ICC considers a Relegation and Promotion system for Test Cricket

[Dan]

A single tier doesn't work because nobody is going to tour Ireland and Namibia.

Realistically, if we gave Ireland and Afghanistan Test status we'd end up with a less-formal, overlapping tier system anyway.

Australia/England/India/South Africa would play each other regularly
SL/Pakistan/WI/NZ would play each other regularly
Zimbabwe/Bangladesh/Ireland/Afghanistan would play each other regularly

And then you'd still have crossover series that would almost work as an informal promotion/relegation system. One of the big bois start losing a number of series, they go and play more against Pakistan/NZ more and the resurgent Sri Lankans play against South Africa more regularly.

It's more-or-less how it has developed now, and realistically it isn't the worst arrangement. Issues do arise from funding/finance though, especially given Zimbabwe's situation.

 

[Crazy Sam]

What is the point in promotion/relegation when the results will remain the same? The bottom couple of teams will still rarely get to play the top teams and will lose badly when they do due to lack of exposure. Dan's idea has more merit. I don't see the problem with adding one or two more test playing nations and they shouldn't be held back because of basket cases like Zimbabwe.

 

[Howe_zat]

Paves the way for the gradual phasing out of Test cricket by starting with lower-ranked teams. Horrible.

I don't think it's much to say it's a move towards granting more teams Test status either. All international FC matches should be Tests if you ask me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If this provides a clear pathway for teams like Ireland to move into full test status, then I'm all for it.

Well, I can see the advantages for Ireland having a carrot to chase (just as we've stolen their best players too...), but see no reason to relegate teams just because others are deemed worthy of test status.

It's the fault of the FTP. I've said it before and will doubtless say it again inbetween shouting at clouds, moaning that football is too soft nowadays and muttering "the ****s, the ****s, the ****s" over and over again, but there's no reason for teams like Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to play series against England, SA, India or Oz; the games are non-contests and, with test cricket dying on its arse, the last thing we want is inferior product.

Other rugby union sides from outside of the Six Nations and whatever the Tri Nations is called since yer Argies joined played test matches, but because they'd be utter mismatches the likes of Romania & Japan don't get regular games at Twickers or wherever because they serve no purpose.

By all means given Ireland test status if they could defeat (say) Bangladesh over a three match series of FC games, but why strip the losers of it? Just **** off the FTP and it's all gravy.

 

[Furball]

"Just imagine if New Zealand have to come to England and win one out of three Tests to stay in the first division or win promotion," Vaughan wrote in the Telegraph. "If there is a proper financial incentive to playing in the first division, like there is in football's Premier League, then players would be less likely to choose the IPL instead."

Michael Vaughan is a ****ing idiot.

So McCullum, Taylor etc play in a Test series vs England to try and retain NZ's place in the first division but they get horsed 3-0. So New Zealand get dropped to Division 2, where there's less money. This means there's less money to pay those two, which makes it more, not less likely, that they'll look to the IPL to make a living.

 

[Garson007]

Well, I can see the advantages for Ireland having a carrot to chase (just as we've stolen their best players too...), but see no reason to relegate teams just because others are deemed worthy of test status.

It's the fault of the FTP. I've said it before and will doubtless say it again inbetween shouting at clouds, moaning that football is too soft nowadays and muttering "the ****s, the ****s, the ****s" over and over again, but there's no reason for teams like Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to play series against England, SA, India or Oz; the games are non-contests and, with test cricket dying on its arse, the last thing we want is inferior product.

Other rugby union sides from outside of the Six Nations and whatever the Tri Nations is called since yer Argies joined played test matches, but because they'd be utter mismatches the likes of Romania & Japan don't get regular games at Twickers or wherever because they serve no purpose.

By all means given Ireland test status if they could defeat (say) Bangladesh over a three match series of FC games, but why strip the losers of it? Just **** off the FTP and it's all gravy.

Without the FTP, none of the lower ranked teams will ever even get a game.

 

[morgieb]

You'd even see the Sri Lankas and Pakistans of the world not play Tests much sans an FTP.

 

[Flem274*]

It's fine as is. Scrap the FTP, the bigger boards have an excuse never to play a less fashionable team. Bring in this tier system and the same thing will happen because there is no way in hell England, India and Australia will be allowed to be relegated.

There will always be one sided affairs on paper and on the park, and they don't always overlap. NZ drew 1-1 with Australia and 0-0 with England. Zimbabwe bet Pakistan in a test. South Africa randomly lose home tests to lower ranked teams like SL and WI. Were those series boring? But then England can go and get flogged 5-0 by an Australian side which is not all that far from England normally and no questions are asked about their worth to the game.

Some people just seem to assume Sri Lanka, Pakistan, NZ, WI are losing every test they play against the top four when it simply isn't the case.

The only way to make test cricket more competitive is to make sure everyone plays everyone so everyone can get better.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well, I can see the advantages for Ireland having a carrot to chase (just as we've stolen their best players too...), but see no reason to relegate teams just because others are deemed worthy of test status.

It's the fault of the FTP. I've said it before and will doubtless say it again inbetween shouting at clouds, moaning that football is too soft nowadays and muttering "the ****s, the ****s, the ****s" over and over again, but there's no reason for teams like Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to play series against England, SA, India or Oz; the games are non-contests and, with test cricket dying on its arse, the last thing we want is inferior product.

Other rugby union sides from outside of the Six Nations and whatever the Tri Nations is called since yer Argies joined played test matches, but because they'd be utter mismatches the likes of Romania & Japan don't get regular games at Twickers or wherever because they serve no purpose.

By all means given Ireland test status if they could defeat (say) Bangladesh over a three match series of FC games, but why strip the losers of it? Just **** off the FTP and it's all gravy.

Aye absolutely. And on that note, no one minds that Japan vs Romania is called a Test.

 

[hendrix]

It's the fault of the FTP. I've said it before and will doubtless say it again inbetween shouting at clouds, moaning that football is too soft nowadays and muttering "the ****s, the ****s, the ****s" over and over again, but there's no reason for teams like Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to play series against England, SA, India or Oz; the games are non-contests and, with test cricket dying on its arse, the last thing we want is inferior product.

I do seriously wonder how England would go against Bangladesh in Bangladesh at the moment. And this will probably be a bigger challenge for them in the future, too.

 

[Howe_zat]

England beat India in India last year. Get some perspective.

 

[hendrix]

England beat India in India last year. Get some perspective.

England aren't half the team they were last year and they no longer have Swann, Trott, and Anderson is out of form.

The only point I'm making here is that just because Australia, India, England and South Africa are considered the top four teams doesn't mean they actually are. Even with their neutered batting line up, Pakistan were able to beat South Africa and would probably beat Aus and England.

Perspective? They also lost to Zimbabwe.

 

[GIMH]

As if England wouldn't win in Bangladesh.

 

[uvelocity]

Shocking idea, and unsurprising given the muppets that administer cricket

 

[hendrix]

As if England wouldn't win in Bangladesh.

Well, we won't know, will we?

 

[Watson33]

It's a good idea, with the playoffs for test status between the top associate nations and lower ranked full members for test status. Gives Ireland/Afghanistan the chance to prove themselves. Apart from that I can't see how it will help test cricket. Test cricket is very much a marmite-kind-of thing, you either love it or hate it. Adding relegation/promotion won't attract anyone.

 

[straw man]

Bearing in mind the lack of details, I'm going with 'very likely a stupid idea' while holding out a smidgeon of hope that it could be sensible (don't ask me why).

Some previous threads on the subject:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/59313-structure-test-cricket.html
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/56444-idea-revamp-test-cricket.html
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/43976-rank-test-sides-6.html

If this provides a clear pathway for teams like Ireland to move into full test status, then I'm all for it.

This would be the only positive if it actually was structured like that, though given the ICC's history on Ireland and associates it's hard to be hopeful.

Still in favour of the (obvious) general principle that teams of a similar level play each other more frequently, with longer test series between them, but you still play (shorter) series against teams that are significantly better/worse as well. As Dan posted a few pages back, we already have this to some extent. Eng, Aus and India are a similar level and have played each other plenty recently. NZ actually haven't had it too bad for test scheduling in the last 18 months either* (it was terrible for a while prior to that), but by contrast SL's test schedule illustrates the way the current system fails in some instances (as does the SA vs India issue). Whether the issue is other boards not wanting to schedule SL series, or SL's board dragging their feet, an internationally agreed and enforceable minimum number of test matches seems the most simple solution. In contrast a Tier system that effectively prevents teams from playing one another is not a solution.

As I've posted previously, minimum 3 tests unless there is a large gap in ability (ratings points I guess) between sides. Allowance made for home/away when scheduling too e.g. NZ vs England is 3 tests in the weaker side's home, 2 tests in the stronger side's home. Given this actually happened, it shows how a little common sense by the boards goes a long way. This should extend to Ireland, who should be playing one-off tests against weaker top-8 sides (currently NZ/WI/SL) and longer series against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. And the SA-India series should have been mandated as minimum 3 tests.

I personally have no problem extending test status to a couple of promising teams below Ireland either; don't really care if it upsets the stats apple-cart. As long as the general scheduling principle above is used, they'll mainly play similar level teams, but the upside being if they progress then they get to play teams a little higher up.

* My only real nitpick is that it should have been three tests vs Sri Lanka, though that may just be hindsight as I thought we'd likely be demolished going into that series.

 

[NasserFan207]

As a fan of test cricket I would definitely be interested in something like this.

 

[James]

Horrible idea and would reduce the interest in cricket in a lot of countries IMO.

Based on the current rankings, we may see a first division of South Africa, India, Australia, England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka then and a second division of West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and say two of Ireland/Netherlands/Afghanistan.

As a New Zealand fan, if those are the only teams we play, there isn't going to be a lot of interest and the advertising dollar to NZC would reduce.

Ultimately it all depends on the structure of it and I may be way off base here, but it seems like we'd miss out on touring England, India touring NZ, etc and that would be a real shame.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

For this to work, i reckon it needs to have relegations/promotions every two years and a top tier of 6 (maybe 5), a second one of 8, with an associate tournament beneath that to effectively have three tiers. Series to be limited to tests only.

Then schedule 2-3 slots for ODI and T20 leagues to be arranged.

T20 and ODI world cups occur every 4 years.

The scheduling would be pretty hectic, but it would mean that all teams get a proper amount of games.