Test cricket needs multiple teams like India for its survival - a bold new model

[BCCI-Enforcer]

India may lose to Australia tomorrow or may win to draw the series. One thing that is certain though is that India is the commercial factor behind cricket and also most of the teams apart from India, Australia and England are weak.

If test cricket survives it needs more India tours but there is only so much India can do because it is one country.

My proposal is simple. Allow two India teams in test cricket. India and India A. Splitting test match cricket into three divisions.

Division 1
India
Australia
England
South Africa
New Zealand


Division 2
India A
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland

In Division 1 all teams play championship and bottom team drop down

In Division 2 all teams play championship and top team is promotion. However India A cannot ever be promoted so in the case of India A being top then second team will make playoffs against bottom team in Division 2. India A will not play Pakistan in Div 2. But if Pakistan qualifies to division one we can play them in test match on neutral grounds.

This is the way to ensure high quality test matches and commercials success in the game. Division 1 will be 5 match series and division 2 two match.

Otherwise test match will be boring like Pakistan v South Africa and won't make money.

To make fairness India must submit 25 man squads for India and India A before the championships to players can't be exchanged. Anyway saying India is not biggest team is lying. Look at Aussies newspapers they had headlines in Hindi.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

You already have so many Indian teams.

USA
Canada
UAE

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

You already have so many Indian teams.

USA
Canada
UAE

This is t20 cricket and they Also had Pakistanis. These teams aren't successful or make money

I am talking about test match only for full members

 

[jnaveen1980]

I approve this

 

[FearlessRoar]

Test cricket has become a luxury format that the Big 3 are playing as a brand. Otherwise I don't understand why Zimbabwe and Ireland can't play a 5 match Test series. On one hand the ICC says they are here to promote and expand cricket but if they don't play Test cricket how will the youth of their nations understand the true essence of the game?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Test cricket has become a luxury format that the Big 3 are playing as a brand. Otherwise I don't understand why Zimbabwe and Ireland can't play a 5 match Test series. On one hand the ICC says they are here to promote and expand cricket but if they don't play Test cricket how will the youth of their nations understand the true essence of the game?

It is very expensive to host a tEtst match. That is why SA doesn't host 4 or 5 tests. It is upto cricket board to make that call.

 

[Xoib]

I know he’s a troll but it’s not a bad post why should a team like Pakistan which has been getting whitewashed
In Aus/ Sa for eternity get to continue with no accountability for their consistent awfulness atleast with a a promotion domotion system you know you have repercussions for your poor performance

 

[FearlessRoar]

It is very expensive to host a tEtst match. That is why SA doesn't host 4 or 5 tests. It is upto cricket board to make that call.

So what about the funding from the ICC to promote Test cricket?

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

Test cricket has become a luxury format that the Big 3 are playing as a brand. Otherwise I don't understand why Zimbabwe and Ireland can't play a 5 match Test series. On one hand the ICC says they are here to promote and expand cricket but if they don't play Test cricket how will the youth of their nations understand the true essence of the game?

You want 5 match Zimbabwe Ireland but money to come from Indians pockets basically.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

I know he’s a troll but it’s not a bad post why should a team like Pakistan which has been getting whitewashed
In Aus/ Sa for eternity get to continue with no accountability for their consistent awfulness atleast with a a promotion domotion system you know you have repercussions for your poor performance

Not troll very seriously this proposal can save the test cricket.make it competitive and ensure minnows benefits from Indian touring.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Well we have Ravi Shastri on the forum.. remarkable

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Let’s be real, take away Pant and Bumrah and India would be on par with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies.

Time and time again, India gets bailed out by these 2 players.

 

[FearlessRoar]

You want 5 match Zimbabwe Ireland but money to come from Indians pockets basically.

ICC’s job is to grow cricket worldwide not just in India. BCCI may fund ICC but that money helps promote the game in smaller nations like Zimbabwe and Ireland. If these teams play more Test cricket the whole game improves which eventually benefits everyone including India because the revenue generated from there will also be shared with India.

 

[jnaveen1980]

So what about the funding from the ICC to promote Test cricket?

It is not their responsibility. But they are funding other countries to increase the pay for Test players an idea floated by cricket Australia. As far as hosting tests are concerned accommodation, food, daily allowance all borne by hosting country. Generally it depends on how much the board agrees to. For instance if the daily allowance is 500$ and if the hosting nation says only 300$ then the remaining will be borne by touring cricket board.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Well we have Ravi Shastri on the forum.. remarkable

Nope. He is Jay Shah.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Nope. He is Jay Shah.

You're probably right Viru..

 

[JaDed]

You already have so many Indian teams.

USA
Canada
UAE

UAE is not as Indian but lol true on USA.

 

[jnaveen1980]

ICC’s job is to grow cricket worldwide not just in India. BCCI may fund ICC but that money helps promote the game in smaller nations like Zimbabwe and Ireland. If these teams play more Test cricket the whole game improves which eventually benefits everyone including India because the revenue generated from there will also be shared with India.

They have to use from the funding they receive annually. ICC funding is distributed as follow

BCCI - 38.5% (since they generate 75 to 80% of income)
ECB - 6.89%
ACB - 6.25%
Pakistan - 5%
Other full members - 2-5%
Associate nations - 11%

2%-5% = 4.6 million to 12 million dollars ( total 230 million dollar for year 2023). They have to use that funding to organize tests.

 

[JaDed]

Test cricket has become a luxury format that the Big 3 are playing as a brand. Otherwise I don't understand why Zimbabwe and Ireland can't play a 5 match Test series. On one hand the ICC says they are here to promote and expand cricket but if they don't play Test cricket how will the youth of their nations understand the true essence of the game?

ICC wasted so much money on BCB for test cricket and all Bangladeshis since 1999 keep calling it a dying format lol, and you want to pour more into that?

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

Let’s be real, take away Pant and Bumrah and India would be on par with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies.

Time and time again, India gets bailed out by these 2 players.

Ok if that is true then India will become relegated into division.2 if they stop bailing out. Very simple model

 

[jnaveen1980]

ICC wasted so much money on BCB for test cricket and all Bangladeshis since 1999 keep calling it a dying format lol, and you want to pour more into that?

BCCI has showed the way how to make money using T20 leagues (even if it is mediocre leagues). THey just have to find a way.

 

[FearlessRoar]

ICC wasted so much money on BCB for test cricket and all Bangladeshis since 1999 keep calling it a dying format lol, and you want to pour more into that?

They didn’t waste it - they whitewashed Pakistan in Pakistan.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

They have to use from the funding they receive annually. ICC funding is distributed as follow

BCCI - 38.5% (since they generate 75 to 80% of income)
ECB - 6.89%
ACB - 6.25%
Pakistan - 5%
Other full members - 2-5%
Associate nations - 11%

2%-5% = 4.6 million to 12 million dollars ( total 230 million dollar for year 2023). They have to use that funding to organize tests.

In my model more income can be generated as India can play more.

Imagine Team India playing in Australia in and then as soon as match finish Team India A match starts against another countries.

More money will come into cricket and everyone benefits more.

 

[JaDed]

They didn’t waste it - they whitewashed Pakistan in Pakistan.

And they couldn’t even survive 3 days in India.

 

[FearlessRoar]

And they couldn’t even survive 3 days in India.

In a game winning and losing is part of it but that doesn't mean the ICC should become biased.

 

[Rajdeep]

I like this OP.

Along with @RizwanT20Champ , he is the best poster going around.

 

[jnaveen1980]

In my model more income can be generated as India can play more.

Imagine Team India playing in Australia in and then as soon as match finish Team India A match starts against another countries.

More money will come into cricket and everyone benefits more.

They send A teams mostly to Australia, England, South Africa.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

They send A teams mostly to Australia, England, South Africa.

In my model our A team will play full test cricket against minnows.

 

[JaDed]

In a game winning and losing is part of it but that doesn't mean the ICC should become biased.

It’s always been biased:

Untill 1965- ICC stood for Imperial Cricket Conference mostly white Aus SA England..

1965-1993 It had Veto for Aus and Eng and MCC president was ICC president.
ICC never paid any money to expand, its income was literally subscription fees or interest.

1997- Dalmiya comes actually makes money from Dhaka 1998 CT , ICC then hosts the trophy thanks tk that In places like Nairobi Toronto etc..

You think ICC was expanding the game before?

 

[FearlessRoar]

You think ICC was expanding the game before?

No man it’s all about money and filling pockets.

 

[JaDed]

No man it’s all about money and filling pockets.

It was worse before it was for their entertainment.

 

[FearlessRoar]

It was worse before it was for their entertainment.

Misbah's era was the best, during which I thoroughly enjoyed Pakistan's Test cricket.

 

[JaDed]

Misbah's era was the best, during which I thoroughly enjoyed Pakistan's Test cricket.

Are you born after 1990s?

 

[FearlessRoar]

Are you born after 1990s?

No

 

[Fenrir]

Let’s be real, take away Pant and Bumrah and India would be on par with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies.

Time and time again, India gets bailed out by these 2 players.

Bumrah has dodgy action but umpires are under instruction from ICC not to call him.

 

[Fenrir]

India may lose to Australia tomorrow or may win to draw the series. One thing that is certain though is that India is the commercial factor behind cricket and also most of the teams apart from India, Australia and England are weak.

If test cricket survives it needs more India tours but there is only so much India can do because it is one country.

My proposal is simple. Allow two India teams in test cricket. India and India A. Splitting test match cricket into three divisions.

Division 1
India
Australia
England
South Africa
New Zealand


Division 2
India A
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland

In Division 1 all teams play championship and bottom team drop down

In Division 2 all teams play championship and top team is promotion. However India A cannot ever be promoted so in the case of India A being top then second team will make playoffs against bottom team in Division 2. India A will not play Pakistan in Div 2. But if Pakistan qualifies to division one we can play them in test match on neutral grounds.

This is the way to ensure high quality test matches and commercials success in the game. Division 1 will be 5 match series and division 2 two match.

Otherwise test match will be boring like Pakistan v South Africa and won't make money.

To make fairness India must submit 25 man squads for India and India A before the championships to players can't be exchanged. Anyway saying India is not biggest team is lying. Look at Aussies newspapers they had headlines in Hindi.

If India didn’t have Bumrah who chucks then India is not better than other teams.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Bumrah has dodgy action but umpires are under instruction from ICC not to call him.

Personally, I think his action is clean. He isn’t throwing the ball, his elbow is hyperextending.

You could argue that with his action, it’s more difficult to bowl.

 

[Buffet]

No, you don't need this. I don't want to see any country playing team A in addition.

What we need, making cricket more marketable in various coutnries. Not allow this 2 tests series. Play 3 or don't play. A fixed number of money should be given for playing minimum number of series with 3 tests to all countries. If they don't want to take it and play then don't give them. May be drop ODI format or at least stop having T20 WC every 2 years. it;s overkill.

I personally like ODi format, but having test series with 3 tests, T20 WC and some T20 leagues can work fine. Have some bilaterals before T20 WC. May be play T20 and ODI one after another every 2 years, so 1 in 4 years.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

No, you don't need this. I don't want to see any country playing team A in addition.

What we need, making cricket more marketable in various coutnries. Not allow this 2 tests series. Play 3 or don't play. A fixed number of money should be given for playing minimum number of series with 3 tests to all countries. If they don't want to take it and play then don't give them. May be drop ODI format or at least stop having T20 WC every 2 years. it;s overkill.

I personally like ODi format, but having test series with 3 tests, T20 WC and some T20 leagues can work fine. Have some bilaterals before T20 WC. May be play T20 and ODI one after another every 2 years, so 1 in 4 years.

Test cricket is only marketable in India, Australia and England. In all other country it's only marketable when India is touring. This is the reality for test cricket survival they need more India tours but it's not possible with only one India side.

 

[Buffet]

Test cricket is only marketable in India, Australia and England. In all other country it's only marketable when India is touring. This is the reality for test cricket survival they need more India tours but it's not possible with only one India side.

Yes, that's true right now. I am puzzled by why it can't be marketable in countries like Pakistan and BD with such a large population and cricket being main sport.

I think it's an admin issue to not able to take advantage. Yes, it has less market size than India, but it's not that small to not try to market. SA has different issue right now. WI/SL has a smaller population and market size, but if we have 4-5 marketable countries then it will go a long way.

 

[Junaids]

Indians commonly conflate three separate and different entities:

1. Indian TV stations, which pay a large proportion of TV money.
2. The BCCI, which is a sporting federation which generates zero money for international cricket, like every other national association in cricket, football or rugby.
3. Team India, which the Packer revolution showed can exist independent of any national federation.

Indian TV stations and Team India are welcome parts of the international cricket infrastructure In contrast the BCCI, like the ECB and Cricket Australia, is a cancer which is destroying international cricket.

The BCCI does not even pretend to understand what good governance is, let alone practice it.

A decade and a half ago the ICC commissioned the Woolf Report to bring the governance of international cricket into the 21st century. Key findings were:

1. Cricket had to stop being a members' club and needed to become an independently managed sport.
2. ICC representatives FROM individual countries need to act in line with modern governance standards. They are not representatives FOR their country, and indeed must be recused from any decisions involving their own country. They must act as independent directors, and should not be permitted to sit on the ICC if they have had any recent (last decade) association with their national cricket board.
3. All cricket under the auspices of the ICC needs to be seen as part of a multi-lateral organisation. Bilateral deals must end, because they create unnecessary economic disparity.
4. The only revenue retained by any national Board would be for domestic, not international cricket.
5. Like the English EPL, all TV revenue for international cricket would be shared equitably between all the competing nations. In contrast with Spanish football, which uses the Indian "bilateral model", in which Real Madrid and Barcelona get all the revenue and most top division teams would not survive in the English third tier.
6. ICC revenue needs to be distributed in such a way as to create an even playing field, rather than to entrench all power with the rich countries. After all, more than half of football World Cups have been won by "poor" countries.

The BCCI basically vetoed this, and turned international cricket into a reflection of their country's own unequal and flawed and unsuccessful economic model.

Now countries which have Boards which pay lower salaries have their players retire on average half a decade earlier than Indian and Australian international cricketers. The likes of AB De Villiers are lost to Test cricket prematurely, because the money which should have paid him as much as Virat Kohli or Joe Root has been siphoned off by the BCCI to itself.

There is a much simpler and better solution than the OP's one.

1. A four year home and away World Test Championship.
2. All TV rights sold by the ICC: for any nation eg India or England a broadcaster can bid for one of 2 packages: All Home International cricket for 4 years, or all Overseas (including Away) International cricket for 4 years.
3. All that TV revenue is pooled by the ICC, and used to directly employ all international cricketers.
4. Any team refusing to play any other team is disqualified, and expelled from international cricket for ten years. That team's Board is required to reimburse the purchaser of all home TV rights for their loss.

 

[Amjid Javed]

How about India and India A just play in their own division, the rest of teams in another.

That way Indian fans can proclaim Al their players the best, their is no crying bout umpires etc.. or opposition either.

 

[big_gamer007]

Indians commonly conflate three separate and different entities:

1. Indian TV stations, which pay a large proportion of TV money.
2. The BCCI, which is a sporting federation which generates zero money for international cricket, like every other national association in cricket, football or rugby.
3. Team India, which the Packer revolution showed can exist independent of any national federation.

Indian TV stations and Team India are welcome parts of the international cricket infrastructure In contrast the BCCI, like the ECB and Cricket Australia, is a cancer which is destroying international cricket.

The BCCI does not even pretend to understand what good governance is, let alone practice it.

A decade and a half ago the ICC commissioned the Woolf Report to bring the governance of international cricket into the 21st century. Key findings were:

1. Cricket had to stop being a members' club and needed to become an independently managed sport.
2. ICC representatives FROM individual countries need to act in line with modern governance standards. They are not representatives FOR their country, and indeed must be recused from any decisions involving their own country. They must act as independent directors, and should not be permitted to sit on the ICC if they have had any recent (last decade) association with their national cricket board.
3. All cricket under the auspices of the ICC needs to be seen as part of a multi-lateral organisation. Bilateral deals must end, because they create unnecessary economic disparity.
4. The only revenue retained by any national Board would be for domestic, not international cricket.
5. Like the English EPL, all TV revenue for international cricket would be shared equitably between all the competing nations. In contrast with Spanish football, which uses the Indian "bilateral model", in which Real Madrid and Barcelona get all the revenue and most top division teams would not survive in the English third tier.
6. ICC revenue needs to be distributed in such a way as to create an even playing field, rather than to entrench all power with the rich countries. After all, more than half of football World Cups have been won by "poor" countries.

The BCCI basically vetoed this, and turned international cricket into a reflection of their country's own unequal and flawed and unsuccessful economic model.

Now countries which have Boards which pay lower salaries have their players retire on average half a decade earlier than Indian and Australian international cricketers. The likes of AB De Villiers are lost to Test cricket prematurely, because the money which should have paid him as much as Virat Kohli or Joe Root has been siphoned off by the BCCI to itself.

There is a much simpler and better solution than the OP's one.

1. A four year home and away World Test Championship.
2. All TV rights sold by the ICC: for any nation eg India or England a broadcaster can bid for one of 2 packages: All Home International cricket for 4 years, or all Overseas (including Away) International cricket for 4 years.
3. All that TV revenue is pooled by the ICC, and used to directly employ all international cricketers.
4. Any team refusing to play any other team is disqualified, and expelled from international cricket for ten years. That team's Board is required to reimburse the purchaser of all home TV rights for their loss.

Interesting post however your points have some glaring holes.

1. If a channel bids for all home matches of India, however some other channel bids for all away matches of Australia, both channels will show India vs Australia in India? That wouldn’t bring enough revenue for channels spending a premium on Indian matches and all channels can bid for other countries away/home matches at a lower cost to dilute the premium paid by the channel for india home/away matches.

2. ICC employing cricketers is all well and good but then who decides how much to play to which player? Or which player should be contracted? How can ICC decide which player should be paid how much from which country? That is impossible and frankly ridiculous suggestion.

3. Who works on grassroot level? The main crux of the problem is cricket administrators in countries like Pakistan, BD, SA, Zim, WI etc are corrupt to the core, if they will get more money and Aus/Eng/Ind lose some of their share most of that money will be lost due to corruption in these countries than actually reaching the grassroots.
The standard/ethics of corruption in Eng/Aus/NZ can’t be compared to third world countries, garbage nations like Pakistan, BD etc will continue to remain garbage and corrupt, the more money you give them the richer their administrators will become. Nothing will change in grassroots.

 

[HitWicket]

If a channel bids for all home matches of India, however some other channel bids for all away matches of Australia, both channels will show India vs Australia in India? That wouldn’t bring enough revenue for channels spending a premium on Indian matches and all channels can bid for other countries away/home matches at a lower cost to dilute the premium paid by the channel for india home/away matches.

The concept of pooled rights is generally that you don't pick and choose what you bid for, you bid for a collective package then same way you currently do for ICC events.

ICC employing cricketers is all well and good but then who decides how much to play to which player? Or which player should be contracted? How can ICC decide which player should be paid how much from which country? That is impossible and frankly ridiculous suggestion.

Yeah the ICC employing all cricketers globally is a logistical nightmare.

 

[big_gamer007]

The concept of pooled rights is generally that you don't pick and choose what you bid for, you bid for a collective package then same way you currently do for ICC events.



Yeah the ICC employing all cricketers globally is a logistical nightmare.

For point 1 he mentioned channels bid for home matches or away matches for a country? That would create a nightmare for channels since Indian home/away matches will cost a premium but other broadcasters can buy other countries home/away matches for 1/100th the price and telecast Indian series because of that.

How does that work?

 

[HitWicket]

For point 1 he mentioned channels bid for home matches or away matches for a country? That would create a nightmare for channels since Indian home/away matches will cost a premium but other broadcasters can buy other countries home/away matches for 1/100th the price and telecast Indian series because of that.

How does that work?

That would basically be the same way it currently works except with the ICC selling the rights rather than the individual boards.

 

[Junaids]

Interesting post however your points have some glaring holes.

1. If a channel bids for all home matches of India, however some other channel bids for all away matches of Australia, both channels will show India vs Australia in India? That wouldn’t bring enough revenue for channels spending a premium on Indian matches and all channels can bid for other countries away/home matches at a lower cost to dilute the premium paid by the channel for india home/away matches.

2. ICC employing cricketers is all well and good but then who decides how much to play to which player? Or which player should be contracted? How can ICC decide which player should be paid how much from which country? That is impossible and frankly ridiculous suggestion.

3. Who works on grassroot level? The main crux of the problem is cricket administrators in countries like Pakistan, BD, SA, Zim, WI etc are corrupt to the core, if they will get more money and Aus/Eng/Ind lose some of their share most of that money will be lost due to corruption in these countries than actually reaching the grassroots.
The standard/ethics of corruption in Eng/Aus/NZ can’t be compared to third world countries, garbage nations like Pakistan, BD etc will continue to remain garbage and corrupt, the more money you give them the richer their administrators will become. Nothing will change in grassroots.

You misunderstand.

Three packages would be for sale in India:

Package 1: all international cricket matches played in India for 4 years.

Package 2: all international cricket played in the rest of the world for the same 4 years (includes India away series).

Package 3: 2 x ICC T20 World Cups, 1 x ICC 50 over World Cup, 1 x World Test Championship Final series for the same 4 years.

If you want to show England v India and Australia v India, you have to be the successful Indian bidder for Package 2. Which means you also just bought South Africa v New Zealand and Pakistan v Sri Lanka as part of the same package.

 

[Junaids]

That would basically be the same way it currently works except with the ICC selling the rights rather than the individual boards.

And then the ICC employs all international players and pays them equitably.

Luis Suarez earned at least as much as Harry Kane, even though he is from a small country which pays less for TV rights.

 

[Major]

Australia dominated cricket and they never made a A team for international. This indian side that cant dominate in world cricket should get another team? Why because OP says so. lol

 

[Junaids]

For point 1 he mentioned channels bid for home matches or away matches for a country? That would create a nightmare for channels since Indian home/away matches will cost a premium but other broadcasters can buy other countries home/away matches for 1/100th the price and telecast Indian series because of that.

How does that work?

No, not at all.

Only an Indian broadcaster can buy TV rights for Package 2 in India. So Package 2 (all cricket outside India, which includes all India away matches) will sell even in India for slightly more than Package 1 (all India home matches).

 

[Major]

Lose to nz at home and lost the australia series, and they want another team to play...

Bunch of fools

 

[hamzie]

I'd rather any other team than one losing 4-1 to Australia (let's face it Gabba was a loss)

 

[ethan hunt]

That India A bowling attack would be hilarious. 4 Telletubbies running in at the opposition lol.

 

[stani_pak]

Funny thread this is, india main team does not have bowlers, and there A team lord have mercy to think who there bowlers
Lets add a divisiom 3 and put India B in therr as well hahahaha

 

[BouncerGuy]

India does not neeed multiple teams. Have heard this statement before from hardik Pandya I believe and we all know how it backfired for them

India actually needs multiple bumrahs in their line up because he is the only bowling giant they have.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

People's don't understand difference between performance and economy and are focus on result which is not purpose of topic

 

[starpain]

India may lose to Australia tomorrow or may win to draw the series. One thing that is certain though is that India is the commercial factor behind cricket and also most of the teams apart from India, Australia and England are weak.

If test cricket survives it needs more India tours but there is only so much India can do because it is one country.

My proposal is simple. Allow two India teams in test cricket. India and India A. Splitting test match cricket into three divisions.

Division 1
India
Australia
England
South Africa
New Zealand


Division 2
India A
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland

In Division 1 all teams play championship and bottom team drop down

In Division 2 all teams play championship and top team is promotion. However India A cannot ever be promoted so in the case of India A being top then second team will make playoffs against bottom team in Division 2. India A will not play Pakistan in Div 2. But if Pakistan qualifies to division one we can play them in test match on neutral grounds.

This is the way to ensure high quality test matches and commercials success in the game. Division 1 will be 5 match series and division 2 two match.

Otherwise test match will be boring like Pakistan v South Africa and won't make money.

To make fairness India must submit 25 man squads for India and India A before the championships to players can't be exchanged. Anyway saying India is not biggest team is lying. Look at Aussies newspapers they had headlines in Hindi.

Honestly, this model might actually work .

 

[daytrader]

In 3 out of 5 tests India failed to cross 200 runs in their innings. This was the A team with best batters playing. What is an Indian B/C team going to do?

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

In 3 out of 5 tests India failed to cross 200 runs in their innings. This was the A team with best batters playing. What is an Indian B/C team going to do?

Make money for cricket.

I am surprised that someone called daytrader is not understanding the concept I am describing.

 

[daytrader]

Make money for cricket.

I am surprised that someone called daytrader is not understanding the concept I am describing.

Think of other ways to make money cause this is a silly idea. Do you really believe fans will tune in to watch their B team? Doesn't really appeal when you have an A team. And what would be the fan reaction when India B gets smashed by Pakistan? Don't sell your soul for money

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

Think of other ways to make money cause this is a silly idea. Do you really believe fans will tune in to watch their B team? Doesn't really appeal when you have an A team. And what would be the fan reaction when India B gets smashed by Pakistan? Don't sell your soul for money

A team will not play against Pakistan but we incentive to Pakistan if they can qualify from division 2 India can play series against them in neutral venue. It is fair proposal this way.

Indian fans will watch India A for sure. We are passionate about cricket and big economy to support two teams.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

@Hitman @cricketjoshila @Rajdeep you think this idea can work or not from Indian fan perspective?

 

[daytrader]

A team will not play against Pakistan but we incentive to Pakistan if they can qualify from division 2 India can play series against them in neutral venue. It is fair proposal this way.

Indian fans will watch India A for sure. We are passionate about cricket and big economy to support two teams.

So if your India A faces Pakistan and loses what would be your reaction? Send your 'India' team for revenge?

And if India A wins and moves up from division 2, will they be facing 'India'? Makes it no different from a domestic Ranji match.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

So if your India A faces Pakistan and loses what would be your reaction? Send your 'India' team for revenge?

And if India A wins and moves up from division 2, will they be facing 'India'? Makes it no different from a domestic Ranji match.

No Indian A cannot move please read my post I make this point. La Liga in Spain have same model Barcelona and Real Madrid have B team who cannot move up. I am just applying for cricket.

You are being angry because India is mention. I am not doing from Indian perspective but trying to grow the cricket.

 

[daytrader]

No Indian A cannot move please read my post I make this point. La Liga in Spain have same model Barcelona and Real Madrid have B team who cannot move up. I am just applying for cricket.

You are being angry because India is mention. I am not doing from Indian perspective but trying to grow the cricket.

Bro at least be honest to yourself. Yea there's a model that works in a 90 minute game. Test cricket is a dying format that can take 5 days. There's no appeal for 2 Indian teams in this format. As a Pakistani fan it would not be a fun match if India doesn't play its best team against us. We don't want to watch that.

If you really want to grow the game, start spending the money you're gloating about. You're not helping any other team grow if you're not sending your best players to play against them.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

Bro at least be honest to yourself. Yea there's a model that works in a 90 minute game. Test cricket is a dying format that can take 5 days. There's no appeal for 2 Indian teams in this format. As a Pakistani fan it would not be a fun match if India doesn't play its best team against us. We don't want to watch that.

If you really want to grow the game, start spending the money you're gloating about. You're not helping any other team grow if you're not sending your best players to play against them.

Ok I take your point on board also.

Btw I only apply for test match not ODI or T20 because in this format other board make money.

In test not so much hence my proposal to help it.

 

[daytrader]

Ok I take your point on board also

Thank you

Wish some of our Pakistani posters would be this considerate rather than spitting the same vitriol every post.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Even Aussies want isolation

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

Even Aussies want isolation

Small nation will complain and it's why I suggest also making two India sides to keep them happy too.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

As per reports, a proposal is being taken seriously by the International Cricket Council (ICC), led by chairman Jay Shah. According to reports from The Age, Shah, along with Cricket Australia chairman Mike Baird and England Cricket Board chairman Richard Thompson, is set to meet later this month to discuss the two-tier structure in detail