Jay Shah, England, India, and Australia in talks to kill test cricket

[honestbharani]

I don't think it's a problem of scheduling, it's the fundamental issue of what the ICC envisions test cricket should become.

Yeah and while I understand a lot of the stuff around interest, money, support etc. the boards, the ICC and the franchises all need to realize that without international cricket the franchise stuff also does not have much context. The talent scouts are not picking people from thin air. You need the national under 19 and even A systems as well as internationals to identify your next big stars for T20s. And a lot of excitement around franchise cricket is also about how international rivals play together in the same sides. This ecosystem needs each other to survive.

My view would be to create a window for IPL coz its the most lucrative league out there and maybe one more for the US and Windies leagues. Apr-May and Sep could be the months off for international cricket. This also enables a nice definition for the International season - Every June to March. Then you enable the tier system they are discussing with the model I put there. You also create a way for all 12 ICC full members to play each other home and away in 3 game series for both ODIs and T20Is home and away. That gives about 66 ODI and T20Is each in a 4 year cycle for each team. Basically every team plays 4 test series (2 home and 2 away), 6 ODI and T20I series (3 home and 3 away) each year. I think this can be a viable blue print.

 

[honestbharani]

Sporting bodies are some of the most corrupt organisations on the planet, the only reason the big boards bring it up is to flex their muscle.

Yeah so how do you ensure the money goes to the players and to the running of the game and not the administrators alone? One idea would be for ICC to take over the scheduling of all international cricket, pay the player fees, and operational costs while the home board simply gets to keep the gate receipts and TV and sponshorship money. This way ICC can reduce the actual payout to the boards they do and instead ensure money gets paid for the key stuff like having more test cricket etc.

 

[the big bambino]

I hope the head honchos involved get a cancer with similar pain and lethality to their influence on cricket.

Not too long ago SA shitted all over test cricket when they sent a C grade side to play tests in NZ. That's their priorities stated right there. Domestic T20 and tests are a nuisance to them. They should've been disqualified from the WTC then.

I'm happy with cricket expansions but you're kidding yourself if you think more depth means more strength. It doesn't. It just means more sub standard sides playing a level of cricket they can't meet or deserve to play. The discrepancy is greatest at test level. I think the proposal is a good one. It keeps up the standard of tests and plays it in front of audiences who appreciate it. Hopefully it stop the disgrace perpetrated by SA mentioned earlier from happening again. Let the other sides play white ball and create an exclusive product around tests.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

And a lot of excitement around franchise cricket is also about how international rivals play together in the same sides.

I don't watch T20, but is the draw of franchise cricket having Maxwell and Pant play in the same team? For me it sounds like something for people who like posting in the draft forum would care about. I can kind of see it for a sport like football where you have to actively participate with other players, but cricket is fundamentally about the individual.

Yeah so how do you ensure the money goes to the players and to the running of the game and not the administrators alone? One idea would be for ICC to take over the scheduling of all international cricket, pay the player fees, and operational costs while the home board simply gets to keep the gate receipts and TV and sponshorship money. This way ICC can reduce the actual payout to the boards they do and instead ensure money gets paid for the key stuff like having more test cricket etc.

This is a fantastic idea, now you've just got to get all the rich boards to agree to it.

 

[the big bambino]

Also there shouldn't be relegation, at least for the big 3. There should be some reward for countries that prioritise test cricket and they should be supported in times of transition when their side may fall into the danger zone.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Trent Boult and Neil Wagner retired solely because the women got a pay bump.

And that's why Southee got the captaincy

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Define "prioritising test cricket".

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not too long ago SA shitted all over test cricket when they sent a C grade side to play tests in NZ. That's their priorities stated right there. Domestic T20 and tests are a nuisance to them. They should've been disqualified from the WTC then.

They did it to fix their bank accounts, so that they could keep running their test team and it worked. I heard Mike Hesson explain it very well at the time

 

[Shady Slim]

One thing is that personally annoys me is that I absolutely do not want to see more of England and India. It gets boring. The home Ashes being every four years has worked fine for a century.

I can imagine that the board presidents, Shah, and the broadcasters discussing this are also chortling about how dumb FIFA is for not scheduling the football world cup more often.

this is actually so important though. series wins wouldn't feel as sweet if the ashes and BGT happened once a year lol

 

[centurymaker]

I see a few posters pointed out which parts may not work from my idea but the point is, the only way a tier system does not kill cricket is you still find a way for the teams from the top tier to play the teams from the next tier. If the split is indeed 7-5, I would like to see the tier 1 teams play 10 series between each other home and away (since Ind-Pak cant happen) every 4 years but also play the other 5 in 2 test series once. This can still enable about 40 tests for each team min. for tier 1 and about 38 tests min. for teams in tier 2 in a 4 year period.

This can also take care of the gap year issue that CA, mainly,, seem to be having. Each of the big 3 can play one of the others in a 5 test series either home or away every year. I think India can handle the gap year better than Eng or Aus from a financial perspective. For example, assuming this new cycle starts in 2028 -

2028 - Ind in Aus, Eng in Ind
2029 - Aus in Eng,
2030- Aus in Ind, Ind in Eng
2031 - Eng in Aus,

It is gonna be a 3 year cycle, that is almost certain, as they want to have these 6 marquee series over a 3 year period. They are going to tinker with the order of these series because they would want to keep a gap of minimum one year between any two Ashes series or any two BGTs.

The main problem is 2027/2031 ODI WC falling in Oct-Nov period. Surely they wouldn't want a WC right before a marquee series in Australia for example. This is based on the current order of these series-

2027- Aus in Ind, Aus in Eng
2028- Eng in Ind, Ind in Aus
2029- Ind in Eng, Eng in Aus

2030- Aus in Ind, Aus in Eng
2031- Eng in Ind, Ind in Aus

2030 is a copy of 2027 but has another Ashes series too soon. 2031 has WC in Ind finishing in Nov, then BGT in Australia. They have to overcome these issues.

 

[centurymaker]

I seriously doubt we gonna have divisions. This plan doesn't even require divisions. Just that BIG 3 will play each other more often and less often with the rest.

BGT, Ashes, Ind v Eng every 18 months on average rather than every 2 years.

 

[social]

It was revealed during the pandemic that CA was in dire financial condition and it needed India to tour to bail it out

Simple fact is that operating a business model where 1/3 seasons is a financial disaster is not sustainable

Now the ECB is in bad shape

Don’t have any figures but how much professional cricket actually makes money?

ICC events, IPL, maybe the BBL and tests between Australia, India and England

Profitability of the Blast & Hundred are debatable while others are pretty murky or unknown

Game needs a shakeup to survive

 

[centurymaker]

I mean if Australia have 2 Ashes series and 2 BGTs every 3 years, they aren't gonna have much room left for others anyway.

1/3 of calendar on BGTs (10 tests)
1/3 of calendar on Ashes (10 tests)
1/3 of calendar for other test series.

 

[the big bambino]

They did it to fix their bank accounts, so that they could keep running their test team and it worked. I heard Mike Hesson explain it very well at the time

Ok sure. Look they got themselves in that mess and they voted for their pocket. Makes you wonder about their management … even if the excuse is true instead of convenient.

Also I’m not sure why you think protecting the big 3 from test relegation is so funny. As if you’re advancing test cricket by having any one of those teams cooling their heels in division 2. There would be uproar in Australia. Imagine marketing a big summer against Ireland.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Also I’m not sure why you think protecting the big 3 from test relegation is so funny. As if you’re advancing test cricket by having any one of those teams cooling their heels in division 2. There would be uproar in Australia. Imagine marketing a big summer against Ireland.

Surely if teams are in "divisions", this should be done on merit not marketing requirements.

PS NZ's test "summer" used to go to March. If we had a St Patrick's Day test against Ireland it would sell out very quickly.

 

[centurymaker]

It was revealed during the pandemic that CA was in dire financial condition and it needed India to tour to bail it out

Simple fact is that operating a business model where 1/3 seasons is a financial disaster is not sustainable

Now the ECB is in bad shape

Don’t have any figures but how much professional cricket actually makes money?

ICC events, IPL, maybe the BBL and tests between Australia, India and England

Profitability of the Blast & Hundred are debatable while others are pretty murky or unknown

Game needs a shakeup to survive

Hmmm if thats the case, I think they will schedule the big series right away (current FTP ends in April 2027).

2027- Aus in Ind (FTP), Aus in Eng, Ind in Aus
2028- Eng in Ind, Eng in Aus
2029- Aus in Ind, Ind in Eng

CA will want to have India and England back a year sooner. And I could see Ind hosting Aus again in 2029 to create a gap between 2 BGTs.

 

[Spark]

Surely if teams are in "divisions", this should be done on merit not marketing requirements.

PS NZ's test "summer" used to go to March. If we had a St Patrick's Day test against Ireland it would sell out very quickly.

Marketing requirements is the whole reason this is happening in the first place. The entire point of this exercise is generating more broadcast revenue by playing more marquee Test series like the BGT.

 

[Bahnz]

Also I’m not sure why you think protecting the big 3 from test relegation is so funny. As if you’re advancing test cricket by having any one of those teams cooling their heels in division 2. There would be uproar in Australia. Imagine marketing a big summer against Ireland.

Totally unjustified uproar if they finished 7th out of 7.

 

[Daemon]

The answer is to securitize earnings from series and create tokens that can be sold on a distributed ledger.

Also NFTs.

 

[the big bambino]

Surely if teams are in "divisions", this should be done on merit not marketing requirements.

PS NZ's test "summer" used to go to March. If we had a St Patrick's Day test against Ireland it would sell out very quickly.

Oh boy you’re good. Saint pattys days test would be great. Watch them then ban alcohol at the grounds.