ICC seriously considers 2 divisions,7/5 split.

[Athlai]

There are also statistical considerations. Do records broken in the 2nd division get a star placed next to them?

You mean like how we already judge how people perform against minnows?

 

[cnerd123]

Yea some good points raised so far.

A 2 division system is what we have all been crying out for, but there are just so many potential problems with it and I can't see the ICC doing a good job of implementing it. I can't see how it would be in the BCCI's best interests to play the 7th place team as much as the play Aus/Eng, nor can I see why the Big 3 would be willing to subsidise cricket played by the Division 2 stragglers. I also can't imagine any of them would be okay with the possibility of being demoted. Allowing for all this would take a great deal of generosity and prioritizing the integrity of the game over financial rewards, something none of these boards have shown any inclination towards.

I fear this will do more harm to Test cricket than good.

 

[straw man]

There are also statistical considerations. Do records broken in the 2nd division get a star placed next to them?

Just like performances against Bangladesh, against Zimbabwe except the late 90s, against ATG West Indies or Australian teams, on roads, when it swings round corners, when it later came out sunny, when it turns big from day one, against teams that are only good at home, when the oppositions best bowler/batsman was injured, when there was discontent within the team, when the players hadn't been paid, when the umpires made bad decisions, when you lost the toss?

No I have no concerns about introducing one more variable.

 

[straw man]

The only way it would kill cricket in those countries would be if they stay there for a long time. I mean if NZ were in the 2nd tier in the last 2 years, we'd have likely stomped on everyone in that division and then after being victorious against Sri Lanka/WI we'd have moved up to div 1.

Point being the longer you stay in Div 2, unless other things are done to arrest a slide, the lesser your ability to get promoted again in the future. It's like being in a cyclic business - yeah you accept there are ups and downs but if a down sends you bankrupt there are no more ups.

Put WI in Div 2 for 2 years, they miss promotion so that's 4 years, the next time they do scrape promotion but are then thrashed by everyone and relegated again - that might break the camel's back.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You mean like how we already judge how people perform against minnows?

Yes. And doing this would make that 'official'. Which would suck.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are also statistical considerations. Do records broken in the 2nd division get a star placed next to them?

One could argue this is sort of the case it is already. Bangladesh/Zimbabwe play an overwhelming proportion of their internationals (especially ODIs) against each other or other minnows, so looking at a Bangladesh/Zimbabwe player's stats you'd already tend to take into account that the quality of opposition they've faced is, on average, less than players from other countries.

But yeah the 2 tiers would accentuate this.

You'd also have certain teams (eg. WI) yo-yoing with every cycle. They'd almost certainly go up/down/up/down on an endless rotation unless something unusual happens. Which would again kind of defeat the purpose.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the only way two tiers could really work would be if the ICC instituted a compulsory requirement for teams to play all other teams in their tier home and away within a set period (four years perhaps), a bit like the old FTP, and also allowed Tests to be organised bilaterally across tiers.

As much as I'd really enjoy a tiered system under those conditions, I just can't see that being anywhere near the most effective way of making money out of Test cricket, and therefore I think it'd be really unlikely. To be fair though, this part of the article vaguely implies something similar to what I suggested:

Matches within this divisional structure would occupy no more than five months a year, leaving time for countries to schedule additional tours. A marquee series such as the Ashes, for example, could continue on its current cycle even if Australia or England were in different divisions.

 

[Shady Slim]

i feel that a second tier could do better as five day non first class but not test status matches for the irelands and netherlandses to gradually get standard of play up until they can mix it with bigger teams

goes with my proposal to make touring games against localised minnow teams, eg india could have nepal, pakistan get the uae, etc

 

[StephenZA]

Reading the article, it appears that they only want to take up part of the year so this allows for extra games to be played between teams that are willing. i.e. Aus India and Eng can still play 2 or more series in that time. All this appears to be doing is trying to enforce that everybody places everybody in the top 7 at least once every 2 years. And then have a lower tier that encourages lower ranked teams to get into the top 7 so that they can become part of that 2 year cycle. As has already been stated this creates many logistical nightmares..

I like what they are trying to do. But I think they need to keep it simple. Keep the current 10 test playing nations (all the way to Zim). And enforce that every team must play every other team at least once in a minimum 2 match test series every 4 years (I would like to make it 3 tests, but don`t think this would be accepted.) . This ensures that all test teams play, but still allows for the big 3 (and others) to have more test against each other if they want. This is largely what happens already, but it ensures that countries like Zim and Bangladesh are guaranteed to play against all the other top nations. There is already a 2nd tier for the associate nations, let them battle it out with the weakest 2 teams at the end of the cycle and if they win they get a chance to play against all the test playing nations over a 4 year period... gives the lower ranked and associate teams something to fight for.

Growing the game is more for the T20 and ODI to do, this also makes more money than test cricket which is what the associate teams need.

Anyway, my 2 cents... which will make no difference to ICC decisions whatsoever.

 

[Victor Ian]

Why not just let the stats stand and let the fans figure out their worth? Kind of like Headley mostly go to play against 2nd 11's because the countries of the time cgaf.

My first thought was also as to how the stats would pan out. It would basically give people in forums more avenue to say "yeah but" when anyone lays down a stat to back their claims, and that is what makes threads thrive.

I also wondered about the quality of series against lower tier teams that upgrade. Could they award more points for series wins of larger quantities. Say 2 points for a win in a 1 or 2 test series, 2.5 points for 3 or 4 and 3 points for 5 test series. That would keep teams wanting to max out their number of tests awarded to lower perceived nations.... Maybe.

And while I'm at it, add some more bonus points of some worth for touring games (or deductions to the home team for lack of), so that more are scheduled and we see les teams arrive and play under prepared. If you scheduled a game and put in a crap team to not let the tourists prepare they might win and take some points.

 

[TheJediBrah]

i feel that a second tier could do better as five day non first class but not test status matches for the irelands and netherlandses to gradually get standard of play up until they can mix it with bigger teams

goes with my proposal to make touring games against localised minnow teams, eg india could have nepal, pakistan get the uae, etc

This is so much simpler and makes a lot more sense as well

 

[Burgey]

Just go back to when cricket was best and the only teams which played tests were Australia, England, SA and a couple of bones being thrown to NZ and WI every few years when the real teams had nothing to do.

The others can all just match fix, hit and giggle in T20

 

[fredfertang]

Utter nonsense - it would be ok at the moment but what happens when West Indies get their act together again, and the Banglas keep progressing so that we have nine decent sides? Oh and Ireland and someone else get Test status but effectively get no proper Tests - lose/lose as far as I can see

 

[indiaholic]

The Banglas won't get any better. They have already hit their peak.

 

[indiaholic]

Is Energetic banned?

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I think this will happen, it will be shame when it does

 

[TNT]

So does Ireland even have a test quality venue available, who is going to be the first team to tour Afghanistan. Its has to be a joke surely.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think the only way two tiers could really work would be if the ICC instituted a compulsory requirement for teams to play all other teams in their team home and away within a set period (four years perhaps), a bit like the old FTP, and also allowed Tests to be organised bilaterally across tiers.

As much as I'd really enjoy a tiered system under those conditions, I just can't see that being anywhere near the most effective way of making money out of Test cricket, and therefore I think it'd be really unlikely. To be fair though, this part of the article vaguely implies something similar to what I suggested:

They absolutely need to insist on a minimum of home and away test series between divisional sides or it renders the whole thing completely pointless.

Why bother with any of this if it's just another way of splitting up the rankings, making no impact on fixtures unless boards feel like it?

I feel like it's mostly a good idea because the biggest problem in Test cricket for me is the lack of regular matches for all the teams. In 2015 Bangladesh played 5 tests, all at home, and Zimbabwe played none. Neither side have played against Australia for 11 years, but England have 30 matches and India have 22 matches against Australia in that time. It's not like there wasn't time. They just couldn't be arsed.

It's still hopelessly gerrymandered, it's clearly a 7/5 split because England and India have genuinely been 7th recently. But better than what we've got at the moment.

 

[Stefan9]

Utter nonsense - it would be ok at the moment but what happens when West Indies get their act together again, and the Banglas keep progressing so that we have nine decent sides? Oh and Ireland and someone else get Test status but effectively get no proper Tests - lose/lose as far as I can see

You can always increase division sizes when you have more competitive teams in world cricket.

I like the idea and would love it to happen. But those who only care about financial rewards will block it just as they have done countless times with test championship ideas.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

You can always increase division sizes when you have more competitive teams in world cricket.

I like the idea and would love it to happen. But those who only care about financial rewards will block it just as they have done countless times with test championship ideas.

That's interesting because to me the people who would want this through are looking for money not for the game.
If it's good for cricket I'm all for it. I guess we already have bare stadiums in so many countries perhaps it will work...