Idea for a revamp of Test Cricket

[Bonnie Prince C]

I was sitting thinking about how I thought Test cricket could change for the better, including bringing in some of the better non-Test nations. I have seen some people suggest that having a 2 tier Test Championship could be one way of doing this, which is potentially where I have drawn my idea from. My thought was rather than a tier system having a grading system for countries. This grading would be mainly based on performance but could also include a rating of the domestic cricket, not in terms of how good their domestic set-up is but that they have a domestic scene, it is run free of corruption etc.

My idea would be to have 3 Grades; A, B and C.

Grade A

These are your top Test nations, so it would either be the top 6 or 8 Test nations are present.

Grade B

These are your next best nations so Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If you only went with the top 6 nations in grade A then you would probably have the West Indies and New Zealand. Then I would include the 2 best non-Test nation candidates, so Ireland and another more than likely.

Grade C

Would be the other nations that have ODI status.

Another part that got me thinking was the current England series that seems to be coming to a very abrupt end, just as it was getting going.

I would propose that series are played as followed:

Same grade nations - play a minimum of 3 Test Matches in a series. I would say that Inter-Grade C games should not be given Test status, but they should still play 5 day games.
1 Grade difference - play a minimum of 2 Test matches in a series.
2 Grade difference - play a minimum of 1 Test match in a series.

Just wondered if this sounded totally stupid to other people or not.

 

[Hurricane]

I was sitting thinking about how I thought Test cricket could change for the better, including bringing in some of the better non-Test nations. I have seen some people suggest that having a 2 tier Test Championship could be one way of doing this, which is potentially where I have drawn my idea from. My thought was rather than a tier system having a grading system for countries. This grading would be mainly based on performance but could also include a rating of the domestic cricket, not in terms of how good their domestic set-up is but that they have a domestic scene, it is run free of corruption etc.

My idea would be to have 3 Grades; A, B and C.

Grade A

These are your top Test nations, so it would either be the top 6 or 8 Test nations are present.

Grade B

These are your next best nations so Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If you only went with the top 6 nations in grade A then you would probably have the West Indies and New Zealand. Then I would include the 2 best non-Test nation candidates, so Ireland and another more than likely.

Grade C

Would be the other nations that have ODI status.

Another part that got me thinking was the current England series that seems to be coming to a very abrupt end, just as it was getting going.

I would propose that series are played as followed:

Same grade nations - play a minimum of 3 Test Matches in a series. I would say that Inter-Grade C games should not be given Test status, but they should still play 5 day games.
1 Grade difference - play a minimum of 2 Test matches in a series.
2 Grade difference - play a minimum of 1 Test match in a series.

Just wondered if this sounded totally stupid to other people or not.

What I like about this idea:
It forces like for like teams to have 3 test series. It was a joke that Bangers played Zimbos in a off test instead of having it out in a 3 test series.

What I don't like:
I do care about Brian Lara's record and Jim Lakers record. So don't really want to see England beating up on a Grade C team.

 

[indian_legend]

excellent idea. would have 3 tiers of 6 teams -

tier 1: australia, india, england, south africa, pakistan, sri lanka
tier 2: new zealand, west indies, bangladesh, zimbabwe, ireland, afghanistan
tier 3: scotland, netherlands, kenya, canada, namibia, uae

tier 1 & 2 teams to have test status. tier 3 teams to have odi status

tier 1 teams can play upto 5 tests in a series
tier 2 teams can play upto 3 tests within themselves & upto 2 tests in a series against tier 1 teams (this would ensure series like west indies v australia)
tier 3 is the inter-continental cup, but they can play 1 off test match against higher tier teams

and promotion & relegation after every 2 years. the best team of the lower tier plays a 2 match series(home+away) against the lowest ranked team of the higher tier with the winner getting the higher tier

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Nah you can't have WI and NZ down in the second tier, there's a massive gap between them and the others.

 

[sachin200]

Nah you can't have WI and NZ down in the second tier, there's a massive gap between them and the others.

Not really

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah the Zimbos were totally in it with a fair chance against us when they were getting rolled for 40-something. Tight, tight game that.

 

[silentstriker]

Also the income loss for tier b sides would bankrupt the boards instantly.

 

[Eds]

Yeah, AWTA @ WA.

If you want to set a minimum/maximum amount of games in a series, particularly for like-for-like teams, just set it via the world rankings. Makes more sense, surely?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I wouldn't want the West Indies or New Zealand in the second tier. They deserve to be in the top tier and are capable of defeating any top team.

 

[straw man]

I generally hate the idea of the test world divided into tiers. Would have so many negative impacts that people seem to not think about. And perish the thought that a team like England or India fell out of the top tier - the ICC would bending over backwards to change the rules as soon as possible.

However possibly in favour of a system where the FTP is set up so teams with similar rankings play each other more frequently (but NOT exclusively). A 'soft' tier system. The OP is one way of doing this though I don't think the fairest way - I'd prefer purely based on test ratings points. This would also give promising associates like Ireland a potential pathway to more matches against original top-8 nations, which is a good thing.

In favour of three-test minimum series being compulsory if teams are separated by fewer than say 15 ratings points.

 

[Flem274*]

IMO, you're either test standard or not. None of this tier business is needed. It's already enforced in all but name by some countries regardless.

 

[Josh]

IMO, you're either test standard or not. None of this tier business is needed. It's already enforced in all but name by some countries regardless.

True fact.

 

[NasserFan207]

Can't see many NZ/WI fans being happy about this. I'd love it as an Ireland fan though obviously. That said, we are nowhere near the quality or infrastructure of the latter. Its a bigger mismatch than England vs Bangladesh.

 

[cpr]

Ireland, Afghanistan etc are only going to improve if they get the chance, stops poaching to a degree too (looking at you, ECB).

Sure they shouldn't be getting 10-12 tests a year, but it'd be nice to see them get 2-3 against touring teams, maybe a tour themselves against a similar standard/slightly better nation (couple of tests in Bangladesh, with a stop in Afghanistan on the way back?). The encouragement of a professional top level side should hopefully encourage a more professional set up below. Also getting constantly battered by bigger teams (like Zimbabwe/Bangladesh do) cannot help improve the players, but some more balanced games for them in the test calander, interspersed with big occasions, should help.

 

[silentstriker]

Call it whatever but have them play #10-12 against each other, and the lower Test countries who sometimes have trouble filling up their calendar anyway.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be playing five day matches against teams like Ireland on a relatively frequent basis, with other top ranked countries playing them sporadically (say a one off test against a top six opposition per year, to be increased if they show improvement).

Icc mandate that each top eight country should play at least one test every 15 months or so with someone outside the current test sides.

But at least, bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be playing countries below them as much as countries above them. That gives Bangladesh and Zimbabwe players more exposure to different conditions as well as much more practice in playing the longer format, and it gives countries below them experience and something to aspire to as well as a goalpost to judge their own standard and performance. Right now, outside of icc limited overs events every 3-4 years, they can't do that.

Call them Tests too - we dont need to be so precious about the term - people know how to use stats guru.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I would like Pakistan to play Afghanistan more often.

 

[unam]

Call it whatever but have them play #10-12 against each other, and the lower Test countries who sometimes have trouble filling up their calendar anyway.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be playing five day matches against teams like Ireland on a relatively frequent basis, with other top ranked countries playing them sporadically (say a one off test against a top six opposition per year, to be increased if they show improvement).

Icc mandate that each top eight country should play at least one test every 15 months or so with someone outside the current test sides.

But at least, bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be playing countries below them as much as countries above them. That gives Bangladesh and Zimbabwe players more exposure to different conditions as well as much more practice in playing the longer format, and it gives countries below them experience and something to aspire to as well as a goalpost to judge their own standard and performance. Right now, outside of icc limited overs events every 3-4 years, they can't do that.

Call them Tests too - we dont need to be so precious about the term - people know how to use stats guru.

Really good point there. If people are worried about records then, we can just call them first class or practice matches. (what ever you want to call them)

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

IMO, you're either test standard or not. None of this tier business is needed. It's already enforced in all but name by some countries regardless.

The reality of it is though that it is already the case that there are nations that are not truely Test standard playing Test cricket. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are good cricketing in nations but really they cannot compete against most of the Test nations. My idea would mostly be to encourage teams that are a similar standard to play each other in proper series, while helping to develop nations into Test nations. The current International Cup set-up really does very little IMO.

I personally would include NZ and WI in the top tier. While they are the lower end of the top tier I would say they are still quite a lot better than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, even if Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are able to compete some what against them.

I feel either something like this needs to happen for the good of the game or the Associate/Affiliate competition needs to be stepped up massively. Potentially by introducing a Test championship like league where they play 3 match FC series against each other, rather than one off games, which for me do nothing in terms of development.

 

[Hurricane]

Bruce Campbell to weigh in on this.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd love a full strength Ireland to play a three match series of 5 dayers against NZ A. Would be a really good game imo.

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have shown they're test standard on home turf. Zimbabwe gave us a hell of a fright at the start of our summer, and our demolition of them over here doesn't change the fact they scared us and Pakistan.

Kyle Jarvis is one hell of a bowler.