ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[cricket_icon]

i know what u mean but at this rate the bottom 5 teams will include Pakistan, along with Bang, WI, NZ and Zimbabwe (providing them a way back into the game) so if one championship cycle was 4 years lets say, then in that time NZ can play the otehr four teams, home and away. Result!

 

[Chewie]

We already play them enough and it is so annoying not playing the top nations. Cricketers wouldn't aspire to test cricket any more because they don't get to play these top nations, they will just go play in the IPL instead

 

[cricket_icon]

well i think most people enjoy watching pakistan play against NZ, always a good series. and I'm sure even more would look to try and play Test cricket, especially those in associate nations. plus relegation/promotion would promote tougher cricket. and even with a 2 tier system, top 5 teams would still be bale to play matches against the bottom 5, sort of the like the useless 2 test series' that are often played these days.

 

[Ahmad94]

well i think most people enjoy watching pakistan play against NZ, always a good series. and I'm sure even more would look to try and play Test cricket, especially those in associate nations. plus relegation/promotion would promote tougher cricket. and even with a 2 tier system, top 5 teams would still be bale to play matches against the bottom 5, sort of the like the useless 2 test series' that are often played these days.

If I am not mistaken Vettori has retired now and Pakistan should find them a much easier side. However Pakistani players don't have the potential for test cricket

 

[cricket_icon]

i wouldnt say that. pakistan beat australia in a test away from home, beat england in a test and lost a quite competitive test series which was very winnable for them if it wasnt for the atrocious batting and then they drew against SA, world no.2, then they beat NZ in NZ and have just recently drawn a series against the Windies, which would have been drawn if not due to the terrible batting collapses. Apart from the shameful showing in Australia a year and a half ago, Pakistan hasnt been too bad, considering all the set backs, some self inflicted, many not.

 

[Chewie]

well i think most people enjoy watching pakistan play against NZ, always a good series. and I'm sure even more would look to try and play Test cricket, especially those in associate nations. plus relegation/promotion would promote tougher cricket. and even with a 2 tier system, top 5 teams would still be bale to play matches against the bottom 5, sort of the like the useless 2 test series' that are often played these days.

Then what's the difference between what we have now? And the associate nations don't have the correct structure to be playing test cricket

 

[cricket_icon]

well i havent got a clear structure in my head yet. thats for the ICC to decide but what i meant about the associates is that the best team can be promoted into the 2nd tier of test teams. and only when they are given enough of a chance to play the best can they develop a successful structure. and sorry if this sounds offensive but there really isnt a difference between Bangladesh and associate nations such as Netherlands, ireland and Kenya.

 

[Chewie]

Your system really only provides for the associate nations. In my opinion they shouldn't be able to acquire test status that easily, but they should be playing more 4-day matches against the lower teams on the table. I just don't think they have a good enough domestic structure and support to do well at test level.

 

[cricket_icon]

ahh thats what i meant. playing four day games and which ever team is on top after a four year cycle gets promoted into the 2nd tier. the worse team demoted, and the top 5 will also have even fiercer competition as they will all want to avoid relegation. because what sports fans want is some consequence to what happens in Test cricket, not just having to wait who is being ranked number one. all this will also bring in new fans which is what we need.

 

[Chewie]

I still don't like having two tiers at the top level though. Really stupid idea imo.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I can kind of see where cricket_icon is coming from, but I disagree with the idea as well. It won't work - a 4 year cycle is too long for such a system to be effective. Test cricket does not need any changes. Each series should be taken on its merit - one country trying to conquer the other's conditions and coming on top.

The Associate idea is interesting though. I think that could work on a 4 year cycle - with either Bang/Zim being replaced by the likes of Ire/Neth/Scot etc...

 

[cricket_icon]

^^^ we would still have one country trying to conquer another just under more stringent conditions with more of an outcome. and the 4 year cycle can easily be reduced to 3.

 

[sifter132]

Your system really only provides for the associate nations. In my opinion they shouldn't be able to acquire test status that easily, but they should be playing more 4-day matches against the lower teams on the table. I just don't think they have a good enough domestic structure and support to do well at test level.

Agree - Bangladesh got their Test status far too easily, based really on ONE win against Pakistan in the 99 World Cup, which in hindsight stinks to high heaven of something fishy.

Anyway, I think the "A" teams should be involved more in this cause. If there are 2,3 or more tiers I would love to see the stronger teams "A" teams involved eg. Aus, Eng, Ind, SA, maybe SL if they have the depth. The only rule would be that "A" teams could never be allowed into the top tier.

You could have the top 8 in Tier 1, then Bang, Zim, Ire, Neth and the 4 strongest "A" teams in tier 2. That would keep the 2nd tier of a pretty high standard. You could even keep going in a 3rd tier, with the "A" teams from the other top 8 teams (SL,NZ,Pak,WI) along with another 4 associates (Can, Sco, Afg, Ken). The trouble is that when you get to the lesser teams a lot of them are amateurs and can't afford to tour constantly. So you either need to make the tiers smaller, or make they play each other less often.

 

[6ry4nj]

Anyway, I think the "A" teams should be involved more in this cause. If there are 2,3 or more tiers I would love to see the stronger teams "A" teams involved eg. Aus, Eng, Ind, SA, maybe SL if they have the depth. The only rule would be that "A" teams could never be allowed into the top tier.

You could have the top 8 in Tier 1, then Bang, Zim, Ire, Neth and the 4 strongest "A" teams in tier 2. That would keep the 2nd tier of a pretty high standard. You could even keep going in a 3rd tier, with the "A" teams from the other top 8 teams (SL,NZ,Pak,WI) along with another 4 associates (Can, Sco, Afg, Ken). The trouble is that when you get to the lesser teams a lot of them are amateurs and can't afford to tour constantly. So you either need to make the tiers smaller, or make they play each other less often.

Yes I do like that idea about the "A" teams. Along similar lines, I would like to see a "Best of the Rest" team play a part. It's heartbreaking that there are a few top-class players out there who can never (well, hardly ever) truly strut their stuff purely because of their nationality.

Another thing I'd like is if the bottom Test or ODI nation three years in a row was demoted. If the consensus was that no Associate was ready at that point, they need not be replaced in the top flight. But even if an unready Associate was promoted, even if it was a 'revolving door' between Bang/Zim and somebody, at least there'd be something happening.

The trouble is that when you get to the lesser teams a lot of them are amateurs and can't afford to tour constantly.

Shame that a percent of a percent of the stupid amounts of dosh in the IPL couldn't be somehow 'diverted' to professionalize a few more national sides.

 

[War]

India news: Global 'arm-twisting' scuttled ICL - Modi | India Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Revelations that were always suspected finally being exposed.