I don't mean it favours a team in terms of the Test "championship" such that it is, but I mean do the top teams benefit from it? Do the bottom sides? Do the sides in the middle?
Or should we go to tiered cricket, leagues of 5-7 of similar ability with promotion/relegation?
Here's my case for the bottom sides. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are treated like noone really wants to play them. Even West Indies and New Zealand are squeezed into the schedule because there is too much cricket. And calls for Ireland to be given Test status are ridiculous because there is just too much cricket already.
Before their break from Test cricket Zimbabwe played only one series involving more than two Tests in 11 series going back to 2002. Australia have only played three Tests against them ever, England six. England play Bangladesh quite regularly, but beat them every time. Is there any point to playing two Tests regularly, losing all of them every time and never progressing? How do Zimbabwe and Bangladesh benefit from the current structure? Even against New Zealand, Bangladesh have a poor record (P9 W0 D1 L8)
Here's my case for the top sides. England play matches against the bottom sides, win most of the time with the odd lost Test and (freak) series defeat. The rest of the sides likewise, affording the weakest sides 1-2 Tests, the middle sides usually three, while maintaining longer series against the top sides through tradition or to build them up as the main event (for ???? through gates and TV). What purpose does playing the weakest sides serve? It isn't like the weakest sides improve or cause many problems, or that England et al want to play that many. They have to play them, they do so when convenient to squeeze in, then get on with the main events. It is a sad but true state of affairs that England used to play West Indies in five match series, England now normally only play them in four Test series which England usually win 3-0 or 4-0. The last series was only two, squeezed in before the Ashes and that may happen more and more.
While many fans seem to fear not playing such and such a side and make a lot of noise opposing such a change, tiers are inevitable if cricket wants to progress. Having two or three tiers would give non-Test sides the chance to join the structure, expand cricket worldwide as more people take notice and interest, and it would reduce the hectic schedule. T20 might well fill some of the gaps in the schedule, TV is always sharp to get as much cricket played as it can, but in a tiered structure the likes of Ireland could come in and the likes of Bangladesh play teams at their level in contests not formalities. And if Bangladesh consistently beat sides of their level then they get promoted and pit themselves against better sides in the next level.
Those opposing such moves may fear a loss of the Ashes series, or that they'll get relegated, but such selfish reservations aren't in the best interests of all. And as I may have pointed out before elsewhere, I've not said England couldn't play Australia if they fit it in their schedule outside of the official leagues/championship - still counting as Tests for the records, just not towards their league points.
To me objection to such a move is 'head in sand' stuff, let's stick with an antiquated set-up with just TEN teams invited to play and ignore the rest of the world and their cricketers so the sport has its niche but is never truly global. Sure the ICC lets the rest of the world play in World Cups from time to time, but if a country doesn't play cricket in competitions their people won't get interested in that sport. In the 80s Sri Lanka made the 'elite club' count seven, Zimbabwe made it eight and South Africa returned to make it nine. Bangladesh made it ten, but the current structure won't cope with more and cricket either changes and adapts, or stays stuck in a system that worked over 50 years ago and can still just about work now, but won't improve or advance.
Or should we go to tiered cricket, leagues of 5-7 of similar ability with promotion/relegation?
Here's my case for the bottom sides. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are treated like noone really wants to play them. Even West Indies and New Zealand are squeezed into the schedule because there is too much cricket. And calls for Ireland to be given Test status are ridiculous because there is just too much cricket already.
Before their break from Test cricket Zimbabwe played only one series involving more than two Tests in 11 series going back to 2002. Australia have only played three Tests against them ever, England six. England play Bangladesh quite regularly, but beat them every time. Is there any point to playing two Tests regularly, losing all of them every time and never progressing? How do Zimbabwe and Bangladesh benefit from the current structure? Even against New Zealand, Bangladesh have a poor record (P9 W0 D1 L8)
Here's my case for the top sides. England play matches against the bottom sides, win most of the time with the odd lost Test and (freak) series defeat. The rest of the sides likewise, affording the weakest sides 1-2 Tests, the middle sides usually three, while maintaining longer series against the top sides through tradition or to build them up as the main event (for ???? through gates and TV). What purpose does playing the weakest sides serve? It isn't like the weakest sides improve or cause many problems, or that England et al want to play that many. They have to play them, they do so when convenient to squeeze in, then get on with the main events. It is a sad but true state of affairs that England used to play West Indies in five match series, England now normally only play them in four Test series which England usually win 3-0 or 4-0. The last series was only two, squeezed in before the Ashes and that may happen more and more.
While many fans seem to fear not playing such and such a side and make a lot of noise opposing such a change, tiers are inevitable if cricket wants to progress. Having two or three tiers would give non-Test sides the chance to join the structure, expand cricket worldwide as more people take notice and interest, and it would reduce the hectic schedule. T20 might well fill some of the gaps in the schedule, TV is always sharp to get as much cricket played as it can, but in a tiered structure the likes of Ireland could come in and the likes of Bangladesh play teams at their level in contests not formalities. And if Bangladesh consistently beat sides of their level then they get promoted and pit themselves against better sides in the next level.
Those opposing such moves may fear a loss of the Ashes series, or that they'll get relegated, but such selfish reservations aren't in the best interests of all. And as I may have pointed out before elsewhere, I've not said England couldn't play Australia if they fit it in their schedule outside of the official leagues/championship - still counting as Tests for the records, just not towards their league points.
To me objection to such a move is 'head in sand' stuff, let's stick with an antiquated set-up with just TEN teams invited to play and ignore the rest of the world and their cricketers so the sport has its niche but is never truly global. Sure the ICC lets the rest of the world play in World Cups from time to time, but if a country doesn't play cricket in competitions their people won't get interested in that sport. In the 80s Sri Lanka made the 'elite club' count seven, Zimbabwe made it eight and South Africa returned to make it nine. Bangladesh made it ten, but the current structure won't cope with more and cricket either changes and adapts, or stays stuck in a system that worked over 50 years ago and can still just about work now, but won't improve or advance.
Constantly playing Ireland/Netherlands/Afghanistan etc. would get them regular cricket, but it may not help them identify what they need to do to crack the top 5 in the world ie. long term improvement. Somehow we need to get Zim and Ban playing regular cricket and occasionally against the best teams so they know how to improve. That sounds a bit like the current system, but just get them playing more 'A' tours eg. the Aus A tour of Zim earlier this year - that was a great idea, and that's how the lower teams should be filling their schedules. 
) on their day. Encounters involving such unpredictability have produced some magnificent test matches. If a team like Pakistan are relegated to the division of teams like West Indies, New Zealand, and the minnows, it will devoid the cricket of the flair that it so desperately needs. Also bottom teams need to learn to improve the hard way that comes through some bashing from top sides.
