REB to REP re: Future of Test Cricket

[Rik E Boy]

Punter, you are right: Test cricket could be in trouble. The reason it might be in trouble is that there are too many teams. When you blokes play a series against a dodgy side like the West Indies twice every four years you just aren't providing the paying spectators with a genuine contest often enough.

You are right about something else too. Let's ditch some of these 50 over games. If you blokes and the greedy arse administrators and curry munching mongrels who run the ICC must have your endless teeball competitons let it be at the expense of 50 over cricket. Teeball wouldn't exist if the 50 over game had succeeded in its aim of putting bums on seats.

However if Test Cricket dies, so does the game itself. Cricket is the battle between bat and ball not between two teams batsmen who are no longer required to value their wicket. Agressive batting is exciting because it can change the course of a tight game but if it is the norm then when does cricket go next when it needs to once again up the ante in order to cater to the ever diminishing attention span of people who are not genuine cricket fans. Lets not kill the golden goose.

What we have as I have said earlier is too much of a good thing. Should your team ever be forced to play test matches against Zimbabwe, Bangaldesh or even New Zealand? How does a ten wicket win inside three days help the development of these nations' cricket or the game of test cricket itself? This is my proposal....

We have a divisional test cricket championship to be decided over the course of four years with a timeless test final to be played in the country who tops that group. I propose that the groups are formed like this...

TEST MATCH LEAGUE

1. Australia
2. India
3. England
4. South Africa
5. Sri Lanka
6. Pakistan

INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE

1. New Zealand
2. West Indies
3. Bangladesh
4. Zimbabwe
5. Scotland
6. Netherlands

INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE II - the next six sides
INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE III - the next six sides and so on...

What would happen would be that we would play two series of five tests each one home and one away. We must bring back tour games so that we don't have such poor openers for test series which is starting to happen lately. We need to get rid of two test series, let's have more cricket where the good teams play the good teams. No more shortened series to accomodate rubbish outfits. At the end of the four year cycle the team that finishes sixth gets demoted to the International League.

Hang on Punter it's a bit noisy outside I can hear some traditionalists yelling for my head...'what happens if Australia and England are no longer in the same division??', well, we had a little thing called the Second World War earlier this century. It was nothing less than the very existence of our civilisation that was under threat and you know what, test cricket between Australia and England actually survived. If it can survive that it can survive a period were one or both sides aren't cutting the mustard. Looking back over 130 years of test cricket it was only for a period during the eighties and perhaps the nineties as well in England's case when this might have actually occured.

I'd also suggest that teams in the International league play their games under first class, not test status. That's right, if you aren't playing well you don't add to your test stats until you do. The winner of the International League final is playing for the very right to be readmitted to test status. The team that finishes sixth in the International league will be dropped a division.

Lets relegate the minnows and promote test cricket as it was meant to be...a true TEST of bat and ball between two great cricketing nations. Newbies must win the right through a period of development to earn the right to be considered test standard, not just because they vote with the Indian bloc.

Thank you for your time mate and good luck over there in India.

regards,

REB

[rod_rooster]

[Hondo]

Sorry REB, but how will Div2 possibly get any TV coverage or support from the fans? Who will care about their games?

This would banish NZ & WI to oblivion. 25 years ago, the WI and NZ were 2 of the leading teams now you want to create a scenario where they can't ever play Aus or Eng or the sub-continent teams where all the TV money is? Their cricket boards will go broke and their players will disappear to other countries.

Plus, the minnows will never get better playing fellow minnows only. The best way to improve is to be playing against the best. Put Norwood in the AFL tomorrow and in 3 years they'd be a lot stronger than they would after playing 3 years of SANFL. Also, watch their best players will leave to qualify for Div 1 countries.

AND if you leave Division 1 with 3 countries (of 6) from Asia who are already angling for cricket domination where do you think that will end up?

Besides, the ACB will never risk being in a different group to England - tours every 4 years are locked in money spinners. Where do you think Aust cricket would be now if in 1985 AB's team was banished to 5 years playing minnows The ACB would have gone broke. It will never happen.


HOWEVER - Agree 100% on dropping some of the 50 over games. They have become boring and pointless IMO.

[Rik E Boy]

1. The West Indies and NZ are already in oblivion. The same people will care about their cricket as they do no, regardless of their status.
2. In 1985 Australia were better than Sri Lanka and South Africa were in exile therefore your example is irrelevant
3. The Norwood example is also irrelevant. Port is 'better' because they have completely turned over their list and got players from everywhere. That won't happen in International cricket.
4. How has playing Bangladesh five times in a decade helped their cricket? How has playing Zimbabwe about six times in a decade helped their cricket? It hasn't. What improves their cricket is if they play more of it. As second class cricket nations they get leftovers now which is less cricket than the big boys. Let them qualify if they become good enough. Let them play against some sides they can actually beat and build their confidence along with their skills.


regards,

REB

[Hondo]

1. The West Indies and NZ are already in oblivion. The same people will care about their cricket as they do no, regardless of their status.
2. In 1985 Australia were better than Sri Lanka and South Africa were in exile therefore your example is irrelevant
3. The Norwood example is also irrelevant. Port is 'better' because they have completely turned over their list and got players from everywhere. That won't happen in International cricket.
4. How has playing Bangladesh five times in a decade helped their cricket? How has playing Zimbabwe about six times in a decade helped their cricket? It hasn't. What improves their cricket is if they play more of it. As second class cricket nations they get leftovers now which is less cricket than the big boys. Let them qualify if they become good enough. Let them play against some sides they can actually beat and build their confidence along with their skills.

1 If that's the case, then just pull the life support now - don't embarrass proud cricketing countries by putting them in a second-rate comp without test status

2 In the mid 80s, Australia were considered the second-worst team. So, under your theory of dividing the existing no of teams by 2, Aust would have been Div 2. You also create the risk of that happenning again - any team that drops to Div 2 signs their own death warrant.

3 That's the main reason your theory wouldn't work IMO. Relegation/promotion systems only work when you CAN turnover your list quickly. When this came up on the AFL Board someone who follows EPL explained that "promoted" teams basically have to go out and buy a whole new team otherwise they can't compete. So your second 6 teams may as well be dumped forever because they will never come back. If you think WI & NZ are gone and the others are hopeless why do you want to automatically promote one of them in 5 years time (and relegate one of the "big 6") What if the best team in Div 2 is still nowhere near the level of the worst team in Div 1? Still an automatic relegation?

4 You don't get anywhere playing and beating second-rate sides only. If you only play Div 2 that's as good as you'll ever get. Bangladesh are further along the road than they would have been if they hadn't been able to play the best sides. Playing the best raises your own expectations and therefore you improve preparation, training, etc, etc.


At the end of the day, I understand where you are coming from but wouldn't a simpler solution be simply sacking the minnows? Besides, we hardly play them much anyway. We never play Scotland or Netherlands; Zimbabwe are banned; and we rarely play the Bangers. I think you are applying a sledgehammer to hang a picture up.

[Dirko]

Very good reading this thread. Whilst I thoroughly enjoy my cricket, I can see how the game is in danger.

Look at the mighty West Indies, and the reason why their cricket is failing. Participation rate is numero uno. If you don't have the people
playing the game, how can you re build and progress ?

What are they doing instead of playing cricket ? Playing football as they call it. Trinidad & Tobago made the last World Cup, Jamaica have had
some success in recent times in the CONCACAF area, and made the World Cup in 98. Why represent a "united" front for an Island group when you can try your hand at soccer and represent your own Island nation.

The $$$ for blokes playing football of a high standard either through the US system, or Europe far outweighs what you could earn if you managed to break into the West Indies 11.

This is only one example, and probably specific to the West Indies situation, but IMO, you need to look at the bigger picture, and that's entice people to play the game first, and hold onto them instead of losing them out to other things..

Wait until the first soccer superstar comes out of India, and the kids see how much $$$ they can get.

[Rik E Boy]

1 If that's the case, then just pull the life support now - don't embarrass proud cricketing countries by putting them in a second-rate comp without test status

2 In the mid 80s, Australia were considered the second-worst team. So, under your theory of dividing the existing no of teams by 2, Aust would have been Div 2. You also create the risk of that happenning again - any team that drops to Div 2 signs their own death warrant.

3 That's the main reason your theory wouldn't work IMO. Relegation/promotion systems only work when you CAN turnover your list quickly. When this came up on the AFL Board someone who follows EPL explained that "promoted" teams basically have to go out and buy a whole new team otherwise they can't compete. So your second 6 teams may as well be dumped forever because they will never come back. If you think WI & NZ are gone and the others are hopeless why do you want to automatically promote one of them in 5 years time (and relegate one of the "big 6") What if the best team in Div 2 is still nowhere near the level of the worst team in Div 1? Still an automatic relegation?

4 You don't get anywhere playing and beating second-rate sides only. If you only play Div 2 that's as good as you'll ever get. Bangladesh are further along the road than they would have been if they hadn't been able to play the best sides. Playing the best raises your own expectations and therefore you improve preparation, training, etc, etc.


At the end of the day, I understand where you are coming from but wouldn't a simpler solution be simply sacking the minnows? Besides, we hardly play them much anyway. We never play Scotland or Netherlands; Zimbabwe are banned; and we rarely play the Bangers. I think you are applying a sledgehammer to hang a picture up.

1. Since when have the WI and NZ been a 'proud cricket nation'. Both have been a rabble for over a decade.
2. Who said anything about dividing up the available teams? The problem is these days there is too many.
3 and 4. If the sides are good enough and have good enough personel then they get promoted and EARN the right to play against better ranked sides. Anything that is handed to you isn't worth squat. I am talking about a four year relegation cycle, not a one year relegation cycle, hence no need to quickly 'rebuild'...and yes, if you can't beat the top five down you go.

How does sacking the minnows improve their cricket? When the Australian captain says the game is in trouble the picture is bigger than you think.

regards,

REB

[smithy]

1. Since when have the WI and NZ been a 'proud cricket nation'. Both have been a rabble for over a decade.

Would you say Norwood are a proud football club ?

[Hondo]

REB I don't disagree Test Cricket has it's issues. It's your solution I am not sure about.

You want to solve it by removing test match status from NZ, WI and Bangladesh. Doing that is like putting a bullet in their brains and in 4 years time none of them will be in any state to re-enter the fold. Kids won't bother playing cricket if their most likely highest honour is playing in Holland or Scotland in front of 25 people, bag-pipes and windmills. Once the kids stop giving a rats, cricket in those countries is dead.

Then in 4 years you want to put a bullet in the brain of 1 of Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind, SL or SA Automatically What if it's us who cops relegation? What happens to Australian cricket if we slip to Div 2 and have to wait 4 years for another crack? Boxing day test v Bangladesh one year, v Scotland the next?

I don't think you help Test cricket by killing off the currently poorer performing teams. If we were so harsh 30 years ago we wouldn't have Sri Lanka today. That was what I was trying to say about Australia in the 80s.

And, as I said before, if we lose WI and NZ to world cricket that gives the Asian-block even more clout.

[Rik E Boy]

1. Since when have the WI and NZ been a 'proud cricket nation'. Both have been a rabble for over a decade.

Would you say Norwood are a proud football club ?

Good point. I would but opposition fans might not.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

REB I don't disagree Test Cricket has it's issues. It's your solution I am not sure about.

You want to solve it by removing test match status from NZ, WI and Bangladesh. Doing that is like putting a bullet in their brains and in 4 years time none of them will be in any state to re-enter the fold. Kids won't bother playing cricket if their most likely highest honour is playing in Holland or Scotland in front of 25 people, bag-pipes and windmills. Once the kids stop giving a rats, cricket in those countries is dead.

Then in 4 years you want to put a bullet in the brain of 1 of Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind, SL or SA Automatically What if it's us who cops relegation? What happens to Australian cricket if we slip to Div 2 and have to wait 4 years for another crack? Boxing day test v Bangladesh one year, v Scotland the next?

I don't think you help Test cricket by killing off the currently poorer performing teams. If we were so harsh 30 years ago we wouldn't have Sri Lanka today. That was what I was trying to say about Australia in the 80s.

And, as I said before, if we lose WI and NZ to world cricket that gives the Asian-block even more clout.

Maybe it would work better with larger divisions. Bagpipes and Windmills LMAO.

regards,

REB

[mal]

Im very impressed with this topic
When people like Ponting/Reb/RodrooSTAR make comments about the future of cricket you gotta respect thier logics.

REB
Your concept is excellent
There will be people that will disagree or modify your proposal or pick the crap outa it
My initial thoughts were 4 years is too long for a one off timeless Test as the grand finale
In 4 years the personel in a team could change dramatically
For example Australia from 2004
No OOH AHH/WARRRRRRNEY/DIZZY/ etc left by 2008 to fight the last game

It would need to be condensed over a 2 year period perhaps
Perhaps 3 test match series to enable more series to be played between the groups
5 tests with a few lead up games would take too long ?

I could prob raise other issues but I prefer to agree with REBs concept
A competition to find the number 1 team is a great idea
It happens in just about every sport except Test Cricket
We rely on some ratings to adjudicate which team is ranked 1st at the minit.

Wonderful post by a wonderful poster

[Dogwatcher]

I can see fors and againsts for this interesting proposal.

People in the right places read these sort of forums and take note of some of the comments made, not all but some.

Test cricket - two divisions, works for the Davis Cup in tennis...

[hearts on fire]

Great post REB, wonderful concept and probably the only way to keep Test Cricket "Alive"!

[blink]

As long as the $$$ rule sport, REB's concept or similar will never be adopted by the ICC.

REB's concept has some good points and some bad points, most of which Hondo has pointed out - but the general idea does have some merit.

I think we all agree though that Test cricket is at some kind of cross road and can go down one of several paths - I think something needs to be done very soon to ensure that this is the best path it can possibly take, for the sake of all true cricket fans.

[Pidge]

New Zealand are way better than Pakistan and what about Kenya?

[hearts on fire]

Ireland are better than Netherlands too.......
never mind though, it's a great idea, a few little tweaks here and there and i think this could really work.

[MAY-Z]

I think this is a more balanced approach to improving test cricket

Top 9 ranked nations are put into 3 groups of based on current rankings it is as follows:

Group 1:
Australia (1)
Sri lanka (5)
Bangladesh (9)

Group 2:
South africa (2)
Pakistan (6)
New Zealand (7)

Group 3:
India (3)
England (4)
West Indies (8)


Year 1: Each team plays the others in its group in both home and away 3
test series = 12 tests (6 home, 6 away)
Points are awarded for wins (5points) and draws (2points). Runs/over
and overs/hour could be combined in some way to come up with a score to
split teams if they finish equal on points...

Year 2: The 3 group winners are put in Pool A (Championship Pool), the 3
runners up are put in Pool B (Plate Pool), and the 3 bottom ranked sides
go into Pool C (Relegation Pool). Again each team plays the others in
its group in both home and away 3 test series = 12 tests (6 home, 6
away)
Points are awarded for wins (5points) and draws (2points) and added to
the points obtained in the first year.

Winner of Pool A is the Test Champion. Loser of Pool C is relegated and replaced by the winner of the second-tier competition (which happens concurrently, with the same format, but played as 4-day games as the ICC Intercontinental Champioship is currently done. This will ensure the likes of the netherlands and canada etc get more matches and their matches will also mean more and with the botom team dropping down every 2 years it will strengthen the 2nd teir league as all the team will have a bit more experience- maybe a play-off between 9th and 1st should be used to decide if the relegation/promotion will happen.


You could run a paralell ODI series along the same lines with 5 ODIs
played alongside each test series (=20 per year), but in the second year that becomes problematic as the ODI groups may not be the same as the test groups...

All over in 24months, meaning you could run one every two years, or
preferably leave 2 years free for series like the Ashes, or series
between teams who have not played each other for a while, and of course
the ODI World Cup, T/20 championship etc...

[Hondo]

After jumping REB initially I have concluded that my main issue with his and May-Z's theories is the automatic relegation and promotion (plus boning WI and NZ ).

If you refer to the ICC web-site you can see there are set qualification hurdles in place already. I think the developing countries MUST achieve more than simply being first in "division 2". Otherwise, a "div 1" side could drop out yet still be streets ahead of Canada, say.

May-Z at least keeps the current 9 test match countries so I like his idea better. However, I think Test Cricket is best promoted with regular match-ups such as Aus v Eng. I'd hate to see the Ashes get put out of schedule because of some arbitrary grouping. I also don't think the ACB or any cricket Board would support not being able to lock in tour dates beyond a 2 year window, especially with so many countries sharing the same season.

REB's main beef, at this risk of para-phrasing him, was that there are too many one-sided games played. I think this is a concern however I think Test Cricket's challenges run deeper than that. I fear it's more the format with 1 game needing 5 whole days to decide and then you need at least 2 (pref 3) to run a series to determine whose best. That's at least 15 days + breaks between games which is a lot of time needed to properly match everyone up and find a clear winner. So I reckon the current ranking system is all you can do because, as Mal said, personnel change every year in teams. The best team in 2008 might be middle of the road in 2010 due to retirements.

When test cricket was at it's peak it never needed a "championship" style system to keep the fans happy.

I fear that the long-winded format of the game we love is it's own worst enemy. So that's why I am not sure if 20-20 will be the death-knock or the saviour of test cricket. It might have to be the cash cow necessary to fund the true version of the game. Because, unfortunately, the true version isn't attracting the fans so it's not funding itself.

[Dogwatcher]

Crowds aren't everything though in this sporting economy though and as long as pay tv is happy to spend spondoolies to cover test matches, they will remain - whether there's 20 people in the ground or 100k.

It's when the advertising interests dwindle that test matches will come under threat.

As with all of cricket's financial arguments I believe this again leads back to the place many people (mainly people in Australia, England and South Africa) fear will be the ruin of cricket as it is - India.