hondo71 wrote: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..
Yes, a valid point, however I think these criteria were established after the Bangas were admitted, meaning they gained test status despite acheiving less than Ireland (2007) or Kenya (2003) - especially if you rule out their dodgy win over Pakistan in WC'99 - and have retained their status despite not really improving in the 8 years since they were admitted. It also doesn't cater for situations like the Zimbo debacle where a once competitive outfit has been decimated for non-cricket reasons. The only reason they are still playing at test-level is because they have been suspended. Auto-relegation would have seen them demoted purely on the basis of poor results, which would have removed the need for the ICC to get into the messy world of politics, and probably would have been more embarrassing for Mugabe and his ZCU. Banning them just adds fuel to the pro-Mugabe fire. Demoting them makes the ZCU and Mugabe completely accountable for what has happened to Zimbo cricket.
hondo71 wrote: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.
Hondo, if you re-read May-Z's suggestion (which is actually my idea!), you will see that it is held over two years on a four year cycle, which leaves 2 years in between to play the Ashes and other big money-spinner tours, like IND/PAK for example. Yes, you do have to retain the Top 9, or at least Top 8, otherwise decent players from NZL/WIN etc would easily be lured to formats such as Stanford, ICL etc, or would be tempted to try and qualify for Tier 1 nations (especially if it was 4 years between their next test-level competition... another argument for the two years in four cycle).
hondo71 wrote: 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.
I totally agree that there are too many one-sided games, and the Fatal/May-Z Solution restores the balance somewhat, especially in Year 2 when "equally matched" teams are up against each other. But I think beyond that, the problem is that there are too many meaningless games. If the current ranking system is retained then it should be based on individual game results, rather than just series results. That would be a quick and simple solution that is easy to implement, but it does require all test series to be played over the same number of games. The optimum being 4 in my opinion...
