Test Proposal to split test cricket into two divisions

[Norwegian Blue]

In theory, I'd support the idea of two tiers with promotion/relegation. In practice, the so-called Big 3 will have a rule that means they can't be relegated no matter how poorly they perform on the field. That'll just piss off all the other countries, making cricket even less relevant to them.

If Australia, England and India want to only play each other, they should just say so. I, for one, won't watch.

 

[sydney_gws]

I hope it isn't Australia being childish about this. Being world champion in a sport that isn't trying to grow beyond 40% at most of the world's population is potentially meaningless.
I don't know the answer, but I think current system works OK. It actually doesn't matter india doesn't play Pakistan, big 3 get to play each other a fair bit.
Some smaller countries are quick to winge, puts hands out and then corruptly use the funds anyway.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It wont happen for that reason, as imagine the empty stands for a WTC final against say, Ireland v Sri Lanka. ICC will loose $$$$ in revenue.

That's extremely dumb. There wouldn't be any trouble filling the stands for a Test match at Lord's between two "minnow" teams if they're actually good.

Regardless, in a 12-team WTC scenario, there'd be a 50% chance of a "Big 3" team making the final, whether there's a single table or two pools.

 

[Seedsfan]

They just need to combine a lower-level team with a higher performing team as they did more regularly about a decade ago but with more intent. Something like:

South Africa 3-tests/Pakistan 3-tests
New Zealand 3-tests/Sri Lanka 3-tests
England 5-tests/Bangladesh 1-test
India 5-tests/Zimbabwe 1-test
West Indies somewhere in there.

Wouldn't something like that work better?

Look things we should do.

When we play an away ashes instead of tour games play 1/2 tests v Ireland

When we go to India instead of warm up games play Afghanistan in India.

At least then in some ways we are playing the smaller nations. Zimbabwe will be an issue as they play the same time of year we do and same with South Africa so it would be hard to go there before a South Africa tour and still have a home summer

 

[JackOutback]

I’m happy to tell Afghanistan to go **** themselves until they give women at least a basic level of rights, just as all countries did to South Africa in the 80s.

 

[L_W_P]

This stinks.

It's like when the AFL want to push a new 'blockbuster' game and try to give it to Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon/Richmond and then turn around and say "See, it's a success so we were right!"

I'd love to see a summer vs smaller nations.

Play 3 tests against Sri Lanka (Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne) & 3 against Zimbabwe (Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart)

Would give us a chance to blood some youth as well as display a few internationals that we haven't seen before.

 

[Bletch]

International cricket needs an overhaul.

This isn't it.

 

[ioppolo]

This stinks.

It's like when the AFL want to push a new 'blockbuster' game and try to give it to Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon/Richmond and then turn around and say "See, it's a success so we were right!"

I'd love to see a summer vs smaller nations.

Play 3 tests against Sri Lanka (Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne) & 3 against Zimbabwe (Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart)

Would give us a chance to blood some youth as well as display a few internationals that we haven't seen before.

People on here lose their shit when inferior nations visit during the summer and get flogged. They're also not happy when only England and India tour. No winning sometimes.

 

[cricketnut14]

we already play half of our test matches v england and india.

looking below, it's already a 2 tiered structure - the ICC are just current disguising this.

if they go with a 2 tiered system, and they are fair dinkum, then it has to be promotion/relegation.

there's nothing stopping australia and england organising a series (for no WTC points) if they find themselves in separate divisions.


since the WTC began (2019-2027): 8 year period
*note: no IND v PAK series, bang does not host eng, aust does not host SL
*note: eng have organised 3 extra series v NZ in this period.

 

[Jack Mundy]

Now more than ever. Promotion and relegation. Sides that have been crap for decades still included at top level because they were previously good back in another century.

 

[cricketnut14]

the more i think about 2 tiers - i'm not so sure.

if we had 2 tiers , who comes out of the top tier - let's say for arguments sake bangladesh & west indies.

it's not achieving much - only for one of them to only be promoted again the next time round for perhaps a sri lanka.

the ICC meet this month to sort out the 2027-29 WTC - so it'll be interesting of the structure that they go with.

 

[Jack Mundy]

the more i think about 2 tiers - i'm not so sure.

if we had 2 tiers , who comes out of the top tier - let's say for arguments sake bangladesh & west indies.

it's not achieving much - only for one of them to only be promoted again the next time round for perhaps a sri lanka.

the ICC meet this month to sort out the 2027-29 WTC - so it'll be interesting of the structure that they go with.

That's how promotion and relegation works. One might stick other times they don't.

 

[PhatBoy]

Now more than ever. Promotion and relegation. Sides that have been crap for decades still included at top level because they were previously good back in another century.

Because Australia had 2-3 batsmen per game that could scrounge up 40-ish runs. Right.

 

[Jack Mundy]

Because Australia had 2-3 batsmen per game that could scrounge up 40-ish runs. Right.

30 years of failure for west indies but still in top tier. What's the point?!

 

[PhatBoy]

30 years of failure for west indies but still in top tier. What's the point?!

What top tier? There is only one tier. It’s test cricket. It’s not English football. Yeah sure there are minnow teams and powerful ones but it’s all Test cricket.

Do you know how long it took South Africa to win their 10th test match?
40 years. 35 losses. 12 draws. 57 matches. And they owed most of them to coir matting

The West Indies have won 17 of their last 57 matches, by the way. Those wins have come in the West Indies, Pakistan, Australia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, England and India.

New Zealand took 30 years to win their first match. Anywhere. Against anyone. It came in their 46th match.
By the time they won 10 of them, they had been playing test cricket for 50 years. They took 137 matches to win 10.
West Indies have won 34 matches of their last 137. You can add the UAE, and additional wins in England and Bangladesh to that list too.

India took 25 matches and 19 years to win a test.
They took 94 goes to win 10 of them.
It took them 38 years to win an away test.

Pakistan got off to a relative flyer winning against India in their second match. But even they, playing largely against fellow minnows India and NZ to begin with - and the west indies - took 50 tests to notch 10 wins.

Sri Lanka had 14 attempts before their first win, and notched win number 10 in test number 80, 16 years into their test life. Aside from Pakistan, their first win overseas took 87 goes.

Which brings us to the West Indies themselves.
The west indies took 6 matches to defeat England. 35 to win their 10th.
By our 12th we’d won in Sydney, by our 30th we’d won in India and by our 34th, we had won twice in England.

Not bad for a group of islands.

However the last point is largely irrelevant.

The point is that test cricket has had long, LONG periods in the past, both distant and more recently in the case of Sri Lanka, where one, two, and up to four sides have been well behind others.
Why would it be any different now when there are more teams?
And why would it come as a surprise that the least populated and well-resourced is the one that is struggling at a point in time when money is having a significant impact on who can and can’t play for each side? But that may change, and something else that may change is the simple presence of -, 2, 3 capable players who make a side a 50-50 proposition. Which is all any team needs to be in order for a contest to occur.

Ask England. Seems to happen to them whenever they get off a plane in Bridgetown.

 

[Jack Mundy]

What top tier? There is only one tier. It’s test cricket. It’s not English football. Yeah sure there are minnow teams and powerful ones but it’s all Test cricket.

Do you know how long it took South Africa to win their 10th test match?
40 years. 35 losses. 12 draws. 57 matches. And they owed most of them to coir matting

The West Indies have won 17 of their last 57 matches, by the way. Those wins have come in the West Indies, Pakistan, Australia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, England and India.

New Zealand took 30 years to win their first match. Anywhere. Against anyone. It came in their 46th match.
By the time they won 10 of them, they had been playing test cricket for 50 years. They took 137 matches to win 10.
West Indies have won 34 matches of their last 137. You can add the UAE, and additional wins in England and Bangladesh to that list too.

India took 25 matches and 19 years to win a test.
They took 94 goes to win 10 of them.
It took them 38 years to win an away test.

Pakistan got off to a relative flyer winning against India in their second match. But even they, playing largely against fellow minnows India and NZ to begin with - and the west indies - took 50 tests to notch 10 wins.

Sri Lanka had 14 attempts before their first win, and notched win number 10 in test number 80, 16 years into their test life. Aside from Pakistan, their first win overseas took 87 goes.

Which brings us to the West Indies themselves.
The west indies took 6 matches to defeat England. 35 to win their 10th.
By our 12th we’d won in Sydney, by our 30th we’d won in India and by our 34th, we had won twice in England.

Not bad for a group of islands.

However the last point is largely irrelevant.

The point is that test cricket has had long, LONG periods in the past, both distant and more recently in the case of Sri Lanka, where one, two, and up to four sides have been well behind others.
Why would it be any different now when there are more teams?
And why would it come as a surprise that the least populated and well-resourced is the one that is struggling at a point in time when money is having a significant impact on who can and can’t play for each side? But that may change, and something else that may change is the simple presence of -, 2, 3 capable players who make a side a 50-50 proposition. Which is all any team needs to be in order for a contest to occur.

Ask England. Seems to happen to them whenever they get off a plane in Bridgetown.

Just because that's how it's been done in the past doesn't mean that's what should happen in future. Why keep playing non competitive tests?! Doesn't make sense in terms of business or even interest. Certainly, not helping west indies improve. There's other nations who could be emerging.

 

[PhatBoy]

Just because that's how it's been done in the past doesn't mean that's what should happen in future. Why keep playing non competitive tests?! Doesn't make sense in terms of business or even interest. Certainly, not helping west indies improve. There's other nations who could be emerging.

But they weren’t non competitive, were they.

Was the Newlands test in 2011 non competitive because Australia got shat on in the last innings by Graeme Smith and Hashim Amla?

No. Michael Clarke made a superb hundred, SA got destroyed for 90, Australia got even more destroyed but were so far ahead on the first innings that it still left a tough run chase. Which Amla and Smith than walked to as though they were having a net and handed their side a huge win in the end. But the final result doesn’t change what happened for the three innings before it.

Was that match uncompetitive cricket? Few people who watched it would think so.

 

[Jack Mundy]

But they weren’t non competitive, were they.

Was the Newlands test in 2011 non competitive because Australia got shat on in the last innings by Graeme Smith and Hashim Amla?

No. Michael Clarke made a superb hundred, SA got destroyed for 90, Australia got even more destroyed but were so far ahead on the first innings that it still left a tough run chase. Which Amla and Smith than walked to as though they were having a net and handed their side a huge win in the end. But the final result doesn’t change what happened for the three innings before it.

Was that match uncompetitive cricket? Few people who watched it would think so.

They non competitive most of the time for 30 years and just got dismissed for 27. Even Bangladesh are tough at home.

 

[PhatBoy]

They non competitive most of the time for 30 years and just got dismissed for 27. Even Bangladesh are tough at home.

Odd that you’d mention bangladesh given that the west indies seems to be able to win a series there (two in a row) and Australia can’t.

Except we haven’t been uncompetitive, though, have we. We’ve consistently been reasonably difficult to beat at home as well - not that Australia would know as they never tour there, and even in this literal series, led one first innings and trailed by 30 runs in the next. Even the second test of the previous series over there ultimately came down to a century stand between Adam Voges and Josh Hazlewood which from memory we had a chance to finish early on. Australia ended up taking a 160 run lead, which we erased 3-down before Starc took out the lower order.

Or you could, you know, look at the previous series before this one in Australia which was drawn. And the Windies could have actually potentially won given that the difference maker in Adelaide was Travis Head who, while he played very well, had edges flying everywhere during his century.

You give the distinct impression of two things:

One, you don’t actually follow much cricket unless it’s thrust in your face under the guise of a headline and often involving Australia.

Two, your definition of ‘competitive’ is two teams winning at the same rate.

Andy Murray won 20 less grand slams than each of his three main rivals but he wasn’t uncompetitive with them, was he.

Something being competitive means it needs to be earned in some capacity. Now Australia generally haven’t had to ‘earn’ their wickets, really. No one who has watched this whole series would suggest they have: but they’ve had to earn their wins. Why? Because their own batting has been so poor/the West Indies bowling has been so good, that they actually have found themselves in a number of situations where they could have lost the games even to a side batting as bad as the Windies. Australia’s batsmen, have had to earn the win, and in a few brief cases the bowlers have too, when the Windies have momentarily surfaced towards some level of parity.

 

[cricketnut14]

look I hear Phatboy's love for the West indies coming through.

A strong West Indies is good for cricket as they have a rich history.

I just hope it ain't another 10 years before the next Aussie tour there.

 

[Jack Mundy]

About six months ago from Jarrod kimber talking about divisions with promotion and relegation

 

[PhatBoy]

What a load of shit.

For starters, his Gavaskar comparison is utterly stupid. Gavaskar had no fewer than 135 specialist batsmen - that’s if you’re only counting top 5 from each side - pushing for a spot in the Indian team from their first class competition.
Pretty sure they would have filled his spot when he wasn’t as good as he previously was.

Kimber talks like there is this plethora of sides waiting for their chance to be gun test sides and get into the mix and vie for success. There isn’t. It’s a commonwealth sport and nothing will change that anytime soon. Afghanistan is the only major exception to this unless you were to consider the Dutch. And the other nations aren’t giving them a look in anyway. Australia won’t play them as it is.

It’s not soccer or basketball where there are 20+ capable teams who are all good enough to beat each other on a given day (USA basketball excluded) and it’s not going to be. His ‘end game’ is centuries away.

‘But ITS A PROFESSIONAL SPORT!!’ so what? So is AFL. It doesn’t play against anyone.
So is rugby league. It has a World Cup that’s less important than an interstate competition.
it’s a professional international sport, not a league. All the countries have their leagues based on tables and prize money.

As such it’s something that is about more than just trying to get to the top of a league or winning prize money.

They have tournaments in all three formats anyway.
What happens when a side gets locked into a tier for 2-3 years and their best player suffers an injury or retires to chase money?
What happens if SA are in that tier and Temba Bavuma does his back and Aidan Markram can’t produce these flashes of brilliance that he peels off every 7-8 tests and SA basically start playing like the West Indies have done this past three weeks?

Hell what would have happened if Travis Head was injured this series or the West Indies took their catches in the first test and were up 1-0 and people were forced to confront the idea that they’d won their last two matches against Australia?

 

[Kappa]

The only way to fix cricket is putting a large tax on all t20 competitions and using that money as an equalization fund to improve test cricket in minnow countries.

Judging by crowds at test matches I don't know how many countries are serious about test cricket long term outside of the big 3, which is scary.

 

[Jeremias]

Just because that's how it's been done in the past doesn't mean that's what should happen in future. Why keep playing non competitive tests?! Doesn't make sense in terms of business or even interest. Certainly, not helping west indies improve. There's other nations who could be emerging.

This seems reactionary rather than actually moving to solve the issue.

Yes they were completely outclassed in this series, but they aren’t the first nor will they be the last.

Let’s not forget or ignore that they beat us in a test last year on home soil, and have since split series’ with Bangladesh and Pakistan, whilst also pushing South Africa.

Which test nations are “emerging” and deserve to play against Australia instead?

 

[PhatBoy]

This seems reactionary rather than actually moving to solve the issue.

Yes they were completely outclassed in this series, but they aren’t the first nor will they be the last.

Let’s not forget or ignore that they beat us in a test last year on home soil, and have since split series’ with Bangladesh and Pakistan, whilst also pushing South Africa.

Which test nations are “emerging” and deserve to play against Australia instead?

It’s not enough to be competitive, to be competitive, apparently.

The afl team that falls behind early, rallies to draw level early in the second term, falls behind again by 3-4 goals, comes back, goes behind again, then once more comes back to get within a kick at 3/4 time before fading to lose by 6-7 goals in the last term in a blaze of one sided glory hasn’t competed.
Greg Norman competed at the masters to get in the final group in 1996.