ICC seriously considers 2 divisions,7/5 split.

[Stefan9]

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...

2 Divisions provides more competitive cricket which is better for the game, 2 divisions allows you to get more nations involved in the game as well. The boards who would not want this are those who would be terrified of the financial consequences of an extended run in div 2...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I actually think this sounds like a really good idea if properly implemented. Limiting the size of the top division to 8 means it's more realistic for each team to play each other team once home and away within a reasonable timeframe, which makes the ranking system more directly relevant and ensures consistent test cricket for all teams. They'd need to make accomodations for series length when it came to things like the Ashes, but they did that under the future tours program in the past and it worked reasonably well.

I don't think getting demoted would be that big a deal because the demoted sides would still get regular cricket, would be winning fairly consistently and could get promoted again fast. Plus it's only for one form of the game so if India was to get demoted for two years they'd still be playing big ticket ODI and t20 series regularly.

I don't think the stats thing is a huge problem really, Bangladesh already play Zimbabwe a lot more than they play Australia, so nothing would change there. And if someone from a minnow broke a record playing other minnows exclusively, people would just recognise it as less significant, the same way people don't think Ryan ten Doeschate is the best ODI all-rounder of all time because his record is absurd.

Main issue would just be money and the organisation of tour frequency, would need to play all teams home and away within a 4 year cycle consistently and probably have room for a promotion/demotion series as well.

 

[GIMH]

I actually think this sounds like a really good idea if properly implemented. Limiting the size of the top division to 8 means it's more realistic for each team to play each other team once home and away within a reasonable timeframe, which makes the ranking system more directly relevant and ensures consistent test cricket for all teams. They'd need to make accomodations for series length when it came to things like the Ashes, but they did that under the future tours program in the past and it worked reasonably well.

I don't think getting demoted would be that big a deal because the demoted sides would still get regular cricket, would be winning fairly consistently and could get promoted again fast. Plus it's only for one form of the game so if India was to get demoted for two years they'd still be playing big ticket ODI and t20 series regularly.

I don't think the stats thing is a huge problem really, Bangladesh already play Zimbabwe a lot more than they play Australia, so nothing would change there. And if someone from a minnow broke a record playing other minnows exclusively, people would just recognise it as less significant, the same way people don't think Ryan ten Doeschate is the best ODI all-rounder of all time because his record is absurd.

Main issue would just be money and the organisation of tour frequency, would need to play all teams home and away within a 4 year cycle consistently and probably have room for a promotion/demotion series as well.

Agree with all of that. Well said.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Looking forward to this being implemented, England getting demoted and the Ashes never happening again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

What do you mean by this?

Couldn't be arsed shoe-horning in random 2 test series against Bang/Zim where an Australian 3rd XI would probably end up playing because everyone's already overworked?

Couldn't be arsed replacing an India or England Test series with a Bang/Zim one and throwing away millions of dollars in the process?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I actually like this idea. It sets some criteria around (for a limited period in the year) for an appropriate number of Tests to be mandatory for all teams, then outside of that window you can play additi5onal Tests if you want to. So, even with teams in different divisions, you can still schedule tours. I suspect England will always want to tour NZ, even if we were in Div 2 as the England fans like to do the tours to the exotic locations, so we could organise the bilateral tour outside of the 5 month Test calendar if necessary. It'd also give two more teams to schedule tests against, so we're not always playing the same teams.

The 7/5 split is interesting, but I suspect this could give easy scope to add teams in the 2nd division if a team showed rapid improvement in the way Afghanistan have.

I'd still like to see Ireland/Afghans etc. playing 4 day games against touring Test teams to illustrate how competitive they're likely to be, but this seems like a step in the right direction if self-interest doesn't scupper it.

 

[Howe_zat]

What do you mean by this?

Couldn't be arsed shoe-horning in random 2 test series against Bang/Zim where an Australian 3rd XI would probably end up playing because everyone's already overworked?

Couldn't be arsed replacing an India or England Test series with a Bang/Zim one and throwing away millions of dollars in the process?

Well, yes, precisely.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

But that's just moving the goalposts whenever you feel like it which is what makes it pointless because you're right, that is what would happen - I mean the idea that West Indies finally come up with a pair of world class quicks again, as they one day inevitably will, and they have to spend two years on the periphery of the game, or equally worryingly just do a Shaun Tait through their careers, can't be allowed to happen

 

[Flem274*]

this is a stupid idea. mainly because as soon as england or india are **** again the goal posts will shift and they'll dodge being relegated, and also because i don't see some teams escaping the second division death spiral.

all that needs legislating is everyone must play everyone once home and away within a generous timeframe. you can even keep your 2 test series for australia v zimbabwe if you must.

 

[Debris]

Cricket officials are just making life hard for themselves by placing all these restrictions on test cricket. They should just let any country that wants to play test cricket and let countries sort it out between themselves who play who. It works for every other sport ever invented, why would cricket be so special.

The only people against this plan are statisticians and I am on board with making them suffer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Cricket officials are just making life hard for themselves by placing all these restrictions on test cricket. They should just let any country that wants to play test cricket and let countries sort it out between themselves who play who. It works for every other sport ever invented, why would cricket be so special.

The only people against this plan are statisticians and I am on board with making them suffer.

No don't cheapen Test cricket.

Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game. Malta v Democratic Republic of the Congo can't be Test Cricket.

 

[turnstyle]

I can't see it working. When the ICC gave ODI status to a bunch of Associates, it didn't really open any doors to bilateral series against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

 

[Burner]

Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game my arse! The purists are the worst. The worst!

 

[Debris]

No don't cheapen Test cricket.

Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game. Malta v Democratic Republic of the Congo can't be Test Cricket.

German vs Brazil is not cheapened in football by the fact that you can also have games between Tonga and Fiji. Anyone with common sense is not going to confuse top tier series with ... hmmm ... I begin to see the flaw in my argument.

 

[TheJediBrah]

German vs Brazil is not cheapened in football by the fact that you can also have games between Tonga and Fiji. Anyone with common sense is not going to confuse top tier series with ... hmmm ... I begin to see the flaw in my argument.

Baffling really that it needs to be said, but what Test matches are to cricket, is not exactly the same as what "Internationals" are to soccer

 

[Debris]

Baffling really that it needs to be said, but what Test matches are to cricket, is not exactly the same as what "Internationals" are to soccer

What baffles me is this sports snobbery where Test cricket is some "special" format of sport. The uniqueness is not in the format or who is allowed to play but in the game itself. I would love to see a Test match between Malta and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

[TNT]

What baffles me is this sports snobbery where Test cricket is some "special" format of sport. The uniqueness is not in the format or who is allowed to play but in the game itself. I would love to see a Test match between Malta and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Would you expect that test match to have ICC accredited umpires and be subjected to the same protocols as say a test match between Eng and Ind.

 

[turnstyle]

Would I be right in saying WG Grace would've made his debut, retired and died without knowing he played a test match?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What baffles me is this sports snobbery where Test cricket is some "special" format of sport. The uniqueness is not in the format or who is allowed to play but in the game itself. I would love to see a Test match between Malta and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Who would pay for it? Unless you're willing to throw away a load of money then it would be a "Test match" on a ****ty club ground with club B-grade level players, **** umpires etc.

Pretty sure that's different for Soccer internationals, any decent side has enough money to make a game profitable

 

[Slifer]

Good idea in theory but if GOD forbid, one day (unlikely i admit) Eng, Oz or Ind hit a rough patch then what? It's easy to make these rules bla bla bla but cricket as we've learned can be cyclical