It will all end in tiers - tiers in Test cricket

[blockerdave]

@Owzat - I'm calling bullshit. On basically everything you said, so I'm not picking on minor points.

For starters, New Zealand haven't always been towards the bottom as they are now, as Martin Crowe pointed out: "During the '80s, West Indies totally dominated, while New Zealand were unbeaten at home for 12 long years, as well as winning away in England and Australia."

Bangladesh's problems and failure to improve have been down to the lack of a proper first class structure (which should have prevented them being given test status in the first place), and that they have struggled to get enough Tests forcing them to focus on ODIs.

Secondly, how can this be an improvement? Do you really think the teams cut off in the second tier are going to play Test matches against each other with no prospect of facing the better (more lucrative) teams? How can England not facing a team with the history of West Indies, who even now still have some extremely talented players be an improvement? In what way is a few teams saying "we're pulling the ladder up" an improvement? In what way are three teams saying "we generate the money, therefore we will always play each other" an improvement? If this comes to pass, within 5 years of it being implemented Test Cricket will be dead in most if not all of the Tier 2 nations. It's not improvement, it's vandalism.

 

[Owzat]

I don't mind decent discussion come debate, but when people start becoming dismissive and abusive then I don't need the aggro.

Not going to even bother replying from now on

 

[barmyarmy]

I don't think blockerdave's post is abusive although I agree that it could have been more respectful.

 

[blockerdave]

I don't mind decent discussion come debate, but when people start becoming dismissive and abusive then I don't need the aggro.

Not going to even bother replying from now on

it wasn't intended to be abusive but when you pre-emptively dismiss any objections as picking on minor points then i'm afraid people look at the "major" points and in this case they had nothing backing them up

 

[Ho3n3r]

South Africa have been at the top of the test rankings for a while. If anybody gets first choice to go to a top tier, it should be us.

 

[sifter132]

Do you really think the teams cut off in the second tier are going to play Test matches against each other with no prospect of facing the better (more lucrative) teams?

I think this is the crux of the issue. The second tier would be heavy with teams filled with amateur cricketers. Amateurs need time off work just to play, let alone go on a tour. Therefore second tier teams would play less cricket, and would therefore find it hard to improve. If a top team like WI, NZ, SL dropped down, they would be frustrated by the lack of regular cricket and their players would have to find other incomes ie. they would become 20/20 whores. That wouldn't help their Test cricket either...

A second tier could only survive and thrive with better finances to pay players and promote tours etc. That's going to be very hard since even the top tier teams are struggling to make money out of Test cricket. There would need to be massive handouts from the big 3. VERY unlikely. Ultimately I think a tier system would just create a bigger gulf between the top 8 and teams 9-16.

 

[cricket_icon]

I think this is the crux of the issue. The second tier would be heavy with teams filled with amateur cricketers. Amateurs need time off work just to play, let alone go on a tour. Therefore second tier teams would play less cricket, and would therefore find it hard to improve. If a top team like WI, NZ, SL dropped down, they would be frustrated by the lack of regular cricket and their players would have to find other incomes ie. they would become 20/20 whores. That wouldn't help their Test cricket either...

A second tier could only survive and thrive with better finances to pay players and promote tours etc. That's going to be very hard since even the top tier teams are struggling to make money out of Test cricket. There would need to be massive handouts from the big 3. VERY unlikely. Ultimately I think a tier system would just create a bigger gulf between the top 8 and teams 9-16.

Whoa??? Expanding test cricket to 16 teams? That's just not happening.

Apart from the ridiculous proposal of the "BIG THREE" I like the idea of a two tiered system.

Top 5 in tests and the bottom 5.

 

[sifter132]

^Was there a specific number of teams mentioned? I assumed it would be 8 so that none of the traditional powers would be booted out. And I'm guessing the 2nd tier matches certainly wouldn't be classed as Tests, they'd be called something else.

I think you're right though, a smaller group in each tier would work better because that problem of having teams of amateurs wouldn't occur so much. You could play more often that way.

 

[ferg512]

I know for certain that a tier structure of any sort will absolutely destroy cricket in New Zealand. I will never forget the England test at Eden Park last year when most of the country (people that don't even like cricket) were tuning into the last couple of days, a lot of people took the day off work to go to the ground. This Indian tour is having a similar effect, people are excited that we are competing with these powerhouse nations and winning the odd game. Most of the NZ public doesn't care when we play West Indies, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh its the big three that make a difference and if you take that away people will quickly lose a lot of interest in cricket here.

 

[cricket_icon]

^Was there a specific number of teams mentioned? I assumed it would be 8 so that none of the traditional powers would be booted out. And I'm guessing the 2nd tier matches certainly wouldn't be classed as Tests, they'd be called something else.

I think you're right though, a smaller group in each tier would work better because that problem of having teams of amateurs wouldn't occur so much. You could play more often that way.

In terms of tiers, I reckon it would be the 10 test playing nations...I don't see any point in having associates in a tiered system involving test teams, although if they play well enough they can work there way into the top 10 and the bottom team in the second tier loses it's right to play tests.

 

[War]

I know for certain that a tier structure of any sort will absolutely destroy cricket in New Zealand. I will never forget the England test at Eden Park last year when most of the country (people that don't even like cricket) were tuning into the last couple of days, a lot of people took the day off work to go to the ground. This Indian tour is having a similar effect, people are excited that we are competing with these powerhouse nations and winning the odd game. Most of the NZ public doesn't care when we play West Indies, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh its the big three that make a difference and if you take that away people will quickly lose a lot of interest in cricket here.

Indeed, which is why i always say Tiers are a nonsensical idea for tests - because one of the problems in world cricket is that countries like WI/NZ/PAK/SRI/BANG/IND standard of first-class cricket is not the same level historically as AUS/ENG/SA due to finances.

Of course once WI were strong they had a great system, but they don't have a finances now to have a long 3-4 month season like AUS/ENG/SA do. While IND obviously have the money to improve their domestic system - but they seem more focused on making IPL greater & corrupting world cricket.

Its no coincidence why only WI/AUS/ENG/SA have been the only legitimate # 1 test teams, throughout cricket history. But since 1975 all of the top 8 nations have at least won a world cup, champions trophy or T20 world cup. This shows how hard it is to be good a tests & those weak financial teams, generally use 50 overs performances of players - to pick them for test matches with mixed results.

So if the ICC helps WI/NZ/SRI/PAK/BANG get their domestic structures up to similar standard to AUS/ENG/SA, this will inevitably help their test match performances. This would be a much better thing to do in this small cricket community instead of wasting money trying to grow cricket in USA & China.

 

[Samuels]

Such are the topics that make me think to the initial set of never said rules of cricket. As much it is the fact that a country can never produce high quality cricketers without a well thought out and regular domestic setup, it is also true that a weak team will never be helped by not playing against better set of players. Even in a cricket level as low as backyard cricket, everyone knows that to shine the skills, you have to play against bigger and better players and it is only then you can grow into a better player unless you are a Sir Don Bradman or Sydney Barnes. It is quite foolish to split the teams in groups and expect the weaker ones to grow. What really needs to be done is to formulate the structure of and regularize the domestic competitions in weaker countries and at the same time get them play more against better teams. As far as the high ranked teams are concerned, it is not a win-win situation for them to play against good teams. Of course, they get to play against better players than most but then, a team like India or Australia would love to play in New Zealand or the Bangladesh and learn to play in the conditions out there which should help make their players better equipped in most conditions ultimately benefiting their cricket and the sport as a whole. In short, I see no reason why there should be a tier system.

 

[grkrama]

this has to change..every test playing cricket board has to have a equal say in the matter if cricket is to sustain as it is remembered now.