Structure of International Cricket (Just an idea)

[Aerie]

I think they should structure an International Cricket season over 2 calendar years.

Within these two years you would structure as follows:

Test Match Cricket would have two divisions of 5 teams (the best 5 and worst 5). They would play each other in a series of 3 Tests both home and away over the 2 year season. That would be 12 home and 12 away Test matches per nation over 2 years. Top of Div 2 would be promoted and bottom of Div 1 demoted. Whoever finishes top of the table at the completion of the 2 year season is Test Champion. Minimum 8 day breaks between each Test match.

One Day International Cricket would have a World Cup and a league. There would be one World Cup in each 2 year season (instead of the once every 4 years there is now). The league would consist of 3 divisions of 4 teams (best 4, middle 4, worst 4). You would play the other 3 teams in your division in 3 games both home and away over the 2 year season. That is 9 ODI's home and 9 ODI's away over a 2 year season. Top in each division gets promoted and bottom gets demoted.

Twenty20 Cricket would have two months per year set aside with no International cricket scheduled. One month for the Southern Hemisphere nations to conduct their domestic tournaments and one month for the Northern hemisphere to conduct their tournaments. All players would be available to play in these tournaments if they choose. The only International Twenty20 cricket would be a World Cup once each 2 year season (the opposing year the ODI World Cup is).

IMO with this structure of the International Calendar you would have a lot more meaningful cricket against equally strong competition. Every nation plays the same amount of cricket. There is less ODI cricket overall, a similar amount of Test Cricket and the availability of every player for the two months of domestic Twenty20 competitions each year in order to not devalue that format and allow every player the same opportunity to "cash up" and still be able to represent their country in the more traditional formats. I have done a draft schedule just to see it would work and with some tinkering it can. One con I see is the loss of the 5 Test series, as well as the lack of International Cricket during two months each year (especially if those months are prime time months such as January).

Interested in other cricket tragic's thoughts on this?

[stampy]

its all about money mate, meaningful cricket doest come into it

[Rik E Boy]

Here's an idea. **** off teeball and play real cricket. The novelty will wear off in around eighteen months and it will lose it's ability to draw new 'fans' to the game and become diminished as a revenue raiser. Piss off fifty over cricket and introduce forty over cricket. Best of both worlds.

regards,

REB

[scoob]

Here's an idea. **** off teeball and play real cricket. The novelty will wear off in around eighteen months and it will lose it's ability to draw new 'fans' to the game and become diminished as a revenue raiser. Piss off fifty over cricket and introduce forty over cricket. Best of both worlds.

regards,

REB

So piss of the new form of cricket that has been the only form to grow in the last 'so many years' and introduce a whole new form... that sounds like a great solution - where do you get your unmatched wisdom from?

[FlyingHigh]

Interesting stuff Aerie, some good ideas that I reckon would be worth serious thought.

Certainly like the concept for test cricket, but would performances in the lower divisions also be granted test status for stats etc, especially 9th v 10th? Like your one-day groupings, could it be a four-test series, 4 in a division be the same amount of tests, all being test status, and then 3rd division of 9-12th would be first-class status? Problem here would be 8 home tests one year and only four the next, although this could encourage more Test players to play Shield and Grade cricket and coaching clinics.

Perhaps the biggest problem would be scheduling depending on who was in a group. If there were Aus, SA, NZ, India and no England in a group, then would it become too tight to fit in all the games between Oct and March? Alternatively it might mean Darwin get a game, but I'd doubt the big grounds would like to give up a test against SA or India.

Agree the biggest con would be no more 5-test series, whereas I'd like to see us promote more 5-test series, especially against India and South Africa. I had been wondering if series are pushed out to 5 rather than 4 year cycles whether the 5-test series could get more prominence, but a negative being over a players career we'd probably see them once less here and once less in their home series, eg Warnie would have only toured England 3 times rather than 4.

Why do you think we should have One-day and 20-20 World Cups every two years? If there were no other one-dayers played there could be time in the calendar, and this may give the World Cups more prominence, or would every two years may be saturation?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Geez. Someone has more time on their hands than me. Piss off t20. Less ODI and more test matches.

[Rik E Boy]

Here's an idea. **** off teeball and play real cricket. The novelty will wear off in around eighteen months and it will lose it's ability to draw new 'fans' to the game and become diminished as a revenue raiser. Piss off fifty over cricket and introduce forty over cricket. Best of both worlds.

regards,

REB

So piss of the new form of cricket that has been the only form to grow in the last 'so many years' and introduce a whole new form... that sounds like a great solution - where do you get your unmatched wisdom from?

If you think growing is playing more matches then your wisdom must come from AFL house. If you only you had unmatched wisdom yourself rather than borrowing it from James Sutherland or Andy Demetriou.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

Geez. Someone has more time on their hands than me. Piss off t20. Less ODI and more test matches.

+1 Giant. Some matched wisdom for you scoob.

regards,

REB

[smac]

What's going to pay the bills? Just being realistic.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Has only been 3 t20 this summer? Not exactly filling stadiums either.

[heater31]

Has only been 3 t20 this summer? Not exactly filling stadiums either.

IPL teams losing $$$ at a great rate of knots.

[Aerie]

There is clearly a market domestically for T20. I'd rather Test cricket any day also, but the positives T20 bring are the money it generates (both for individuals and the game itself) and the new market it appeals to.

Separating it completely from the international calendar means the best players have an opportunity to play both T20 and Test Cricket. Means a player who currently just plays all the T20 comps for the money isn't necessarily financially better off than the Test player who has reached the pinnacle of cricket, but doesn't have the chance to cash in in full.

The aim of the game should be that all the best cricketers in the world strive to play Test cricket for their country and T20 should be used to facilitate that, not against it.

[whufc]

What's going to pay the bills? Just being realistic.

Would the BBL be the big money spinner, rather than the 3 international t20's

[Lightning McQueen]

What's going to pay the bills? Just being realistic.

Would the BBL be the big money spinner, rather than the 3 international t20's

I think it faired quite well, it was another success.

[Aerie]

Interesting stuff Aerie, some good ideas that I reckon would be worth serious thought.

Certainly like the concept for test cricket, but would performances in the lower divisions also be granted test status for stats etc, especially 9th v 10th? Like your one-day groupings, could it be a four-test series, 4 in a division be the same amount of tests, all being test status, and then 3rd division of 9-12th would be first-class status? Problem here would be 8 home tests one year and only four the next, although this could encourage more Test players to play Shield and Grade cricket and coaching clinics.

Perhaps the biggest problem would be scheduling depending on who was in a group. If there were Aus, SA, NZ, India and no England in a group, then would it become too tight to fit in all the games between Oct and March? Alternatively it might mean Darwin get a game, but I'd doubt the big grounds would like to give up a test against SA or India.

Agree the biggest con would be no more 5-test series, whereas I'd like to see us promote more 5-test series, especially against India and South Africa. I had been wondering if series are pushed out to 5 rather than 4 year cycles whether the 5-test series could get more prominence, but a negative being over a players career we'd probably see them once less here and once less in their home series, eg Warnie would have only toured England 3 times rather than 4.

Why do you think we should have One-day and 20-20 World Cups every two years? If there were no other one-dayers played there could be time in the calendar, and this may give the World Cups more prominence, or would every two years may be saturation?

Yeah, banking on England (or WI) being one of the teams in the top division. Mind you, parts of the subcontinent can have cricket in the majority of months of the year.

Would still have Test status for all the current 10 Test playing nations.

As for ODI World Cup every two years, I just think that is really the only ODI competition people take seriously. The rest is just a circus money making exercise. People still want to see an ODI each summer so allow that, but I reckon a World Cup every two years would be ok.

Now, I should probably actually do some real work instead of thinking about this...

[scoob]

Yeah piss it off who needs to attract young members thru the gate... your wisdom is purely that of the SAJC REB...

[smac]

What's going to pay the bills? Just being realistic.

Would the BBL be the big money spinner, rather than the 3 international t20's

Yep. Forgot what thread I was posting in (tapatalk seems to do that to me). I concur with the "piss off T20" when it comes to internationals, serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

[Dogmatic]

Has only been 3 t20 this summer? Not exactly filling stadiums either.

IPL teams losing $$$ at a great rate of knots.

Only because they pay ridiculous amounts of money for players.

[MightyEagles]

Has only been 3 t20 this summer? Not exactly filling stadiums either.

IPL teams losing $$$ at a great rate of knots.

Only because they pay ridiculous amounts of money for players.

Like $1 million for a player after 1 good innings and then gets out for next for nothing in the next innings.

[scoob]

Has only been 3 t20 this summer? Not exactly filling stadiums either.

IPL teams losing $$$ at a great rate of knots.

Only because they pay ridiculous amounts of money for players.

Like $1 million for a player after 1 good innings and then gets out for next for nothing in the next innings.

It's clearly the format that is sending them broke!