Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

For discussion of any non-Zimbabwean cricket.
JHunter
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by JHunter » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:32 pm

Kriterion_BD wrote:Also the latest cricinfo article suggested the boards seem to agree on using Zim, Ire, and Afg as tour matches for SA, ENG, PAK tours respectively. So a one off 5 day Test would replace the traditional 3 day first class match vs a domestic or A team. Thats 2 Tests per year, or 4 per cycle for the lower division sides.
jaybro wrote:
If Zimbabwe got to host 2 test v any side prior to touring RSA, that would definitely give us 4 tests a year minimum which is better than what we have ATM plus tests against Ireland and Afghanistan. I'm sure BD would still play is aswell. Problem is england will not tour Zimbabwe so once they decide not to the rest will as well .....
Kriterion_BD wrote:Big 3 wont. England due to politics and India and Australis since they dont have the time in their schedules and even if they did, they wouldnt want to.

Pak, SL, WI, and BD would Im sure tour though 2 tests puts increase risk of injuries.

Having Zim, Afg and Ire serve as tour matches ahead of tours to SA, Pak/Ind/SL and England makes a lot of sense and is something I would support. It should have been done ages ago and should also have been done for Bang in regards to tours to India, SL and Pakistan (they can still do that by the way).

England won't tour Zimbabwe, but they don't have to. They can play Zimbabwe in South Africa just as how nobody plays Pakistan in Pakistan anymore (except the Afghans). So most likely England would play a Zimbabwe XI in a 4-day tour match in South Africa while all other teams would play Zimbabwe in a 5-day test in Zimbabwe ahead of a South Africa tour. All teams meanwhile would likely play Afghanistan in the UAE ahead of a series with Pakistan in the UAE. On rare occasion they may play Afghanistan in Afghanistan ahead of a Pakistan series in the UAE.

With regards to the scheduling, I think there might in fact be time based on the fact that they seem to intend to reduce the number of tests required per series. So I can see (and remain hopeful) that Ind and Aus would tour Zimbabwe ahead of a South Africa series (in any case if the normal tour matches are abandoned in favour of a match with Zimbabwe then scheduling really wouldn't be a problem).

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by jaybro » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:07 pm

Another issue is the pitches in Zimbabwe are not very similar to those in South Africa, so the idea of teams touring there to acclimatise to the conditions is pointless .....
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by Kriterion_BD » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:23 pm

If the curators put tons of live grass on the HSC pitch it would resemble a SA wicket. Its just that ZIM would be foolish to that to anyone except an Asian side...and even then not that smart cuz they'd have to bat on it as well.
Truth is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. Time is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. You don't need anything else.
[Malcolm X]

JHunter
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by JHunter » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:50 am

jaybro wrote:Another issue is the pitches in Zimbabwe are not very similar to those in South Africa, so the idea of teams touring there to acclimatise to the conditions is pointless .....
I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a problem considering that:

1. in the past before the hectic scheduling, teams actually used to tour neighbouring (and weaker) countries as warm-ups for a test series (for example teams used to visit Ceylon/Sri Lanka before it became a full member on tours to India; and teams used to incorporate tour matches of New Zealand before playing in Australia....in fact I think once in the 1950s or 60s a team ONLY played tour matches in New Zealand before going to Australia)

2. conditions are relative. If you are coming from England in January/February to Zimbabwe the conditions (temperature, humidity etc) are a lot closer to South Africa in Zimbabwe than they were at home (where you were probably experiencing snow...), so acclimatising to Zimbabwean conditions would be helpful in that regard.

3. I don't think the idea is for teams to tour Zim, Ire or Afg to acclimatize to SA, Eng and Pak/Ind....rather it is actually help Zim, Ire and Afg by providing them with match practice while allowing the touring teams to experience broadly similar conditions (even if the conditions are not exactly alike).

User avatar
brmtaylor.com admin
Administrator
Posts: 6034
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by brmtaylor.com admin » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:38 am

This "playing Zim as a warm up" idea is just fanciful. I wouldn't waste brain cells even thinking about it. If it actually happened it would be great - but if it's never happened before, it's never going to happen now. Touring teams will want to play in South African conditions, which a place like Bulawayo for example wouldn't really provide because it's more conducive to spin than any SA pitch I can think of. And furthermore touring teams have fallen in love with 18-a-side nonsense so everyone gets a bat and workloads can be managed. They won't want to risk an injury (or worse, an upset) by playing their best XI in Zimbabwe ahead of a big SA series.

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by jaybro » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:31 pm

You missed my point Hunter but BRMT can see it, the big teams will only do it if there's something in it for them .....
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by Kriterion_BD » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:19 am

The biggest picture here is that this plan - if it goes through - leaves room open as early as every 2 years for their to be expansion to the top tier. Therefore, its imperative that Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Ireland play as well as they can in their tier so as to force their way into the top tier. I suppose the converse is also possible (a top 9 team could eventually get demoted, and one of the bottom 3 could get demoted to Associate status).

But is there any confirmation that the ICC leagues are seperate from the financial restructuring? The BCCI is going to kill the latter...but if they are part of one single vote, than the status quo continues.
Truth is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. Time is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. You don't need anything else.
[Malcolm X]

JHunter
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by JHunter » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:52 pm

jaybro wrote:You missed my point Hunter but BRMT can see it, the big teams will only do it if there's something in it for them .....
I didn't miss your point at all jaybro. I saw it. I understood it. I just don't agree with it. The same point concerning Zimbabwean pitches and climate (and touring teams using 18-a-side or 14-a-side) would apply to Ireland as much as it does to Zimbabwe, I would imagine unless what we are supposing is that Clontarf has the same conditions and same pitch as say Lords. So unless your point was to apply more generally (to Ireland; it would scarcely apply to Afghanistan since playing Afghanistan as a warm-up would likely involve playing against the Afghans in the UAE on the same tour as playing against Pakistan in the UAE) then I don't see how it can really stand on its own.

As for BRMT's point that teams now play non-FC multi-day cricket as warm-ups (18-a-side, 15-a-side, 12-a-side, etc) that is true, but not wholly so. Touring teams often play a mix of multi-day matches as warm-ups ahead of a test series. So a team might play a 2-day match with 14 per side followed by a proper 4-day (or 3-day) FC match with 11 batting or fielding per side (even if there are 15 players per side - e.g. recent SA Invitation XI v Sri Lankans). The upcoming SAffer tour of Aus has 2 separate 2 day matches. That's how the SAffers and their host scheduled it, but there was nothing preventing SA and Aus from organizing a single 4 day match, except that it seems the South Africans wanted a day/night multi-day tour match as a warm-up for a day-night test plus a regular multi-day tour match, so that scheduling makes sense. West Indies are due to tour England in August and they have 2 3-day matches scheduled (at least one them likely to be first-class). Given that their first match starts August 1st but the first test starts August 17th, in the future the schedule would probably see a 5-day test match scheduled against Ireland in Ireland and then a 3-day match against a county side in England followed by the one day tour match and then the test. Bangladesh are due to play a CSA Invitation XI in a 3-day (likely to be classed as FC) match. In the future, what possible reason could they have to not schedule a 5-day test match against Zimbabwe instead either in Zimbabwe or in South Africa (if the touring team is that concerned about Zimbabwean pitches being more conducive to spin)?

I don't even address the injury point because it isn't really a good point I feel - if teams are that worried about injury, why do they even schedule tour matches at all? Why do they even schedule 3-day and sometimes 4-day tour matches? And the injury point seems to rest on the assumption that a touring team is more likely to pick up an injury in a test match with Zimbabwe, Ireland or Afghanistan than in a tour match against a Cricket South Africa Invitation XI, Durham or Rawalpindi....but if Zimbabwean cricket is as bad as is being made out then are top touring teams like Australia or India really likely to pick up an injury playing a full strength Zimbabwe XI than a CSA Invitation XI? [basically, what I'm saying is that we can't have it both ways - either Zim cricket is really as poor as is being made out and touring teams are no more likely to pick up an injury than in playing a domestic tour match team from South Africa...or Zim cricket isn't that bad that the injury risk is real; but then that means Zim (rather like South Africa A) will actually be a better preparation for a test series against a full strength South Africa]

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by Kriterion_BD » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:12 am

Tour matches in countries like England, Australia, India are usually 3 day first class matches. The BS 2 day or 3 day 14 a side nonsense is actually seen in the lesser nations like BD. Dont know why.
Truth is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. Time is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. You don't need anything else.
[Malcolm X]

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Latest ICC Proposal: 9-3 Two-Division Test Cricket

Post by Kriterion_BD » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:00 am

Shashank Manohar's resignation might just kill all the reforms before they even started.
Truth is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. Time is on the side of the oppressed; its against the oppressor. You don't need anything else.
[Malcolm X]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest