What's new

ICC ponders two divisions for Test cricket in radical shake-up

Khyam

Tape Ball Captain
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Runs
1,076
The International Cricket Council is considering a radical proposal that would see Test cricket split into two divisions with promotion and relegation between them, and places granted to two new nations.

In a bid to bolster the appeal of international cricket the ICC, led by its chief executive, David Richardson, is exploring a number of options that would provide greater context to all three formats of the game from 2019.

It is understood that the preferred idea within the governing body at present, in terms of Test cricket, is a plan to place seven nations into division one and five in division two, with promotion and relegation decided every two years.

Based on the current rankings, eighth-placed West Indies would slip into division two, which would still have full Test status, along with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. This second tier would then see the two best teams from the 2015-17 Intercontinental Cup, the first-class competition for associate nations, added to it, leaving Ireland, currently top of the table, poised to gain Test status.

In division one it is envisaged that all seven nations would play a series against each other, either home or away, over a two-year cycle. The leading team would win the Test championship, while the bottom side would face relegation.

There would be no exemptions to this, something originally proposed by Australia, England and India during the restructuring of the ICC in 2014. Relegation and promotion between division two and the Intercontinental Cup would also be in place, although whether this would be automatic or determined by play-offs is still being discussed.

Matches within this divisional structure would occupy no more than five months a year, leaving time for countries to schedule additional tours. A marquee series such as the Ashes, for example, could continue on its current cycle even if Australia or England were in different divisions.

This proposal is likely to be put to the ICC board at the annual conference in Edinburgh in June, and could come into effect after the 2019 World Cup.

Plans for one-day international and Twenty20 cricket are less advanced in terms of detail, although the ICC is keen to restructure both formats. One option being discussed for ODI cricket is to have two leagues of six, forming the basis of qualification for the World Cup; three leagues of four is also being considered.

In T20 cricket, the ICC hopes to introduce a system of regional qualifiers, from which all 105 members would have the opportunity to qualify for the World T20. The automatic qualification of each full member nation to world events would also end.

The proposals are designed to combat the loss of relevance of bilateral cricket, especially Tests, and concerns that matches lack clear consequences for victory and defeat, as well as the fixture uncertainty many countries face. The ICC has attempted to introduce a structure to the Test game since 2004, but there is now a feeling of renewed urgency.

Numerous Test series have been cancelled or shortened in recent years, with more lucrative ODI or T20 series in their place, and there are fears that the number of competitive Test teams is falling. The rise of domestic T20 cricket is another concern, and the ICC hopes that a new structure will help to manage the relationship between domestic and international cricket.

But convincing full members to vote for such reforms will be “a massive job”, said one senior source. The three Test nations who face relegation to division two might not be easily persuaded, while Australia, England and India, who have scheduled huge amounts of cricket against each other recently, might also be unwilling to relinquish such control over their fixture lists.

Funding is a further complication: the ICC envisages paying for all matches under the structure, preventing less glamorous fixtures being cancelled if boards are impoverished.

Whether the ICC is able to do so appears dependent on whether the Board of Control of Cricket for India agrees to return some of its ICC funding to the central pot, something advocated by Shashank Manohar, the BCCI president and ICC chairman.

That such an idea is being discussed at ICC level has been welcomed by the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, the umbrella organisation for seven players’ unions. Its executive chairman, Tony Irish, believes the current schedule to be “random and confusing”. Irish said: “This proposal of divisions, leagues and qualification requirements across the various formats may well be part of the answer to introducing structure and context into bilateral international cricket.

“However the full solution lies in a fully researched new global structure for the entire game and can’t simply be an overlay on the existing disjointed bilateral playing schedule.”

As part of the continuing reviews, the ICC is also discussing whether to launch a bid to join the Olympics. Any bid for inclusion in the 2024 Games must be submitted to the International Olympic Committee by next year.

While England have recently reversed their opposition to cricket’s inclusion, India are yet to be convinced of the merits, with opposition to being affiliated with the Indian Olympic Committee understood to be one concern.

One alternative to the Olympics being discussed by the ICC is whether to revert back to the World T20 taking place every two years, rather than every four. The next World T20 after this year’s, in India, is due to take place in Australia in 2020.

A concern among senior figures in the ICC regarding Olympic inclusion is that a cricket event might feature as few as eight teams, making it unlikely that associate nations would qualify. It is also thought that the additional broadcasting rights from the World T20 being held every two years would be worth more than $300m to the ICC over an eight-year cycle, which could help to fund the new structure and the development of the game.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/25/icc-test-cricket-two-divisions-shake-up
 
Basically. Nothing different from the earlier plan.

Marquee Series: Ahses, Ind vs. Eng, Aus, Sa, Eng vs. SA
 
In division one it is envisaged that all seven nations would play a series against each other, either home or away, over a two-year cycle. The leading team would win the Test championship, while the bottom side would face relegation.

I'm for it. This would make every series more competitive.
 
Division 1:
Australia
South Africa
England
New Zealand
Pakistan
India
Sri Lanka.

Division 2:
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland
Afghanistan

Can it work?

I'd have 2 divisions of 6 because 7 in one and 5 in the other seems a bit odd.
 
Last edited:
I'm against giving test status to two more nations, standard of test cricket will go down.
 
This is a step in the right direction. Although I'd have six teams in division one and five in division two. Also each team should play each other home and away. Have a longer cycle if necessary.
 
It's not going to work till the fixtures are even and everyone is obliged to play certain teams at certain stages and not because of monetary and political reasons.

India still avoids to play Pakistan even at neutral venues so it's all still a charade.
 
It's not going to work till the fixtures are even and everyone is obliged to play certain teams at certain stages and not because of monetary and political reasons.

India still avoids to play Pakistan even at neutral venues so it's all still a charade.

If India does not want to play Pakistan, they will have to forego their points.
 
It is a necessary change.

They have to make these tests mean something.
 
The International Cricket Council is considering a radical proposal that would see Test cricket split into two divisions with promotion and relegation between them, and places granted to two new nations.

In a bid to bolster the appeal of international cricket the ICC, led by its chief executive, David Richardson, is exploring a number of options that would provide greater context to all three formats of the game from 2019.

It is understood that the preferred idea within the governing body at present, in terms of Test cricket, is a plan to place seven nations into division one and five in division two, with promotion and relegation decided every two years.

Based on the current rankings, eighth-placed West Indies would slip into division two, which would still have full Test status, along with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. This second tier would then see the two best teams from the 2015-17 Intercontinental Cup, the first-class competition for associate nations, added to it, leaving Ireland, currently top of the table, poised to gain Test status.

In division one it is envisaged that all seven nations would play a series against each other, either home or away, over a two-year cycle. The leading team would win the Test championship, while the bottom side would face relegation.

There would be no exemptions to this, something originally proposed by Australia, England and India during the restructuring of the ICC in 2014. Relegation and promotion between division two and the Intercontinental Cup would also be in place, although whether this would be automatic or determined by play-offs is still being discussed.

Matches within this divisional structure would occupy no more than five months a year, leaving time for countries to schedule additional tours. A marquee series such as the Ashes, for example, could continue on its current cycle even if Australia or England were in different divisions.

This proposal is likely to be put to the ICC board at the annual conference in Edinburgh in June, and could come into effect after the 2019 World Cup.

Plans for one-day international and Twenty20 cricket are less advanced in terms of detail, although the ICC is keen to restructure both formats. One option being discussed for ODI cricket is to have two leagues of six, forming the basis of qualification for the World Cup; three leagues of four is also being considered.

In T20 cricket, the ICC hopes to introduce a system of regional qualifiers, from which all 105 members would have the opportunity to qualify for the World T20. The automatic qualification of each full member nation to world events would also end.

The proposals are designed to combat the loss of relevance of bilateral cricket, especially Tests, and concerns that matches lack clear consequences for victory and defeat, as well as the fixture uncertainty many countries face. The ICC has attempted to introduce a structure to the Test game since 2004, but there is now a feeling of renewed urgency.

Numerous Test series have been cancelled or shortened in recent years, with more lucrative ODI or T20 series in their place, and there are fears that the number of competitive Test teams is falling. The rise of domestic T20 cricket is another concern, and the ICC hopes that a new structure will help to manage the relationship between domestic and international cricket.

But convincing full members to vote for such reforms will be “a massive job”, said one senior source. The three Test nations who face relegation to division two might not be easily persuaded, while Australia, England and India, who have scheduled huge amounts of cricket against each other recently, might also be unwilling to relinquish such control over their fixture lists.

Funding is a further complication: the ICC envisages paying for all matches under the structure, preventing less glamorous fixtures being cancelled if boards are impoverished.

Whether the ICC is able to do so appears dependent on whether the Board of Control of Cricket for India agrees to return some of its ICC funding to the central pot, something advocated by Shashank Manohar, the BCCI president and ICC chairman.

That such an idea is being discussed at ICC level has been welcomed by the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, the umbrella organisation for seven players’ unions. Its executive chairman, Tony Irish, believes the current schedule to be “random and confusing”. Irish said: “This proposal of divisions, leagues and qualification requirements across the various formats may well be part of the answer to introducing structure and context into bilateral international cricket.

“However the full solution lies in a fully researched new global structure for the entire game and can’t simply be an overlay on the existing disjointed bilateral playing schedule.”

As part of the continuing reviews, the ICC is also discussing whether to launch a bid to join the Olympics. Any bid for inclusion in the 2024 Games must be submitted to the International Olympic Committee by next year.

While England have recently reversed their opposition to cricket’s inclusion, India are yet to be convinced of the merits, with opposition to being affiliated with the Indian Olympic Committee understood to be one concern.

One alternative to the Olympics being discussed by the ICC is whether to revert back to the World T20 taking place every two years, rather than every four. The next World T20 after this year’s, in India, is due to take place in Australia in 2020.

A concern among senior figures in the ICC regarding Olympic inclusion is that a cricket event might feature as few as eight teams, making it unlikely that associate nations would qualify. It is also thought that the additional broadcasting rights from the World T20 being held every two years would be worth more than $300m to the ICC over an eight-year cycle, which could help to fund the new structure and the development of the game.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/25/icc-test-cricket-two-divisions-shake-up

You can't stuff Test cricket down people's throat if they don't like it. How many of you are willing to take you and your family/friends to go see Day 2 of a test match on a Tuesday ?? Exactly.

If you relegate to 2nd division and still possess the power of 1st division members, what is the point of having 2 divisions ?

What is the point of making full members playing qualification rounds ? We are still going to get all top 9 members qualify for tournaments 100 out of 100 times.

ICC thinks T20 domestic tournaments are a a "concern". I wonder what the players think ? These domestic tournaments have helped out Associate players more than any crappy ICC tournaments lol.
 
It's the wrong way to address the problem.

The problem is Srinivasan rejecting the Woolff Report's finding that bilateral scheduling had to end, with the ICC scheduling every team to host a Test tour by every other team each 4 year cycle. The only flexibility was to be deciding whether the tours have 3, 4 or 5 Tests.

So Australia could host longer Ashes and India series if they wanted.

But any team failing to schedule a tour - like India never hosts Bangladesh or Zimbabwe - would concede a walkover Test series defeat to the opposition.

So the Test league table would be totally transparent.
 
You can't stuff Test cricket down people's throat if they don't like it. How many of you are willing to take you and your family/friends to go see Day 2 of a test match on a Tuesday ?? Exactly.

If you relegate to 2nd division and still possess the power of 1st division members, what is the point of having 2 divisions ?

What is the point of making full members playing qualification rounds ? We are still going to get all top 9 members qualify for tournaments 100 out of 100 times.

ICC thinks T20 domestic tournaments are a a "concern". I wonder what the players think ? These domestic tournaments have helped out Associate players more than any crappy ICC tournaments lol.
Qualification is not the only thing this will get more associate and lower level teams facing the top teams. That will improve their cricket as well as bring more people

Sent from my SM-G925I
 
That means only top 7 teams will have test status. Div 2 will only be Tests in name, but no one will actually consider those games as really having Test status.
 
Division 1:
Australia
South Africa
England
New Zealand
Pakistan
India
Sri Lanka.

Division 2:
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Ireland
Afghanistan

Can it work?

I'd have 2 divisions of 6 because 7 in one and 5 in the other seems a bit odd.

And there needs to be promotion and relegation system.

Last team in Div 1. should play home and away with top team in Div 2. If Div 2 team is ahead on W/L, then it should get promotion and vice verca
 
Both West Indies and Bangladesh will reject it so will never happen.

Useless suggestions as usual by ICC.This will kill any lingering interest for test cricket in West Indies .

Imagine if Pakistan is ranked 8th by a fraction of a decimal behind West Indies .

Will Pakistan fans be happy with not playing Australia England SA etc for 4 years and just Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

How do u think the quality of Pakistan (or Srl or NZL or WI) cricket will be if they were denied the opportunity to play good teams for 4 years .Will disintegrate rapidly along with the financial aspects of their board.

Also does anyone seriously believe they will stick with this system if by chance India or England or Australia finish 8th?

Will scrap it saying it is economically unviable.

ICC should be trying to get more countries into cricket not to finish of the struggling test teams permanently.
 
It's the correct move but one wonders how they will manage the change from the Windies into Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana and possibly the Leeward and Windward islands
 
It's the correct move but one wonders how they will manage the change from the Windies into Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana and possibly the Leeward and Windward islands

They should just have the Test playoffs with top 4 teams as originally planned. All matches between 10 or 12 test sides go into trying to get into the top 4 rankings. Existing FTP would be retained so big 3 will play mostly against each other. But that means a team could play weaker sides and theoretically take a top 4 spot. That would be the best balance.
 
Qualification is not the only thing this will get more associate and lower level teams facing the top teams. That will improve their cricket as well as bring more people

Sent from my SM-G925I

Qualification will probably take place in Dubai. Apart from India, I'm sure no other major team's matches will be broadcasted. I can't see Pakistan facing Bhutan. It will just lead to extreme records being broken. Canada is a pretty garbage team, but even then Canada is expected to beat US 9/10 times in qualification round.
 
They should just have the Test playoffs with top 4 teams as originally planned. All matches between 10 or 12 test sides go into trying to get into the top 4 rankings. Existing FTP would be retained so big 3 will play mostly against each other. But that means a team could play weaker sides and theoretically take a top 4 spot. That would be the best balance.

Who are "top 4" ? How do you determine that ? India will crumble when there is little bit of assistance for pace bowlers and NZ will crumble when there is little bit assistance for spin bowlers. I suggest they ad a 2nd division for teams ranked 8 and below to 16.
 
A case for two divisions in Test cricket

Test cricket of late has become increasingly one-sided. While there have always been teams which have dominated across different decades, the gulf now seems to be wider than ever before.

And there's no indication this will get any better soon. For a variety of reasons.

Notwithstanding a few upsets here and there, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh have been consistently below par. And I don't think the prize of a World Test Championship will do much to motivate them because they know it's not something they can win realistically. And when they face top teams, those games are becoming extremely predictable and painful to watch.

So how about two divisions in Test cricket?


Top-5 - Division A. At the end of year (or two years) the bottom-ranked team gets relegated to Division B.

Bottom-6 - Division B. At the end of year (or two years) the top-ranked team gets promoted to Division A.

This will give the Division B teams a more realistic goal to work towards. And an incentive to do well so they can play with the big boys.

And the Division A teams will play more with teams closer to their own strengths so there's no point-boosting via beating the minnows of Test cricket. The top team will then really be the best. And they also have to fight to stay in the top-tier.

Current Division A: India, New Zealand, England, Australia and South Africa.

Current Divison B: Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Like this idea- much more realistic & competitive than the present day farcical championship.

So Div A - India, Eng, Aus & NZ
Div B - rest of the test playing nations

At the same time, it will be a disaster for TV marketing bcoz who is gonna watch two Div B teams fight it out?
 
Last edited:
Won't work.
Not enough teams in the test circuit

True. But cricket already operates on fewer mainstream teams than most sporting leagues. And the Big 3 already play more among themselves than they do with others. Some teams haven't played each other in years.
 
Like this idea- much more realistic & competitive than the present day farcical championship.

So Div A - India, Eng, Aus & NZ
Div B - rest of the test playing nations

At the same time, it will be a disaster for TV marketing bcoz who is gonna watch two Div B teams fight it out?

the marketing point is very true. At the same time, if BD, PAK, WI keep playing like this against the big teams -- who will watch them play for 5 days of unrelenting disappointment? They can livestream Division B depending on interest. And live broadcast Division A. More incentive to get there then I guess. Sustaining Test cricket outside the main 3-4 is already a losing proposition.
 
As I mentioned in other threads as well. Statistics are an important part of cricket and it would make it difficult to compare greats and players in future if bottom teams only play against each other while top teams only play against each other.

Stats of some of the top players might come down because they arent facing the weaker oppositions which previous greats used to while some players from bottom tier might improve their records as much as certain greats without solid base for those.

This to me is a big hindrance and I dont think it will be possible to keep the importance of stats intact along with 2 tier system.

Rashid Khan is already an outlier in ODI cricket with exceptional record but without anything of note against top teams. Stats due to playing against associates make him look like as good as Saqlain ot Murali but he isnt.
 
Last edited:
As I mentioned in other threads as well. Statistics are an important part of cricket and it would make it difficult to compare greats and players in future if bottom teams only play against each other while top teams only play against each other.

Stats of some of the top players might come down because they arent facing the weaker oppositions which previous greats used to while some players from bottom tier might improve their records as much as certain greats without solid base for those.

This to me is a big hindrance and I dont think it will be possible to keep the importance of stats intact along with 2 tier system.

Rashid Khan is already an outlier in ODI cricket with exceptional record but without anything of note against top teams. Stats due to playing against associates make him look like as good as Saqlain ot Murali but he isnt.

I agree with you, but there can be an easier fix for that, no? Like we have Division A stats and Division B stats stated separately. Like we do for List A and ODIs. What do you think?
 
if this was put in place, Pakistan would be in the second division for sure!
 
Back
Top