Should test cricket have 2 divisions..?

Question

I'm bored so i thought i would pitch this idea

2 Divisions

In Division 1- Australia, South Africa, India, England and Sri Lanka

In Division 2- Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Other (Ireland or Kenya)

Each team plays each other, once at home and once away (in a 3 match test series) over a 2 and half year period. The Winner of Division 1 would be crowned Champions of the World and get a hefty sum of dollars. The bottom place team in Division 1 would be relegated to Division 2 and the Top placed team of Division 2 would be promoted to Division 1

Now with this idea, we would definitely know who the best team in the world is. AND we would cut out the likelyness of one sided matches.

Also surely this would make test cricket more interesting.

What do you think?

Also

What ideas do you have to try and improve test cricket?

Answer 1

It has been proposed before and I in general support it. It would make the staging of the World Championship up a lot easier than the existing (naff) rating system.

A similar system could be used for the ODI and T20 World Cups.

Putting a system in place like this could easily liven up the Test scene without having to change the format much.

Answer 2

Not exactly the way you're saying.

See teams like Zim, Ireland, Kenya or even Bangladesh are far below the Standard of other 3 teams you put in division 2 & won't that make one sided matches still (in that 2nd division)!!

I can only think of West Indies from the top 8 teams (from their current situation) to be poor enough to put in a different league.

I think it will be better if the top "7" test teams play in div. 1 and remaining, wait... well lets see who's left--

West Indies

Bangladesh

&

well Zimbabwe

add

Kenya, Ireland, Scotland &.......Netherlands??

umm... No, it doesn't look pleasant.

What about just letting West Indies & Bangladesh play with the "A" teams of the top teams of division 1.

But that will be like an embarrasment for the Windies team's great past legends & it will dump their people's interest in the game even further low.

& what about Indo-Pak traditional rivallary!

So taking all those perspectives in mind, my conclusion--- Let it the way it is or to the most, strip Bangladesh's test status.

Answer 3

Anything that makes it more popular is worth a try.

Answer 4

Dear Kookee,

Great suggestion.

Everybody seems to covets dollars, that makes my present nation so popular doesnt it ! As a note of caution the striving for dollars has often brought grief (but lets not go into that).

Test cricket is marvellous the way it is. I wouldnt change anything in this monolithic institution. There is nothing wrong with playing for the pride of ones country. Many nations with thier native born players will agree to the fact. It is good to see that Pakistan and Sri Lanka despite thier poverty are doing so well. The main inducement is pride for the country. This holds true for all other nations including Australia and India, where the monetary inducements are much larger in comparison.

I would suggest having 3 divisions. Since you were good enough to place Pakistan in the head of division 2, I would nominate England to lead the imaginary third division. I would do so because England having given birth to cricket deserve to head a division. Besides, I am sure it will warm the cockles of your patriotic heart. (My apologies to all my English friends, please take my words with the humour I wrote them with and with the piquant sarcasm innate in a connoisseur of the traditions of this great game).

However, if one were to keep to your fantastic (in both its meanings) suggestion, maybe Pakistan and New Zealand needs to move up in Div 1. In any case New Zealand is ahead of Pakistan, but, England is behind both (sorry!). Whichever way Pakistan goes, England would need a change in division.

Thank you

Rehman of Multan

Answer 5

I am not convinced that Zimbabwe's replacement can be found in order to make the two divisions equal in size. Cricket is, at least in theory, played professionally in Zimbabwe (although the players never get paid on time, or at all), and Zimbabwean cricketers play county, state or provincial cricket in England, Australia and South Africa respectively. On the other hand, cricket in Ireland and Kenya is a social sport, played by working men in their free time. It is highly unlikely that the Irish and Kenyan boards have the wherewithal to pay the Irish and Kenyan cricketers on a full-time basis, and unless that happens, no Irish or Kenyan cricketer is going to quit his job to concentrate on cricket. This absence of professionalism, and lack of time to play top level cricket, along with the poor infrastructure in the countries concerned, makes it unfeasible for countries like Ireland or Kenya to participate in Test cricket, even in Division II.

The only non-Test playing country where infrastructure is good and the government can, if it wants, pay the players to play for the country, is the UAE (thanks to its oil wealth and state control of resources). However, it seems unfair to give UAE Test status because of financial reasons when in fact Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, Kenya, Namibia and so on are as good or better.

Secondly, the setup as you suggested would see Division II dominated by Pakistan. Among the rest, New Zealand are in a period of transition after the retirements of Astle, McMillan, Fleming and other senior players; West Indies are, as always, in a period of transition (their constant status for the last 15 years, sarcasm intended), Bangladesh are in a period of transition (in every series they try out 2 or 3 more inexperienced 18 or 19 year olds, who invariably falter) and Ireland or Kenya would be in a period of transition from ODI only to Test cricket. As is well-known, a period of transition in the world of sports is an excuse for anticipated underachievement, an early warning to the fans not to expect much. If 4 out of the 5 teams in a Division are in a "period of transition", this can only lead to embarassingly one-sided mathces. Given the relative strengths, Pakistan would probably beat everyone else, the West Indies and New Zealand would still trash Bangladesh and Ireland/Kenya, Bangladesh would edge Ireland in the long run (especially in matches played in the heat and slow wickets of Bangladesh), and the only series of any interest (because of its closely contested nature) would be WI vs NZ.

The first division would be more interesting, but the real tussle will be between Australia and South Africa, with the remaining three fighting relegation all along. On the evidence of recent series, England would probably go down, with India the other likely candidate if they play the way they did in the first Test in Sri Lanka. (Evidence from the SL vs Ind and Eng vs. SA series suggests that India and Sri Lanka are evenly matched and both are better than England).

Ultimately, having only five teams in a division will reduce the interest in each grouping, with only 2 teams (or at most 3 if WI and NZ both catch up with Pak) in with a chance to win their division, while the others simply play to avoid relegation (and Bangladesh and the other team play to avoid the label of the worst Test playing team), or if the relegated team has been decided, just for pride of securing 3rd place. Also, with a promotion/relegation system, certain Test series will have little meaning (i.e. neither team in the running to be division champions, and both in little danger of being relegated), and will lack the levels of interest and competitiveness that most teams try to put into every series as it is played now. Worst of all, there will be little commercial interest in series not involving the top two teams in Division I, and Division II might even suffer from absence of commercial and media interest altogether, becoming a second-grade competition.

Thus, as a predictable trend of results and league positions is established, there will be a loss of viewer interest, making most of the series almost irrelevant. Overall, Test cricket would suffer from lack of commercial interest even more, hindering or halting ICC plans to expand infrastructure in countries like Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Namibia, Bermuda and so on.

My suggestions for Test cricket is to leave it as it is. If I weren't from Bangladesh I would argue for revocation of their Test status, along with Zimbabwe's, to leave only 8 Test playing teams. Each would play the other 7 home and away for 14 series in each Future Tours Programme (FTP) cycle. The FTP should be restructured to a 7 year schedule (instead of six), with each team playing an average of 2 series per year. This will allow more rest for players, addressing the issue of player burnout, and will give more time to play Twenty20 tournaments, eg. IPL, triangular or quadrangular ODI tournaments (which have almost become extinct) and greater exposure to domestic leagues. Allowing top players to play in their domestic leagues will strengthen the leagues, raising the standard of international play in the process. It is only by making Test cricket a rare commodity will its preservation as a special part of cricket be ensured. A proliferation of Test matches will do nothing to popularise it and might even lead to its demise.

EDIT: I spent the better part of an hour thinking about and writing the answer, and I am "rewarded" with 6 thumbs-down? Thanks a lot.

Answer 6

Kook, i can see where your coming from, but frankly, No, i dont like the idea, to put it basically, what happens when England or Australia drop into seperate divisions, thats the reason why this would never happen, Englands & Australias cricket boards would never let it happen cos they would be losing there biggest series and theyre biggest money maker

so basically i can see where the idea is coming from, but i dont think it could work

Answer 7

I think is a great idea but will the governing bodies of the teams doomed to the second division agree? when do their fans get to see the big boys who fill grounds?

Answer 8

I think the idea is great but it won't fly because national pride and the team's past performance. I agree that the test cricket format can be changed to make it more interesting. After all test cricket is the real thing.

Answer 9

Very interesting idea. They are thinking about something similar I was reading on a news website a while back, but can't remember all the details.

Answer 10

Two divisons? It is a nice idea, but I don't know what the ICC honchos will think about it.  It sounds more like Barclays Premier League to me.

Most of cricket's revenue is generated from the subcontinent, esp. India-Pakistan match-ups conjures up a lot of interest in the crowd, more due to political reasons. And the population of the subcontinent is on the higher side and the lion's share of the population follows cricket,  even if the team is Bangaldesh. So placing India & Pakistan in two different group will not be a nice idea, at least financially.

Group 1 & Group 2 is okay, but not a superior group and an inferior one.

Let us follow the world cup format. Two groups of 5 teams each. Teams in a group play against each other, 3 test  matches each. At the end of which, the group leaders face off in a five match series to decide the winner.

Or three groups of 3 teams each, which will take less amount of time. Group leaders play each other to decide the winner.

All depends on what criteria the winners are decided, and other factors to be considered in case of teams with same points.

e.g. Points for first inns lead, points for win/draw etc could be the deciding factors

average runrate could be considered in case of a tie in points to decide the group winner. net runrate will be tricky esp. in case of innings defeats.

Answer 11

i don't think Pakistan and New Zealand deserve that division -2 , if England doesn't fit into division -2

hope it helps!

god bless!

Answer 12

yes this would be a good idea, but i think you might find England would be in the 2nd division.they might have beaten NZ and Pakistan, but would find it hard to live with the teams you have picked for the 1st division, but if England started in division 2 they would have time to get a team together that could live with all the teams in the 1st division

Answer 13

When teams from Division 1 and Division 2 plays two matches each other, the winner will be the team which wins more matches or get more points.  Hence the winner  need not be from Division 1.  It can be from Division 2 also.

While your proposal is worth consideration, it will not be practicable as it will disturb the ICC schedule and the tournaments going on for years together such as Ashes series, Frankworrel trophy etc.

Answer 14

Leave the cricket as is.Everyone is happy and everyone makes money and nobody feels second class.