Better future Test Match fixture / format proposals than the ICC??

[Camo999]

Hi guys,

Regarding the recent leaked ICC proposals, one of the more controversial aspects is the foundation of a top tier of just eight test teams given there are currently ten with test match status. Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with something better ourselves. A league in which everyone plays the same number of matches would presumably help give every test match greater context. I see no reason why such a system can’t emerge with all the existing teams involved. Do you think the following could be feasible? Anyone got any other ideas?
...

Over two years each team plays twenty test matches, ten home and ten away. They have to play every other team in at least one test match and in the event they only face a particular opposition once, need to play them at least twice in the next cycle of two years. The teams you host, you have to visit in the next cycle and vice versa.

A four match Ashes series is incorporated into the model. It’s a reduction from five but let’s be honest, relatively few Ashes series are still live going into the fifth test anyway.

Playing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would probably be a tad more appealing and commercially viable than present when you’re got the tangible aim of making the the top 4.

At the conclusion of the fixture, the top four play finals series 1 v 4, 2 v 3 (played concurrently) and the winners playing off in the grand final.

No relegation (unless a team can really no longer compete and is thrashed in all 20 matches thus hurting the comp) but bottom place to play a full test match against the winner of the intercontinental cup as a reward and gauge of possible future expansion for new teams.

Ideally a couple of defined windows – say roughly mid-June to mid-August and mid-November to mid-January should be able to get most of these matches done and allow windows for IPL etc that wouldn’t penalize any particular test team.

Rough fixture, number of test matches as follows:


Currently Zimbabwe have a couple of pesky single match series but anyone decent at Sudoku could probably fix this.

Anyway, that’s my attempt. To me it seems much clearer and fairer to all the ICC members than the alternative.

Cheers

 

[Adders]

Probably cop **** from non Aussie/English posters for saying this, but the Ashes can't and shouldn't be reduced from 5 tests. A lot of the series you propose would be financial losers, which is fine, they should still get played to give a system like this integrity......but they need to be subsidised so to speak by the profitable ones, ie the Ashes.

I haven't given this a great deal of thought but I've always fancied a balanced test program where everyone plays everyone else home and away over a 4 year cycle, at the end of the cycle you crown a test champion......no finals, just like the EPL the winner is the nation sitting on top of the league after the home and away cycle and remains test champ until the next cycle is complete.

It has to be accepted that the number of tests per series will not be the same for everyone, but you could earn the right to play longer series by your position on the ladder in the previous cycle.

I haven't really considered the number of tests per year that would have to be played and whether it could be completed inside 4 years.......so the theory may not work. But something as simple as this would give test matches the relevance they need.

 

[Camo999]

Probably cop **** from non Aussie/English posters for saying this, but the Ashes can't and shouldn't be reduced from 5 tests. A lot of the series you propose would be financial losers, which is fine, they should still get played to give a system like this integrity......but they need to be subsidised so to speak by the profitable ones, ie the Ashes.

I haven't given this a great deal of thought but I've always fancied a balanced test program where everyone plays everyone else home and away over a 4 year cycle, at the end of the cycle you crown a test champion......no finals, just like the EPL the winner is the nation sitting on top of the league after the home and away cycle and remains test champ until the next cycle is complete.

I reckon you're right, it would take 4 years to properly play everyone home and away. I just think teams are going to struggle for motivation to continue to compete for a further 2-3 years after they've dropped off the pace. Not a perfect solution but a short finals series might keep the top 4-6 sides interested towards the end as well as settling any minor inconsistencies in the fixturing when the cycle is 2 years.

 

[Garson007]

Instead of a fixed window, you have a rolling window. The last home/away result against each team is counted. A series win/draw/loss counts for 1 point. The ratio of wins in a series counts for 2 points (2 if you win all five/four/three matches, 1.6/1.5/1.33 if you win four/three/two... etcetera). Playoffs happen every two/four years. You must play a team home and away at least once in 4/5/6 years.

 

[YorksLanka]

fine to keep the Ashes as five matches but the winners should only get the same number of points as other series, and the monies from only the fourth and fifth match to be put back into the "icc fund". Also the Ashes should only be every four years. Every other series should be 3 tests and either 5odis & 1 T20 or 3ODI's & 3 T20's( boards to choose as dependant on whether its a 50/ 20 WC year). Any board that changes these structures should be financially hammered /banned from cricket for a finite period of time for doing so.
As others have said this should be arranged so that each country plays everyone else home and away and the team with the most points over that period wins the "cycle" rank. The ranks should be assessed at the end of each calendar year. Also in terms of points, an away series win should be worth more points than a home one as this will make it much more interesting in my opinion.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

I think as a compramise to the demands of the big three, let them play in the top tier...but, if a team ranks above the last team of the big three they have to be accommodated in a test series. For example in the current ranking:

1. SA
2. India
3. Aus
4. Eng

when a certain date passes they have to accommodate all four teams in a test series, but if one of these big three, for example Eng drop down in the rankings to sixth:

1. SA
2. India
3. Aus
4. Pak
5. Lanka
6. Eng

Then they need to reward Pak and Lanka by letting them play the top 3 teams, while England by virtue of their ICC blackmail still gets to play "top tier" cricket.

 

[NasserFan207]

I think as a compramise to the demands of the big three, let them play in the top tier...but, if a team ranks above the last team of the big three they have to be accommodated in a test series. For example in the current ranking:

1. SA
2. India
3. Aus
4. Eng

when a certain date passes they have to accommodate all four teams in a test series, but if one of these big three, for example Eng drop down in the rankings to sixth:

1. SA
2. India
3. Aus
4. Pak
5. Lanka
6. Eng

Then they need to reward Pak and Lanka by letting them play the top 3 teams, while England by virtue of their ICC blackmail still gets to play "top tier" cricket.

Lol this is so bad.

There is no way you can come up with a compromise to solve such an inherently crazy system, any league is ****ed from the start in this scenario, I'd expect a fairer sporting system out of north korea.

 

[Furball]

Hey guys, the ICC sucks. Let's propose a format that actually reduces the amount of cricket that England play, and cheapens the one truly iconic series that Test Cricket has.

Brilliant stuff.

 

[hendrix]

Hey guys, the ICC sucks. Let's propose a format that actually reduces the amount of cricket that England play, and cheapens the one truly iconic series that Test Cricket has.

Brilliant stuff.

what cheapens the "one truly iconic series" (no it's not) is playing back to back 5 test series in the same year while also fitting in 5 meaningless ODIs.

 

[Furball]

what cheapens the "one truly iconic series" (no it's not) is playing back to back 5 test series in the same year while also fitting in 5 meaningless ODIs.

Have a look at the 19th century contests, thanks.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Have a look at the 19th century contests, thanks.

Oh wow

 

[hendrix]

Have a look at the 19th century contests, thanks.

not quite sure what that has to do with anything. It is an iconic series. There are other iconic series.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Have a look at the 19th century contests, thanks.

Bring back the Gentlemen versus Players then.

 

[Furball]

not quite sure what that has to do with anything. It is an iconic series. There are other iconic series.

Point is that they played each other all the time in the 19th century.

 

[Days of Grace]

Point is that they played each other all the time in the 19th century.

Not really. They played each other in test series about as often as they do now.

 

[swede]

Probably cop **** from non Aussie/English posters for saying this, but the Ashes can't and shouldn't be reduced from 5 tests. A lot of the series you propose would be financial losers, which is fine, they should still get played to give a system like this integrity......but they need to be subsidised so to speak by the profitable ones, ie the Ashes.

I haven't given this a great deal of thought but I've always fancied a balanced test program where everyone plays everyone else home and away over a 4 year cycle, at the end of the cycle you crown a test champion......no finals, just like the EPL the winner is the nation sitting on top of the league after the home and away cycle and remains test champ until the next cycle is complete.

It has to be accepted that the number of tests per series will not be the same for everyone, but you could earn the right to play longer series by your position on the ladder in the previous cycle.

I haven't really considered the number of tests per year that would have to be played and whether it could be completed inside 4 years.......so the theory may not work. But something as simple as this would give test matches the relevance they need.

I think there are too many problems with this.

Four years are too long. Its half a career. Teams might change considerably during the cycle making it more of a long term average than a serious championship
A couple of lost series early on and its 3 years of dead rubbers.
Many more tests of poor quality as everyone plays the likes of Zimbabwe every other year.
Politics. Will India play pakistan, What if some but not others want to play in pakistan again. Zimbabwe...
It would stop development. Disastrous for the likes of ireland and afghanistan, who despite being probably just as worthy as Bangadesh og Zimbabwe cannot be included as there will be too many series.

 

[swede]

Well I think Kykweer has a good point. Something like that might work.
There is context for everyone if the big teams play their preferred fixtures and then also the best of the rest.

Generally a championship shouldnt depend on mathematical tyranny. American college football is wildly popular, but teams arrange their own fixtures bilaterally or sometimes semi-bilaterally between more teams but there is no overall system and it all depends on various rankings.

The county championship in the 1800´s also had "newspaper champions" with counties playing completly different schedules and then papaers simply judging who did best.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Lol this is so bad.

There is no way you can come up with a compromise to solve such an inherently crazy system, any league is ****ed from the start in this scenario, I'd expect a fairer sporting system out of north korea.

Why is it so bad?

If you got a better idea then add it, no use whining like a little girl.

All signs point towards change. I just feel we at least need a system that could rewards teams that perform well that is not included in the big three and not disregard them completely. Thats if the bottom 4 teams even ever play each other.

At worst India could possibly withraw from the icc and start their own world series. Everything is ****ed. and we are currently living in a "North korean" society Everything BCCI says goes and your ***** cricket board is way far up their arse for you to be so judgemental of a proposition.

 

[Gavaskar]

Never going to happen but the ICC should get 100% of the revenue from the ICC t20, ICC champions trophy and ICC world cup, and use that revenue to finance a simple Test knockout Champions ship that takes place every year. The format is simple, the matches played in the country thats highest rated, if its a draw teams with more runs in the first innings go through. The top 6 ranked teams will start out in quarterfinals, West indies and New Zealand will play a qualifying test match vs the winners of Bangladesh vs Ireland, and Zimabwe vs Netherlands, so on and so forth. The final will take place in a neutral continent. The teams that get knocked out will play against each other in one off matches to determine seeding for the next championship. Its obviously a flawed tournament with a lot of matches probably being decided by first innings leads, but a lot better than penalty shootouts which hasn't hurt the fifa world cup in terms of viewership.

Out side these four ICC tournaments the cricketing boards should basically be allowed to do what ever they want.

 

[Camo999]

Hey guys, the ICC sucks. Let's propose a format that actually reduces the amount of cricket that England play, and cheapens the one truly iconic series that Test Cricket has.

Brilliant stuff.

You could be right but I think something has to change pretty soon for test cricket to remain the most prized format of the game worldwide, not just in Aus & Eng.

I quite like seeing all the teams getting decent opportunities to play eachother on a fairly regular basis. A more organised league is the only way I can think of to kick start matches against the lower ranked teams again, and give them real meaning.

I do love the Ashes and agree it's unlikely to be reduced any time soon, but besides 2005 which actually was an iconic series, most of the Ashes series I have seen have in reality been very one-sided.