How about 12 Test playing Nations

I think the debate has been had in different guises.

Main issue would be the time to fulfill fixtures. As is there is so much cricket being played and teams like Zim and Bangladesh don't actually get their quota of games or simply have them continually rescheduled, net effect is the same some teams will be left in the cold, which leaves a hollow Test status.

Secondly there is the view that it may dilute or impair the integrity of the game (certainly the records) as was the case when Zim rec-cussed itself from Test cricket due to their non competitiveness (I remember vividly Jaques Kallis breaking records to the quickest Test 50, and Zim being bowled out twice in one day!)

Both have their backers and detractors. I personally believe the system should be tiered, say four tiers to give a 4 division league system (think county system over 4 divisions of 4 teams each). The four teams per division say for argument sake are:

Division 1: SA, Aus, SL and Ind,

Division 2: Pak, NZ, WI and Eng,

Division 3: Zim, Ban, Ireland, Afghanistan

Division 4: UAE, Kenya, Holland, Sco

Teams would play over a four year cycle, accumulating points (say based on county points system) playing three test series per year which means over a 4 year period each team would tour a fellow division country twice and the tours reciprocated, involving a minimum of say 3 tests.

At the end of the 4 year cycle, top of the division teams would play off in a series against bottom of division team in the next tier up. With the winners winning the right to reside in the higher tier for the next 4 years.

This I believe would decongest the fixtures, force teams to honour their fixture obligations as their are points riding on the games, and even out the competition, hence no boring one sided matches.

Obviously it isn't a silver bullet, and what happens to traditions like the Ashes, e.g. in the case when Eng and Aus are in different leagues? And would an economical powerhouse such as India be happy being demoted to a less appealing league?

zimbos_05 wrote:

FlowerPower wrote:

At the end of the 4 year cycle, top of the division teams would play off in a series against bottom of division team in the next tier up. With the winners winning the right to reside in the higher tier for the next 4 years.

I think having a straight up promotion relegation system places more emphasis on the importance of winning division games. Otherwise some teams will know that they are better than other and even if they finish bottom of their division, example Afghanistan play UAE. Chances are Afghanistan will win majority of the time. Same goes for example Zim vs England. England would most probably win. Also which country does the match be played in? What match do they play? Test or ODI?

Fair point re: straight up promotion, although one could argue that fighting for the right to a playoff (those in lower tier) or avoiding a playoff (those in higher tier) would have the same effect.

As to... "some teams will know that they are better than other and even if they finish bottom of their division"..., I'm to not too sure. If one team has had a horrible four years and is bottom of a tier and another team has had a great four years and is top, I'd assume there is a meeting of levels (at the very least in confidence terms, if not capabilities). Plus venue could be at the lower tier team, to even out things more. Perfect example the number 11 v 10 we've just had (sorry to bring it up whilst its fresh) and needless to remind number 11 triumphed...but test is a different animal I know...

As to test or ODI, I'd assume this is Test level we speak of. Which also brings another question to the fore, not all teams are equally capable at different forms, classic example WI. Phenominal at T20 and not so at Test, so how do you plan tours and T20s, well hopefully T20 and ODI would be decoupled, 3 Test series a year should allow time to do other things unbounded, ie ODI and T20 outside the confines of the Test league system...not a silver bullet as I conceeded

eugene wrote:Tiers will never happen, at least official based on rankings. The top tier is India, Australia, England, and maybe South Africa. These four will always be in the top tier regardless of form. New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies are stuck in some no-mans land, and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are at the bottom on their own. Bangladesh may eventually move up simply due to the huge market that exists for cricket in that country. Zimbabwe likely has no chance of ever moving out of the bottom group and has to hope that maybe Ireland are added to keep them company.

It may seem unfair that the big three control cricket, but without them cricket would be a minor sport with little global reach and little marketing appeal.

You are right and wrong eugene, there is according to your acknowledgement a defacto economically driven tier system as you outline. But correct it would never work as these will never be based on performance rather on pitch performance but market performance.

The irony though is the wider the game spread the bigger the market would be, so the approach as currently pertains where India Australia and England call the shorts and happy with a confined group actually is self limiting. But then imagine if England were stuck with Zim Bangladesh and WI for four years. The financial carnage may be detrimental to the English game. But the inverse is true, Bangladesh Zim and WI will forever be stuck if they are not getting revenue making fixtures ie vs Aus Eng and India. Having said that respect to SA, India, NZ, Pakistan and Australia who do drop in now and then, problem is its in drips and drabs and not sustaining (and dont even get me started on the siphoning of those drips by greedy creatures with no love for the game)...

SO long and short well aware of the challenges my tier system would face, but from an academic viewpoint its how I think it could work.