2 tier test cricket

2 tier test cricket is an idea that has been discussed in the ICC for a long while now. There are positives and negatives about it, and so i think this is a good place to discuss it and see what people think...

If there was 2 tier's in test cricket, it would give a chance for the lower sides, to play each other and fight to play the bigger test match sides....

based on rankings the tiers would probably look like this..

Tier 1: Tier 2:

England Pakistan
South africa New Zealand
India West Indies
Sri lanka Bangladesh
Australia Zimbabwe

Now the negative side to it, would be, that the lower sides wouldnt get much of a opportunity to play against the bigger sides...obviously the point of 2 tiers would be that, there would be a promotion and relegation side to it, played over a series of matches, and a points system, maybe the county championship, i dont no, what the points would be....I think it could work and in the future will probably come in..

what do you all think?

Personally I think it should be:

Tier 1
England
South Africa
India
Sri Lanka
Australia
Pakistan

Tier 2
New Zealand
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland


I think Ireland should be included in this.

With any test championship, I'd purely and simply like to see 2 points for a series win, 1 point for a series draw and matches won and matches lost as for and against columns and the first seperator.

I'm not sure about 2 tiers. Maybe if you every 4 years you played every team in your tier home and away and every team in the other tier home OR away, to make sure the lower ranked countries did still get to play the top tier. That would be 13 series over the 4 years, allowing time for World Cups and the Champions Trophy. I would say series have to be a minimum of 3 tests, and can be up to 5.

I'd get rid of the Champions Trophy personally.

That way making room for the 50 over world cup (Which would be better if it was pro40...) and the T20 World Cup

i think the 2 tier idea could work to be honest, given time to alllow the changes to be bedded in.

A very good article CF.

Three tier system.

Tier 1 - England, SA, India, SL, Australia
Tier 2 - Pakistan, NZ, WI, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe
Tier 3 - Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Scotland, Canada

Tier one teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Tier 2 play everyone once. Tier 3 teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Top & bottom teams get promoted/relegated top of tier 1 are crowned Test Champions.

Isn't it disgraceful that the ICC (and everyone on here ) seems to have forgotten about and even dismissed Kenya, they were level with, maybe even a bit stronger than Bangladesh in the late 90s, yet they've been left to their own devices, whereas Bangladesh have been given EVERY opportunity to get upto a decent standard and seem to have gone nowhere?

yh but banglasesh showed signs of improvement, kenya declined badly and it showed at the world cup..

they never showed any signs of becoming anywhere near a test nation.

Kenya were way better than Bangladesh when Bangladesh were given test status. Tikolo, Odumbe and Odoyo were all class acts that would have walked into the England side at the time. They got to the semi final of the '03 world cup!

How about 2 tiers of 8 and include Kenya?

Then have relegation/promotion for bottom Tier 1 and top of Tier 2.

Tier 1:
England
South Africa
India
Sri Lanka
Australia
Pakistan
New Zealand
West Indies

Tier 2:
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Netherlands
Afghanistan
Scotland
Canada
Kenya

That looks quite a neat division.

Surely India in Tier 2?

Theres no point in sides like Ireland playing tests, especially in a third tier.
They wouldnt generate enough income to pay the flights over, and wouldnt be able to pay the players anywhere near enough to tempt them away from county cricket....that is the few of them who have any proper first class experience. The board have said themcsleves they are not yet ready to support test cricket even in ethexisting set up. Putting them in with a bunch of sides that couldnt care less and generate no money wouldnt do anyone any good. They only series that would have interest would be against England, who are far far too strong for them at the moment. Whilst interesting for casual fans it would be largley pointless as a sporting event.


If a split into tiers is done it shouldnt be as ring fenced divisions where you only play tests agaisnt those in your tier, it would make more sense to simply reduce the comitment of ptop tier temas having to play the lower tier ones home and away on each 5 year cycle. England for example want regular series against SA, Australia and India as those are the big draws...although West Indies and Pakistan also have interest for the fans. It really would be ridiculous to say that India and Pakistan or New Zealand and Australia are in seperate divisions so shouldnt play each pother any more. But its also annoying for England that they have to play Bangladesh so often.
Hoew you then deal with "promotion and relegation" between teh tiers is another issue. Test series are usually palnned years in advance as part of the future tours schedule so that domestic competitions can be organised to minimise conflict.

Linebreaker wrote:How about 2 tiers of 8 and include Kenya?

Then have relegation/promotion for bottom Tier 1 and top of Tier 2.

Tier 1:
England
South Africa
India
Sri Lanka
Australia
Pakistan
New Zealand
West Indies

Tier 2:
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Netherlands
Afghanistan
Scotland
Canada
Kenya

That looks quite a neat division.

For ODIs sure but most of the tier 2 nations have no interest or ability to sustain test cricket. Aslo the only thing that keeps Scottish and Irish cricket viable is the money spinning games against England. If they are formally split into another tier does that stop them from playing those fixtures anymore? Same can be said of Bangladesh playing India.

Good point Peter.

That first tier would vie for the Championship, second tier could play a set number of Tests against other 2nd tier teams... and the odd Tier 1 team.

Lots of cricket still - but spread it out over 3-4 years?

What annoys me are the 2 Test series. Should be a minimum of 3 Tests. I still like 5 Tests for The Ashes bit if it has to be reduced... ? Not so sure about that.

Maybe each year: 3 Test Series of 3 matches/year... and over a 4 year cycle and play 2 x 3 match Tests against the teams from the other Tier? Keep The Ashes as a 5 Test Series as is.

(just thinking out aloud... I'm sort of in rugby mode at the moment - until tomorrow.)

Linebreaker

I don't think it matters how many test is in a series (although I would impose a minimum of three). Winning the series is worth 2 points, drawn series are worth 1 point and then the margin of the victory is your "for and against" columns.

I would like to see England Lions play Ireland in a couple of first class games (maybe 1 home and 1 away each year), but I don't think they're ready for tests, as PSW says.

ReallyReal wrote:Isn't it disgraceful that the ICC (and everyone on here ) seems to have forgotten about and even dismissed Kenya, they were level with, maybe even a bit stronger than Bangladesh in the late 90s, yet they've been left to their own devices, whereas Bangladesh have been given EVERY opportunity to get upto a decent standard and seem to have gone nowhere?

kenya are at an all time low, and debate whether they are at all againast sides like ireland in an odi, let alone a test match

Sri Lanka seem to be struggling at tea on day 1 of the 2nd Test.
I hope they don't slip too far down... we need them to be competitive still.

the sri lankans rebuilding after vaas retired, murali retired and malinga's inability to bowl more than 2 over spells.

cricketfan90 wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:Isn't it disgraceful that the ICC (and everyone on here ) seems to have forgotten about and even dismissed Kenya, they were level with, maybe even a bit stronger than Bangladesh in the late 90s, yet they've been left to their own devices, whereas Bangladesh have been given EVERY opportunity to get upto a decent standard and seem to have gone nowhere?

kenya are at an all time low, and debate whether they are at all againast sides like ireland in an odi, let alone a test match

Kenya are only where they are now because the ICC cut them adrift, it could be argued that Bangladesh haven't improved at all since being given Test match status, which includes the regular top class opposition needed for any side to truly test itself.
I guess my real point is, Bangladesh should not have been given Test status, they weren't the strongest associate nation and in the 11 years as a Test nation they've won just 3 out of 69 Tests, Zimbabwe in 05 and we all know just how much of a real Test Zimbabwe were then and 2 Tests against the West Indies in 09 when most of their squad was on srike.
I've no idea whether Kenya would have done any better than Bangladesh have, had they been given Test status instead, but their ODI side was better than Bangladesh were and they had a better/stronger club infrastructure at the time, which at the very least proves that ODI strength at that level has little baring on how well any nation will adapt to the 5 day game, so adding ANY new countries to the Test register seems pointless to me for a long time hence.

the problem with kenya is, they haven't showed signs of players coming through or any sort of progessrion, they seemd to have gone backwards, and dont look threatning to beat anyone..

cricketfan90 wrote:the problem with kenya is, they haven't showed signs of players coming through or any sort of progessrion, they seemd to have gone backwards, and dont look threatning to beat anyone..

Are you talking about Kenya or India ?

talking about kenya lol..

its a shame how badly kenya faded, cos they did have potential, but now they are awful.

cricketfan90 wrote:talking about India lol..

its a shame how badly India faded, cos they did have potential, but now they are awful.

cricketfan90 wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:Isn't it disgraceful that the ICC (and everyone on here ) seems to have forgotten about and even dismissed Kenya, they were level with, maybe even a bit stronger than Bangladesh in the late 90s, yet they've been left to their own devices, whereas Bangladesh have been given EVERY opportunity to get upto a decent standard and seem to have gone nowhere?

kenya are at an all time low, and debate whether they are at all againast sides like ireland in an odi, let alone a test match

its a shame really, players like tikolo, obuya and odoyo, were good players, but there's nothing coming through for kenya.

cricketfan90 wrote:its a shame really, players like Dravid, Tendulkar and Khan, were good players, but there's nothing coming through for India.

sorry Ill stop eventually! Its just to easy

How people can seriously suggest with a straight face awarding the likes of Ireland, Kenya, Canada etc test status, even if it is only second or third tier, is totally beyond me. While we're at it, why not give Angola, Iraq, Costa Rica and Burma a crack at it too, seeing as so many are keen to diminish the quality of what is meant to be the elite level of cricket?

Test cricket is fine as it is, and so is the system of ranking teams. Bangladesh should not have been granted test status back in 2000, that much is clear - but rather than strip it from them, the ICC should simply be more careful and prudent in awarding it in the future. The quality of test cricket needs to be maintained.

I think the idea of divisions, while good in paper, couldn't work when applied to cricket.

Take the idea that you have 2 divisions, each team plays each other home and away. Once each team has played the other, you sort out the top/ bottom teams in each division and promote/ relegate accordingly.

But how long would it take for each team to play the others home and away? All series would have to be the same length, so you'd assume 3 or 4 tests. Even with only 5 teams in a division, that's 8 test series per team. Which would mean that by the time a team got promoted or relegated a fair few of their players are likely to have retired.

Good idea in principle, wouldn't work in practice.

Netherlands and Ireland deserve test status, the others don't imo. Not enough International teams playing Test Cricket at the moment I would say but don't want teams as Chris says such as Kenya and Canada awarded test status. Unsure how the ICC would work there way around sorting it out.

im not sure netherlands are quite ready for test cricket to be honest.

cricketfan90 wrote:im not sure netherlands are quite ready for test cricket to be honest.

only 9 teams are good enough for Test Cricket atm.

cricketfan90 wrote:im not sure netherlands are quite ready for test cricket to be honest.

Both Ireland and Netherlands have been successful of late. If Ireland do get granted Test status I think Netherlands should deserve it also.

Whilst I'd love to say Ireland are ready for test status. But sadly they are not.
I would be a fan of them playing the 'A' teams of the current test nations, especially the England Lions as that would have less travel expenses. It would give the Lions players and the Irish players more exposure to test cricket.

There are already too many Test nations, Ireland and the Netherlands are nowhere near strong enough for the 5 day game, nor do either country have any real infrastructure in place to warrant Test status and the same can be said for every other associate nation too.
It's an enormous leap from a few decent displays in 20/20 or ODIs to Test matches, just look at Bangladesh and if you can't see why, look at the shorter forms of the game objectively, results are still a LOT to do with luck and equally as much to do with performances by just 1 or 2 players, weather aside, Tests are rarely so easily swayed.

Ireland are ready but i think that the netherlands, havent even international one day status yet, they're not in the one day rankings, so i feel they should play odi series against the bigger sides, before they are even considered ready for test cricket

cricketfan90 wrote:Ireland are ready but i think that the netherlands, havent even international one day status yet, they're not in the one day rankings, so i feel they should play odi series against the bigger sides, before they are even considered ready for test cricket

Ireland are miles from being ready for Test status, they have no first class cricket and barely any club cricket, I'd think that most English counties have a stronger setup than they do, add to that the depth of their players, they currently have a decent ODI and 20/20 side, but how many regular top class 4 day game players do they have, in terms of quality, I'd guess they're about on par with the better counties.

Maybe with vast investment in coaching, getting the game into hundreds more schools and a massive expansion in their club cricket, Ireland, Netherlands, Canada etc. could in a decade or so have a solid enough infrastructure to maintain a Test side, unless that happens and I doubt it ever will, these countries will just be competing in the shorter forms of the game.

The ICC may want to expand the associate game, bringing in a calendar of regular 4/5 day matches, maybe even full series, but how many of these countries could afford this and how many could put a strong enough team out to make a 4/5 day match worthwhile?
It wouldn't surprise me though if we see Afghanistan playing a few 4/5 day matches against Pakistan or Bangladesh over the next few years, but I doubt if any other associate nations will do this.

i think now zimbabwe have started playing one off games against bangladesh and pakistan and done pretty well, maybe the icc should give them 3 match series against other teams.

cricketfan90 wrote:i think now zimbabwe have started playing one off games against bangladesh and pakistan and done pretty well, maybe the icc should give them 3 match series against other teams.

3 is way too much.2 would be ok.

nope 3 is perfect

I dont think the CC "gives" anyone series, the boards arrange them for themslves.
Theres a few boards that still wouldnt touch Zimbabwe with a barge pole.

Two tier Test cricket would never work. If India, Australia or England ever got relegated, their respective boards would go nuts and refuse to go into the lower division.

Secondly for financial purposes, ICC would be screwed if India, Australia or England did get demoted, these are the sides that create the major revenue.

Other things to factor in is sides like the West Indies wouldn't go into the 2nd division, they are one of the greatest cricking nations, it would be the ultimate humiliation.

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:Two tier Test cricket would never work. If India, Australia or England ever got relegated, their respective boards would go nuts and refuse to go into the lower division.

Secondly for financial purposes, ICC would be screwed if India, Australia or England did get demoted, these are the sides that create the major revenue.

Other things to factor in is sides like the West Indies wouldn't go into the 2nd division, they are one of the greatest cricking nations, it would be the ultimate humiliation.

Completely agree.

Also, I doubt teams like Kenya (as alluded to above) could compete realistically with teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies, Ireland.

GG wrote:Three tier system.

Tier 1 - England, SA, India, SL, Australia
Tier 2 - Pakistan, NZ, WI, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe
Tier 3 - Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Scotland, Canada

Tier one teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Tier 2 play everyone once. Tier 3 teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Top & bottom teams get promoted/relegated top of tier 1 are crowned Test Champions.

One of the best ideas I've seen. Seems like it would work very well over a 4 year period.

GG wrote:Three tier system.

Tier 1 - England, SA, India, SL, Australia
Tier 2 - Pakistan, NZ, WI, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe
Tier 3 - Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Scotland, Canada

Tier one teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Tier 2 play everyone once. Tier 3 teams play each other home and away and tier 2 once. Top & bottom teams get promoted/relegated top of tier 1 are crowned Test Champions.

Absolutely brilliant idea mate

It would be a great idea if it werent utterly unworkable and against the interests of the majority of the boards.

Liam_Main wrote:Netherlands and Ireland deserve test status, the others don't imo. Not enough International teams playing Test Cricket at the moment I would say but don't want teams as Chris says such as Kenya and Canada awarded test status. Unsure how the ICC would work there way around sorting it out.

Sorry don't agree about your Netherlands statement. They are nowhere near Test standard and if they were then I don't understand how the likes of Scotland and Afghanistan are not.

In the recent Intercontenital Cup , which is the First Class competition for the Associate nations, they finished 2nd last, only managing one draw and five losses from their six matches. Even their draw against Canada came with them clinging on for the draw, eight down.

Ireland did not perform too well in this competition but they used it more for development as they were missing most of the County players for large parts. Netherlands missed Ryan ten Doeschate but for some of the games but he did play in a couple of their losses.

Even at ODI level the Dutch have had mixed results against the other Associates, losing to Scotland three of the last four times they have played.

no way are netherlands ready for test cricket