period. At the end of the period, the top team is promoted, the bottom team is relegated and we have the world test champion crowned.

Of course the first division teams would make more money. But they do this already! Can you imagine the level of excitement for teams fighting for promotion or trying to hold on against relegation? Every test match would have context and teams would be fairly evenly matched. Cricket fans would not only want to follow the results of their own team, but the other teams in their division.

If a team isn't good enough to be in Division 1, so be it. I'm an Australian but I have to admit we don't deserve to be at the top at the moment. But I am sure the Australian cricketers would fight like mad to get back to the top!

Now, having 9 tests per year still leaves time for other matches to be played. If Australia and England want to play against each other and they are in different divisions, they should be free to still play test matches. They just need to work it in to fit around the required matches.

Whether Division 1 only, or top 2 (or 3 or whatever) matches count as test matches can be argued but to me that is not relevant. Stats are great to play with but the game of cricket should not be run for the sake of stats!

 

[jashan83]

I love the idea of divisions in test matches. We have the divisions in the World Cricket League already for 50 over matches, which qualifies teams for the Intercontinental Shield, but then there is the glass ceiling. That is as far as the associates and affiliates can rise.

I'm making this up as I type, so bear with me...

What if we divided the top 12 teams into 3 divisions of 4 teams? Based on current test rankings, that would be:

Division 1 = India, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka
Division 2 = Australia, Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand
Division 3 = Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Scotland (these based on the latest Intercontinental Shield)

Over a 2 year period, teams play home and away 3 test series. That makes 18 tests over the period. At the end of the period, the top team is promoted, the bottom team is relegated and we have the world test champion crowned.

Of course the first division teams would make more money. But they do this already! Can you imagine the level of excitement for teams fighting for promotion or trying to hold on against relegation? Every test match would have context and teams would be fairly evenly matched. Cricket fans would not only want to follow the results of their own team, but the other teams in their division.

If a team isn't good enough to be in Division 1, so be it. I'm an Australian but I have to admit we don't deserve to be at the top at the moment. But I am sure the Australian cricketers would fight like mad to get back to the top!

Now, having 9 tests per year still leaves time for other matches to be played. If Australia and England want to play against each other and they are in different divisions, they should be free to still play test matches. They just need to work it in to fit around the required matches.

Whether Division 1 only, or top 2 (or 3 or whatever) matches count as test matches can be argued but to me that is not relevant. Stats are great to play with but the game of cricket should not be run for the sake of stats!

Juro I would rather go for a Div of 6 Nations each and then promotion relegation between them for 3 years

Div 1:- Ind, Pak, SL, Aus, Eng, SA
Div 2:- NZ,WI, Bd, Zim, Scot, Afg,
Div 3:- Ire, Neth, Can, Ken, Nam, UAE
Div 4 (FC):- Ber, Ugan, HK, PNG, Oman & Italy

Then after End of 3 years and 15 test series the top and bottom of each div plays a 5 match test series. Suppose Pak comes 6th in Div 1 and NZ 1st in Div 2 they play a 5 match test series schedules as 2 Tests in NZ, 2 Tests in Pak & one on a neutral ground (Eng). The Winner of this series goes into upper div for 3 years.
Teams from one down division can play tests if they want. Like If Pak slips into Div 2 but wants to have a test series against Ind they can. But this test series will not be counted for any divisional ranking though would be official test matches.
Also in Promotion and Relegation series the points will be based on the one in Intercontinental Cup
1. Win:- 14 Pts
2. First inning lead:- 6 Points
3. Draw:- 3 points each
4. Draw in case of loss of more than 12 Hrs of Play:- 10 Points Each