3 tier test system

[Neil Pickup]

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.

That is happening, more with sides in the current second tier (Namibia, Kenya, Canada).

A formalised élite eight would basically mean stripping Test status from Bangladesh.

 

[biased indian]

That is happening, more with sides in the current second tier (Namibia, Kenya, Canada).

A formalised élite eight would basically mean stripping Test status from Bangladesh.

and zimbabwe

 

[Jamee999]

Which should happen regardless.

 

[tooextracool]

and zimbabwe

in case you havent noticed, the sole reason for this 3 tier test system is because zimbabwe have been disgracing themselves in the test arena.

 

[Craig]

So if a side like Holland or the USA progressed up the ranks, and make the top tier, would they suddenly become Test playing nations?

And can you imagine a Test match between Australia and the USA?

 

[tooextracool]

So if a side like Holland or the USA progressed up the ranks, and make the top tier, would they suddenly become Test playing nations?

And can you imagine a Test match between Australia and the USA?

if they were capable of beating zim or b'desh in a test match then i dont see any reason why they shouldnt get a chance in the top tier.

 

[cbuts]

they would have earned it so why not give them test status. i thnik it could stay at 9, bangladesh havnt been digracing themseelves at test cirkcet in recent times.

zim should be kicked out all together. i like the idea, gets regular compition for the next level of teams. i also agree with the top teams sending a teams or havin the minor teams tour to them, to help them develop

 

[chicane]

So if a side like Holland or the USA progressed up the ranks, and make the top tier, would they suddenly become Test playing nations?

And can you imagine a Test match between Australia and the USA?

If they've made it through to the top tier then they are obviously good enough.

 

[The Argonaut]

I like the concept but would like to see 2 tiers with 10 teams in each. It is fair to say that there is a gulf in quality between 8th and 9th but the bottom 2 sides need to stay with the big boys to improve. the second tier would allow non-test nations to get experience to challenge Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for a test position. We shouldn't forget that Sri Lanka was appalling when they started test cricket. They have developed over time to be one of the better test nations.

The 2nd tier would include sides such as Holland, Namibia, Canada, USA, UAE, Kenya, Singapore, Scotland, Ireland and ?????

Test series should be at least 3 tests. Two test series are a joke.

 

[bhooth nath]

I like the concept but would like to see 2 tiers with 10 teams in each. It is fair to say that there is a gulf in quality between 8th and 9th but the bottom 2 sides need to stay with the big boys to improve. the second tier would allow non-test nations to get experience to challenge Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for a test position. We shouldn't forget that Sri Lanka was appalling when they started test cricket. They have developed over time to be one of the better test nations.

The 2nd tier would include sides such as Holland, Namibia, Canada, USA, UAE, Kenya, Singapore, Scotland, Ireland and ?????

Test series should be at least 3 tests. Two test series are a joke.

you mean nepal ? singapore is not playing the inter-continental cup.

the 10th team could be uganda as they just beat namibia in the inter-continental cup and qualified in the u-19s as well.

 

[SJS]

Two tiers of 7 to 8 teams each should suffice.

Test series must all be of fixed number of matches, at least 4 for the 1st tier and 3 for the second.

All tests of 1st tier must be played on grounds of same size. Centres should be given a year to conform to internationally accepted ground size. Such massive ground variations are a mockery.

Only one team should be demoted and one promoted every three years which should be sufficient for all teams to have played each other once.

Addition of more sides will in the long run increase the pool of good and great players and can only be good for the game. To oppose it just because it is so different from what we are used to would be worse than the opposition that one day cricket faced in the beginning.

 

[Adamc]

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.

You missed my point somewhat - what I meant to say is that by making a three-tier system, countries like Nepal, Hong Kong, UAE etc. will be required to field (and hence pay, train, coach etc.) a full-time cricket team all year-round. It is unreasonable and economically improbable to expect countries where interest in cricket is so low to do this; it is better to start with occasional tournaments such as the Intercontinental Cup.

 

[cbuts]

All tests of 1st tier must be played on grounds of same size. Centres should be given a year to conform to internationally accepted ground size. Such massive ground variations are a mockery.

thats a joke, and will never happen

if thats inforced, u can revoke nz's test status

 

[SJS]

thats a joke, and will never happen

if thats inforced, u can revoke nz's test status

Maybe it wont happen. It doesnt make it right to have one ground where 60 meters plus is a six and another where a sixty meter hit is 30 meters inside the fence. Thats worse than a joke , its a farce !

 

[Neil Pickup]

And why don't we make it so every pitch seams, swings and turns the same, too?

 

[SJS]

And why don't we make it so every pitch seams, swings and turns the same, too?

You seriously think the two things are the same ?

Tell me of another major international outdoor sport, where the size of the arena is not fixed although it has a bearing on what happens in the game ??

 

[Neil Pickup]

Football?
Golf?
Formula One?

 

[marc71178]

You seriously think the two things are the same ?

Tell me of another major international outdoor sport, where the size of the arena is not fixed although it has a bearing on what happens in the game ??

Football?
Baseball?

 

[bennyr]

You seriously think the two things are the same ?

Tell me of another major international outdoor sport, where the size of the arena is not fixed although it has a bearing on what happens in the game ??

The two things are not the same, but they are related to one aspect of test cricket that I love - the fact that test cricket is played under different conditions in different places.

A standardised ground size would take away yet more of the variability. It's bad enough that we have every venue preparing the same "five day runfest" pitches that are allowing scoring records to be broken left, right and centre. Standardise the ground size and things will only get worse.

 

[age_master]

Formula One?

all motor sport (even those damn american ovals vary slightly apparently)

just a few more while im here

Surfing
Boating (sailing and motor)
equestrian
AFL (though admitadly alot of these games are played on crickrt fields)


and to prove the point finally, note the sizes and shapes of the Athens olympic venues