3 tier test system

[mavric41]

Cricinfo has just posted this

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/156593_WCI_28MAY2004.html

Apart from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, who else would make the 2nd tier and who would be in the third tier. Maybe some second XI teams should be included. An interesting idea.

 

[Adamc]

This is certainly preferable to having two divisions of six teams each. The idea of a team like the West Indies losing Test status (under a two-division proposal) I find quite absurd, given their history and the fact that they are one of the two most successful teams in history.
I don't see the merit of a third tier however - there simply isn't enough interest amongst other nations to produce 20 full-time international teams. Second XI's would not work, as Aus A would most likely make the top tier eventually, and an Australia v Australia A series would result in all sorts of bizarre selections.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Cricinfo has just posted this

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/156593_WCI_28MAY2004.html

Apart from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, who else would make the 2nd tier and who would be in the third tier. Maybe some second XI teams should be included. An interesting idea.

The 2nd XI from England / India / Aus / Pak / WI / SA / NZ / SL would thrash any 3rd tier teams. Plus the first class sides already moan how they lose players for the First XI so i dont think they would take kindly to another XI taken out of the system...not to mention the respective boards couldnt afford to pay another XI players.

 

[chicane]

And what about ODI's? Will the ultraminnows still play the top teams only in the WC and Champions trophy?

 

[tooextracool]

Cricinfo has just posted this

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/156593_WCI_28MAY2004.html

Apart from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, who else would make the 2nd tier and who would be in the third tier. Maybe some second XI teams should be included. An interesting idea.

"Teams in the elite group would be required to play each other in home and away series – comprising of two or three Tests each – which would ensure that a full round of Test series takes not more than three years instead of the current five, with every team playing 14 Tests a year. "

2-3 tests each?thats ridiculous....IMO any test series should have at least 4 tests.
there should be 9 teams in the elite group because i dont see any reason why teams like the WI should play a team from tier 2 and its highly unlikely that we'll ever see a team from tier 2 ever get into tier 1. IMO there should be 9 teams, the worst team in the elite group should be relegated without any chance to reclaim their position and the best team from tier 2 automatically gets promoted. that would mean that we'll see one team eliminated every year and a new one taking its place.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't see why there needs to be a change... promotion to the top - and only - tier of Test cricket should happen when the nation's ready, whilst the others can be developed as they are now.

Do that plan and you will kill Bangladeshi cricket.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Maybe some second XI teams should be included.

That should never happen.

Look what happened in Australia during the 1994/95 B&H World Series where we had Australia v Australia A, it was hugely unpopular. Who would want to see a match with players from one country being split into two teams. Also those matches were not official ODI's.

Now about the proposed three tier Test system. I don't see how there could be three tiers. There is not enough strong cricketing nations yet IMO for it to work.

 

[Loony BoB]

I don't see the merit of a third tier however - there simply isn't enough interest amongst other nations to produce 20 full-time international teams.

Actually, the lack of interest in other countries is exactly why there would be a third tier. Congratulations to the ICC for promoting cricket globally in what should be a very effective manner. Cricket shouldn't be all about the top test nations. While every strong cricketing nation should start at a low level (er, club/domestic) and breed better players, they need motivation and if they can't make it into their own international team then they won't be as motivated. A Kenyan cricketer, for example, shouldn't have to move to Zimbabwe just to play an international game.

EDIT: Reading over your posts, you guys really are only thinking about "What is worthy of being a test nation". You should keep in mind that one of the goals of the ICC is to make cricket a global sport, and to do that they need to develop and nurture the smaller countries. If you're only after top-level cricket, stick to your top tier. You don't even need to think about the bottom tier. It shouldn't matter to you. It's not devalueing the sport because it's doing nothing against it - it's not forcing top cricketing nations to play against makeshift primary school teams. It's doing nothing more than giving smaller nations the opportunity to learn and develop.

What do you guys have against a third tier, anyway? What harm do you think it will do, and how?

 

[roseboy64]

That's happened before?

 

[Loony BoB]

That's happened before?

Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm pretty sure if they move to Zimbabwe and play domestically there for four years, then they'd be eligible to play for Zimbabwe.

The point still stands, though - players who are the best at what they do in their country should have the opportunity to play against other countries, regardless of where they live. There's no harm in it.

 

[Mister Wright]

Actually, the lack of interest in other countries is exactly why there would be a third tier. Congratulations to the ICC for promoting cricket globally in what should be a very effective manner. Cricket shouldn't be all about the top test nations. While every strong cricketing nation should start at a low level (er, club/domestic) and breed better players, they need motivation and if they can't make it into their own international team then they won't be as motivated. A Kenyan cricketer, for example, shouldn't have to move to Zimbabwe just to play an international game.

EDIT: Reading over your posts, you guys really are only thinking about "What is worthy of being a test nation". You should keep in mind that one of the goals of the ICC is to make cricket a global sport, and to do that they need to develop and nurture the smaller countries. If you're only after top-level cricket, stick to your top tier. You don't even need to think about the bottom tier. It shouldn't matter to you. It's not devalueing the sport because it's doing nothing against it - it's not forcing top cricketing nations to play against makeshift primary school teams. It's doing nothing more than giving smaller nations the opportunity to learn and develop.

What do you guys have against a third tier, anyway? What harm do you think it will do, and how?

Nice post. I agree.

 

[age_master]

whatever needs to be done to pormote crickrt globally should be done. i dont think the 3rd tier would do much as yet, but they will improve much fatre by playing other nations of similar standard than their local cricket competitions wont they.

 

[Slow Love™]

Nice post. I agree.

So do I. Great post, LoonyBob (I just didn't want to quote the whole thing again).

One thing I like about this new proposed system is the one-off test between the team that faces relegation and the team seeking promotion. One of the things that bothered me before was the possibility that the team finishing last in the top tier could be replaced by a team that was still inferior to them, that just happened to finish top of the second tier. This offers some protection against that, although a three test series might be even better than a single test.

2-3 tests each?thats ridiculous....IMO any test series should have at least 4 tests.

Yeah, I agree - I HATE these increasingly common 2-3 test series. Especially the 2 test series - they're not a reasonable guage much of the time (at least when both teams are considered capable of winning), and provide misleading results. I think there should be a 4 test minimum in the top tier also - there's absolutely no reason why, if we decided to implement a tiered system, that we then have to make sure that each side plays each other in three years instead of five. What's the rush?

 

[blackcapsrule]

I like the idea of the two tier system but not the 3.

 

[Loony BoB]

I don't mind three-test series, but I do mind two-test series.

 

[tooextracool]

One thing I like about this new proposed system is the one-off test between the team that faces relegation and the team seeking promotion. One of the things that bothered me before was the possibility that the team finishing last in the top tier could be replaced by a team that was still inferior to them, that just happened to finish top of the second tier. This offers some protection against that, although a three test series might be even better than a single test.

what are the odds of ever seeing a team from the 2nd tier beating the last team from the 2nd tier in a match though?we're likely to have the same 8 teams for the next 25 years at least.
no we should have 9 teams in the first tier so that a team like zimbabwe/bangladesh gets eliminated every year and a new team comes in to take their place without any need for a one off test between them.

 

[marc71178]

what are the odds of ever seeing a team from the 2nd tier beating the last team from the 2nd tier in a match though?

Suggests tec looks at how well Bangladesh are performing at the moment...

 

[tooextracool]

Suggests tec looks at how well Bangladesh are performing at the moment...

1)they will still lose and lose comfortably
2) are they really going to improve playing teams like canada and namibia etc?they are likely to only get worse!

 

[mavric41]

I think it could go even further. Within the 3 year period, the top nations should host a tour from one of the 2nd tier nations or send a team for a tour. eg. say that Australia are top of tier one and Bangladesh are top of tier two. In one year, Bangladesh tour Australia and play 3 or 4 of the state sides and the tour culminates in a game against Australia A. In another Austalia sends a U/23 team to tour Bangladesh. In the other year, tier 2 plays a team from tier 3. This way teams are still exposed to better players without being constantly overwhealmed.

 

[mavric41]

I think it could go even further. Within the 3 year period, the top nations should host a tour from one of the 2nd tier nations or send a team for a tour. eg. say that Australia are top of tier one and Bangladesh are top of tier two. In one year, Bangladesh tour Australia and play 3 or 4 of the state sides and the tour culminates in a game against Australia A. In another Austalia sends a U/23 team to tour Bangladesh. In the other year, tier 2 plays a team from tier 3. This way teams are still exposed to better players without being constantly overwhelmed.