Test Championship isolates Zim

[Boundary]

Test cricket is struggling and there's almost consensus that a Test Championship that gives all Test series a context is the way forward. The problem I see is that all proposals I read about only include 8 teams ie. excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. There's a real and present danger that if we don't fight our corner we'll be isolated and relegated to the Intercontinental Cup.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/ ... 72019.html

Former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe has said the ICC must settle on two formats - Tests and Twenty20s - to secure the future of the game and market it better... He proposed a yearly Test Championship comprising seven six-day knockout games, with the top four ranked teams hosting the bottom four in quarter-finals within the Future Tours Programme (FTP) starting 2012 and eventually leading to a title winner... "It also gives all eight teams a chance, over six days, to win that Test match and progress forward..."

[eugene]

We should just have two divisions for tests.

Division One
Australia
India
England
Sri Lanka
South Africa

Division Two
Pakistan
West Indies
New Zealand
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe


Have promotion-relegation between the two divisions. As much as we would like all ten countries to be treated equally they will not - that is the reality. South Africa beating Zimbabwe within two days will do no good to test cricket and hence no one really has any interest in seeing such a match happen. With two divisions we would be guaranteed regular matches against decent opposition.

[maehara]

I'm fully in favour of the idea of two Test divisions - but what I can see happening is the 8 'traditional' sides making sure that there's little or no possibility of promotion / relegation for those below them. There absolutely must be provision for Zimbabwe / Bangladesh / Ireland to move up, if playing standards are good enough, and for the likes of West Indies / Pakistan (who are in real trouble, form-wise) to fall down. But selfish self-interest probably means that that won't happen.

[eugene]

That is a real concern. The only way for two divisions to work is have two 5 team divisions. Not an eight team first division and then Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and maybe Ireland in a second division. With the divisions I have proposed Pakistan, New Zealand, and West Indies are all in the second division, meaning that promotion/relegation would have to happen as 3 of the big 8 teams are not going to tolerate never being promoted, particularly Pakistan.

[clikcspeed]

@Eugene, I like the 2 divisions thing, really. I am a very big fan of test cricket - the only form of cricket, LOL (not up for debate) but when we say "test cricket is dying", what does that mean? Is it a BUSINESS case - in the part of the sponsors, is it a thing of COMPETITION, or both?

I also think that it is fair to say that the in the 1 - 10 list posted by Eugene, it is clear that one can also use the same model (relatively) to rank countries by wealth. We are at the bottom, not because we cannot play cricket, but because there is a huge difference between budgets for Zimbabwe Cricket and Cricket Australia Moral of the story is, as long as we have global inequalities competition will be limited to countries with similar bank balances - like in any other sport. However, we can have workarounds.

The way I see it, (both business and competition), the ICC simply needs to improve competition between the sides, in order to have a business case. One model is to have our players playing regularly in other countries, ie county cricket. Take Chigumbura for example, I have been tracking his progress with Northamptonshire, we all know that he is a very good player but now that he is playing at a more established level, he is getting invaluable experience - an essential ingredient when it comes to cricket at test level.

[maehara]

Part of the Test Championship proposals so far has been revenue sharing - the sides taking part would receive an equal share of the money from centralised TV rights etc. That's also the reason why the proposals have so far failed, as England and Australia (at least) would lose money under that system compared to the way things are currently done. But level funding would help level the playing field.

[maehara]

...and because it's the subject of the day, here's a piece I wrote back in 2006 on just this subject:
http://sandbox.zimcricketnews.com/2006/ ... -structure

[sloandog]

...and because it's the subject of the day, here's a piece I wrote back in 2006 on just this subject:
http://sandbox.zimcricketnews.com/2006/ ... -structure

Very good piece Maehara

[Boundary]

...and because it's the subject of the day, here's a piece I wrote back in 2006 on just this subject:
http://sandbox.zimcricketnews.com/2006/ ... -structure

Good article but I can't believe you wrote that four years ago! We have a similar situation in the tennis Davis Cup and when Zim was in the world group we played the USA and Australia (and memorably beat them ) but now we've since dropped those glamour ties are no more. Those matches encouraged the popularity of tennis at the time, so being in a lower group means the game might not grow as fast. It's a double-edged sword, because in cricket it means Zim might never play Australia and India in Tests.