Starburns_
Premium Platinum
- Mar 30, 2011
- 49,606
- 96,714
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Colts, Stars, The Exers
Posted this on the cricket board, considering the way the WC is going and the barriers towards Ireland in particular getting test status, thought it's a worthwhile discussion. Thoughts?
Since the 'big 3' took control and votes don't matter, surely it makes perfect sense for them to give Ireland test status (even if it'd stop England from stealing all their players), and hopefully due to their rate of improvement, Afghanistan too.
There's not a whole lot to be lost, none of the big nations want to really play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and the Windies are sadly an embarrassment. An expansion of the test arena is actually in the interests of the bigger test sides, it provides a pathway for improvement into the test arena for deserving nations, and it doesn't screw Zimbabwe and Bangladesh any worse than they're getting screwed now.
Additionally, if we go with the assumption that West Indian cricket is dying, then perhaps the only way to turn it around is to shock them into action on the test and tours front. Take away guaranteed tours against the stronger nations and the board will be forced to get their act together, take away the those tours and the players won't get the same exposure for the domestic T20 competitions and the contracts they bring. It forces both sides there to get their act together and make sure that the results matter, if that doesn't work, well the belief is they were doomed anyway.
Back to the '4 minnows' in this scenario, the more competition those teams get, the more scope for improvement, and they don't have to play all the bigger fish either until their overall results demand it. Ireland are a more commercially attractive opponent for both England and Australia, Zimbabwe are for South Africa, Bangladesh for India and Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan might just be the only team prepared to tour Pakistan. If the results of one start to back it up, they become a more attractive test opponent overall, otherwise they can play amongst themselves for the most part, with the occassional tour against the better sides to test their progress.
Obviously this is a broad suggestion that would need some fine tuning, but it's a tiered test system, without rigid tiers with ultra-exclusivity, and it provides the opportunity for associates to advance into the test arena, without diluting the competition in the test arena too much (and compromising the big 3's pursuit of $$$, which no plan could get off the ground without considering). It's at least democratic enough to let the results be one of the major factors in who teams play.
An example of a structure with a 7-5 split would look something like this. Big 7- Aus, Eng, Ind, SA, NZ, SL, Pak. Small 5- WI, Zim, Bang, Ire, Afg.
The big 7 are obliged to play 8 tours (similar to the current setup), 6 against the 'big' nations, and 2 against the 'small'. The small 5 get 4 against each other, then a varying level from the top 7 depending on where they sit now, with the Windies still retaining an 8 opponent schedule.
The small 5 opponent break down may look vaguely like this:
Windies- Aus, Eng, Ind, SA
Zimbabwe- SA, NZ, Pakistan
Bangladesh- Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan
Ireland- Eng, Aus
Afghanistan- Pak, SL
Progression from outside the 12 can be based on the less successful of the small 5 playing occassional first class matches against those next in line. Progression from the small to the big would be more difficult as it would require beating one or more 'big' opponents, in more than a once-off situation, but it's a possibility, and the structure is flexible enough to accomodate both the progression from associate upwards, and from 'little 5' upwards.
Since the 'big 3' took control and votes don't matter, surely it makes perfect sense for them to give Ireland test status (even if it'd stop England from stealing all their players), and hopefully due to their rate of improvement, Afghanistan too.
There's not a whole lot to be lost, none of the big nations want to really play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and the Windies are sadly an embarrassment. An expansion of the test arena is actually in the interests of the bigger test sides, it provides a pathway for improvement into the test arena for deserving nations, and it doesn't screw Zimbabwe and Bangladesh any worse than they're getting screwed now.
Additionally, if we go with the assumption that West Indian cricket is dying, then perhaps the only way to turn it around is to shock them into action on the test and tours front. Take away guaranteed tours against the stronger nations and the board will be forced to get their act together, take away the those tours and the players won't get the same exposure for the domestic T20 competitions and the contracts they bring. It forces both sides there to get their act together and make sure that the results matter, if that doesn't work, well the belief is they were doomed anyway.
Back to the '4 minnows' in this scenario, the more competition those teams get, the more scope for improvement, and they don't have to play all the bigger fish either until their overall results demand it. Ireland are a more commercially attractive opponent for both England and Australia, Zimbabwe are for South Africa, Bangladesh for India and Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan might just be the only team prepared to tour Pakistan. If the results of one start to back it up, they become a more attractive test opponent overall, otherwise they can play amongst themselves for the most part, with the occassional tour against the better sides to test their progress.
Obviously this is a broad suggestion that would need some fine tuning, but it's a tiered test system, without rigid tiers with ultra-exclusivity, and it provides the opportunity for associates to advance into the test arena, without diluting the competition in the test arena too much (and compromising the big 3's pursuit of $$$, which no plan could get off the ground without considering). It's at least democratic enough to let the results be one of the major factors in who teams play.
An example of a structure with a 7-5 split would look something like this. Big 7- Aus, Eng, Ind, SA, NZ, SL, Pak. Small 5- WI, Zim, Bang, Ire, Afg.
The big 7 are obliged to play 8 tours (similar to the current setup), 6 against the 'big' nations, and 2 against the 'small'. The small 5 get 4 against each other, then a varying level from the top 7 depending on where they sit now, with the Windies still retaining an 8 opponent schedule.
The small 5 opponent break down may look vaguely like this:
Windies- Aus, Eng, Ind, SA
Zimbabwe- SA, NZ, Pakistan
Bangladesh- Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan
Ireland- Eng, Aus
Afghanistan- Pak, SL
Progression from outside the 12 can be based on the less successful of the small 5 playing occassional first class matches against those next in line. Progression from the small to the big would be more difficult as it would require beating one or more 'big' opponents, in more than a once-off situation, but it's a possibility, and the structure is flexible enough to accomodate both the progression from associate upwards, and from 'little 5' upwards.