View Full Version : Tree-tier test cricket

May 28, 2004, 08:07 AM
It seems we are giong to be demoted from the highest level After getting the support from the captains of India and Australia ICC seems serious about multi-tier cricket. My question is why the cut-off is 8 why not 6 that would make the highest level even more competitive!! ICC and other just get rid of BD and ZIM and also it started after ZIM crisis!! . Link
here (http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/156593_WCI_28MAY2004.html)

May 28, 2004, 08:23 AM
The ICC, however, refused to confirm that such a system was being discussed. Replying to a query, Jon Long, the ICC's project officer, only stated what had already been revealed after the Cricket Committee meeting in Dubai two weeks ago: "Malcolm Speed [the ICC chief executive] announced a review of the structure of international cricket in June 2003. This review is on-going and will not be completed for several months. Until it has been completed it is impossible to speculate what the outcomes or recommendations will be."

note this part of it... it does give us a bit of time to get better than WI and others allahr-rahmatha.

May 28, 2004, 08:40 AM
What will the Calcutta prince do after Mr. Wright leaves, Tendulkar retires, and India sink back to that oblivion called 7th ranked test team that they have been more often than not - play mote tests at home ?

Against the 3rd tier Bangladesh !!

May 28, 2004, 08:53 AM
This is simply an elitist attempt to get rid of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. I will say with 100% certainty that if India or England were at the bottom of the table - there would be no such talk.

We will be back playing against Kenya, Holland and UAE again - which we did for twenty years prior to 2000 - what good did it do us ?

Also, this will effectively set us back another 20 years and bankrupt our cricket board - because who would want to sponsor a "2nd division" team ?

May 28, 2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Pundit
What will the Calcutta prince do after Mr. Wright leaves, Tendulkar retires, and India sink back to that oblivion called 7th ranked test team that they have been more often than not - play mote tests at home ?

Against the 3rd tier Bangladesh !!

Well, I think the recent Indian performances have shown that they are no longer dependent of Mr. Tendulkar. Also, instead of blaming others for our demotion we should look forward to improving our performance against the big teams while we still have chance.

May 28, 2004, 08:59 AM
This is bad news but might take a lot of things to actually realize such a plan. Time for our team to show some real improvement and start drawing some tests against the big boys. This is an over-reaction to the Zimbabwe situation, not so much to Bangladesh since it has been improving.

As long as we keep playing washed up old-timers, we won't improve our results. Sujon has single-handedly brought this fate upon Bangladesh!:umm:

May 28, 2004, 12:21 PM
Yes indeed, India's run with good fortune is here to stay for a while.

But that's not the point ofcourse.

May 28, 2004, 12:22 PM
[[Edited on 29-5-2004 by rassel]

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by rassel]

May 28, 2004, 10:02 PM
what a luck! huh

May 28, 2004, 10:18 PM
what will happen now? Can anyone else shade some more light on it? This cricket thing was my only thing about Bangladesh I can have some good time, now if it is gone, I will have none.

al Furqaan
May 28, 2004, 11:11 PM
there are a lotta folks talkin about a 2 or 3 tier test structure. and it looks like ICC is serious about this, if so bangladesh will almost certainly lose their test status.
anyone know anything more about this.

May 28, 2004, 11:21 PM
The cricinfo homepage looks weird. 1st it has a story on bangladesh being compatitive (allar-rahmatha) then it talks about how non compatitve teams, using us as an example, can now be removed!

May 29, 2004, 12:54 AM
this is a total crap. teams like india knows best how long it takes to be competitive in test cricket. and i can't think this thing will ever happen. here is why:

u know how the position of test ranks flactuates. top of the top WI comes down to bottom, all perfect SA messes up and so on. by the time icc will come to the time that it can actually apply this system, teams who are yelling for it now will have position at the end and then they will cry for not having 2 tier system.

still, bcb with other countries in threat should tie up and lunch an opposition as soon as possible.

May 29, 2004, 02:14 AM
they will need 2/3 majority to change this rule in ICC, I think. It won't be easy. BD, WI, PAK definitely won't support it. Not sure about others.

May 29, 2004, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by nasif
they will need 2/3 majority to change this rule in ICC, I think. It won't be easy. BD, WI, PAK definitely won't support it. Not sure about others.
I do not believe PAKI they can go wither way. I think Jogu will have a big part on this issue as usual. If he wants 3-tier (I believe he is as Dada is very close to him) it would be hard to stop that!

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by sports_fan_bd]

May 29, 2004, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by nasif
they will need 2/3 majority to change this rule in ICC, I think. It won't be easy. BD, WI, PAK definitely won't support it. Not sure about others.

7 votes are needed out of 10 to change the structure fundamentally.

Obviously BD and Zim will vote against it.

Historically WI board is pro English ( they were against BD test status initially). But present situation of their cricket should make them think twice, but still i won't count them.

PAK should vote 'no'. They are struggling to host matches due to security concern ( mainly from western countries). BD and Zim will never have problems touring PAK.

I would count NZ as well to vote 'no' if BCB pursue them ( ZCU is useless at the moment). Historically they don't belong to elite group and use to have soft approach.

May 29, 2004, 08:32 AM
"I lay the blame squarely at the door of both parties," said one former Zimbabwe player who has closely witnessed the dispute. In his objective view, the dissident players were naive for going public with their objections to the politicisation of the sport, and especially the selection process. On the other hand, the ZCU - specifically the strident voices which have drowned out Peter Chingoka and Vince Hogg, the chairman and chief executive - have been guilty of trying to Africanise the national team too quickly for anyone's good.

But everybody can safely blame the Australian Board for scuppering the last chance to produce a compromise in Zimbabwe, when their chairman Bob Merriman agreed with the ZCU to go ahead with the one-day series on Tuesday ahead of the ICC's tele-conference. Richard Bevan spoke not only on behalf of the Federation of International Cricketers' Association but the cricket community at large when he said that suspension from one-day international cricket as well as Tests "would have forced the ZCU into negotiations with the players".

As President of the ICC, Ehsan Mani on Friday afternoon warned that "Zimbabwe might have to take a step backwards for a little while". But, as he added, "I don't think suspension of the country is at all on the cards", and referred to the High Performance Programme with which the ICC are assisting struggling Bangladesh, the likelihood is that Zimbabwe will still be playing one-day internationals by November.

England's tour may therefore consist of one-dayers only. If so, no player is expected to boycott it as the thirty-somethings who might refuse to go to Zimbabwe, like Mark Butcher and Graham Thorpe, are only in the Test team. But the ECB won't be making any such decision until after the ICC's AGM late next month when Zimbabwe will be discussed in full. For the moment, the ECB chairman David Morgan clarified yesterday: "We have been negotiating with the ZCU a reduction from five one-day internationals to four because of logistics, to go with the two Tests, but that was before the events of the last few days."

If anything is beyond dispute in this Zimbabwe episode, which has been dragging on in various forms for a year-and-a-half, it is that the two-Test series between Australia and the current Zimbabwean team had to be stopped. Their captain Tatenda Taibu has just turned 21, which is also the side's average age. Africa has enough boy soldiers as it is.

In their two Tests against Sri Lanka, as this massacre of the innocents was formally known, Zimbabwe averaged 19 runs per wicket and their opponents 96. In other words, in a theoretical average match, Zimbabwe would have needed five innings to score as many as Sri Lanka in one innings.
Several times during this dispute the question has been asked: at what point does a Test country no longer merit Test status? And figures can provide an objective answer. A country should lose Test status when over a prolonged period their opponents score more than twice as many runs per wicket. In other words, in the average Test, their opponents would win by an innings and plenty.

Twice this rule has been violated, when it should not have been. The first time was in the 19th century when privately organised teams from England, some including amateurs from club cricket, toured South Africa. These utterly unrepresentative teams were still good enough to average 25 runs per wicket against South Africa's 10; one English bowler took 15 wickets for 28 in a match, another 35 wickets at five runs each in a three-match series. Only retrospectively did a couple of statisticians decide these games were Tests.

The second period was during World Series Cricket, because Australia and West Indies were so strong that their second XIs could hold their own. It was when Bangladesh were prematurely promoted to Test status, when the game's own administrators violated 'the integrity of Test cricket'. In their first 21 Tests Bangladesh averaged 18 runs per wicket to their opponents' 59.

Starting with their inaugural Test against England last autumn, Bangladesh's Test status has no longer been a travesty. Thanks to the ICC's High Performance Programme, and Dav Whatmore's coaching, Bangladesh in their last seven Tests have averaged 23 runs per wicket to their opponents' 37, which at least makes a game if not a contest.

The ICC's reasoning that Zimbabwe should preserve their one-day status against Australia - because their young players did all right against Sri Lanka, apart from the lowest-ever total of 35, and need the experience - is not entirely consistent. Logic suggests that if Zimbabwe must field "their best competitive team" in Tests, as the ICC insist, they should do the same in internationals.

In the meantime, the exodus of the remaining white dissidents, on the heels of the highly talented Sean Ervine to Australia, will no doubt continue. Most will surely end up as league pros and coaches as they aren't up to first-class standard, and even the most shameless county won't sign more than a couple under the Kolpak ruling.

source: telegraph.co.uk

May 29, 2004, 05:45 PM
Bangladesh- Obvious
Zimbabwe - Obvious
West Indies- Such a great tradition powerhouse of world cricket, Richards and co. will not let them be in risk of losing test status
England- It's possible that a team like Canada could have test status in a couple of years....and don't they want to protect the "elite group"?

May 29, 2004, 06:06 PM
Agree on Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies. Not sure about England as they hve recently started to play well. India would have been in our boat but their cricket has improved tremendously (not ST reliant anymore) in the last 2/3 years. Pakistan on the other hand is unpredictable both on and off the field.

I only see Australia and India voting for yes for sure. SA, NZ, Eng and SL are maybe's. Pak is unpredictable. They might think that they are in the top four and vote on yes.

May 29, 2004, 07:02 PM
After today how can any one even think of kicking us out?

May 30, 2004, 06:00 PM
Division One (Test elite): Australia, South Africa, India, England, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies
Division Two: Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Namibia, Holland, Scotland
Division Three: Canada, USA, UAE, Nepal, Ireland, Malaysia

Anyone remotely connected to the game is aware that a Test series pitting Australia against Zimbabwe, or South Africa versus Bangladesh, is a desperate mis-match.

So Dave Richardson, the International Cricket Council's general manager, is presiding over a project that would see the Test nations reduced from 10 to eight.

There would be two tiers of teams below the elite eight and they would fight for the right to join the top table for two or three years.

The second division would play each other home and away in four-day matches.

And whoever emerges on top would play the bottom Test team in a one-off challenge for the right to join the likes of Australia and England.

The top team or top two teams from the third division would be automatically promoted to the second tier with relegation facing the poorest performers from the second division.

Scotland would be a clear candidate for the second division where they would be faced with the prospects of touring Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Their captain Craig Wright told BBC Sport: "It's an exciting prospect to play more international cricket and longer matches.

"The Totesport League gives us higher exposure in one-day cricket but the four-day game is something we would love to get exposure to."

Wright feels that given that his own team is still strictly amateur, along with the likes of Holland and Namibia, the ICC would have to find money to give the players semi-professional status.

That could avert the logistical nightmare of getting players involved in full-time employment outside cricket to take part.

"There would be no way to contemplate it if that wasn't the case. We struggle to get a full team as it is at the moment.

"Our ultimate aim is to have a professional set-up and show where we are against other countries in the longer form of the game."

Wright is disappointed by some of the Test fare on offer at present.

"Nobody wants to watch a team being demolished - that doesn't make for good sport. Countries like ourselves, Canada, Namibia feel they can compete with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh."

He said the carrot of playing against Australia was "the absolute pinnacle".

"To be seen on a global scale like that and with the financial spin-off, that could be the making of cricket."

One massive obstacle would be persuading Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to drop down a level.

They would need to be persuaded that only by chalking up a few wins would their team spirit and general belief improve.

Another advocate of the plan is Andy Moles, the former Warwickshire batsman and current Kenya coach.

He told BBC Sport back in February of his own blueprint for the future and it seems remarkably similar to Richardson's.

Publicly, the ICC will say nothing about the scheme, beyond acknowledging that a "review of the structure of international cricket is ongoing."

Patience will clearly be required before the excitement can begin.

Source : BBC

May 30, 2004, 07:38 PM
Bullcrap, playing Holland and Canada will not prepare the top team for facing the Test Elite. As we can clearly see, we are only now, after 4 years of playing the Top countries getting ready to seriously compete with the big boys.

One reason that the ICC might want to rethink this, Bangladesh is probably their third biggest market afer India and Pakistan. If the public see their team being relegated they might lose some interest in the sport.