ICC Test Championship Talks

[Ahmed_B]

West Indies break-up may herald Test Championship
By Scyld Berry
04 Aug 2009

Nobody has yet come up with a really workable schedule for a Test Championship, not even the most ingenious of thinkers about the modern game, Martin Crowe, New Zealand's former captain, who made his proposals to MCC's world cricket committee.

If a Test Championship with semi-finals and a final is desired, then can they each consist of one match, which would hinge on winning the toss on a flat pitch and batting first for several days?

To be fair, the semi-finals and final would have to consist of three Tests each so the rub of the green would be evenly spread; and if we allow for practice games and acclimatisation, we are talking of more than a month for each encounter.

To allow for three-match semi-finals and finals, an enormous amount of time would therefore have to be set aside in the calendar, with knock-on effects. If England reached the semi-finals, at home, they would have to cancel a tour by another country at short notice. Sorry, Australia, we can't play the Ashes this summer, we've got a Test Championship semi instead.

Unfortunately, the time for a Test Championship consisting of a league – without any semi-finals or final – may come to pass sooner rather than later. West Indian cricket seems to have a death wish, to judge by the inability of its administrators and players to pull together. Not even the ultimate humiliation of being beaten at home by Bangladesh has sparked any common sense, purpose or sanity.

Trinidad and Tobago are already talking of going their own way. Yes, it would be a great shame if they did. But only a common culture has held the Anglophone West Indian territories together, and this no longer appears to be strong enough. All other Test teams have been, and are, nation states.

Future West Indian administrators might just be competent enough to assemble a decent team for World Cups and Twenty20 tournaments. But in Test cricket their incompetence is now a sorry fact; and it might prove better for all concerned, in the long run, and after a painful separation, if the West Indian territories were to do what Trinidad proposes.

If so, then we immediately have a league of two, or three, natural divisions. Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka would make up the first division. Play each other home and away in series of at least three Tests (but more if you want, as in the Ashes), give two points for a series win and one for a draw, and at the end of every three or four-year cycle you have a winner, with every game having a context.

At present you have a winner of the ICC Test Championship every year. But only one person on the planet, the inventor, can understand the points system – which sometimes involves teams changing position without a ball being bowled.

The second division would start off by consisting of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and the five main West Indian territories: Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and perhaps a Combined Islands team. There would be a real incentive for them to top their division and play off against the bottom team in the first division at the end of the cycle. National, not regional, pride would become the driving force, with the aid of governments and without the West Indian board getting in the way.

A third division would then consist of Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Canada and the like. Again the division's top team at the end of the cycle would play off against the bottom side of division two – on the latter's grounds, so that promotion is feasible but difficult.

Statisticians might say the whole corpus of Test records will be devalued. But that cannot be a prime consideration – and the standard would rise if only the first division had Test status, and the second division played first-class internationals.

Besides, the historical corpus has already been devalued by Bangladesh – and by the West Indies reserve team who have just been beaten by them.

What the experts think

MICHAEL VAUGHAN
(former England captain)

I am not too sure how much difference a world championship would make. I think night Test matches played abroad have to be looked at to get a few more people in through the gate.

The ICC also have to make sure the big four nations are playing each other as much as possible so somewhere in the world there is a series such as England-Australia, South Africa-India or India-Australia going on or looming.

We also need the West Indies and New Zealand to improve.

They have dropped their standards and become easier fixtures, which is not great viewing for the public.

RICKY PONTING
(Australia captain)

Until I see a model of what they’re proposing it’s hard to make a call. I understand what they’re trying to do and what they’re trying to achieve by it.

I’m not sure how the points would work - would you get more points for home or away wins, or for quality of opposition?

The thing they were worried about is dead-rubber Test matches and maybe series that weren’t as big as others. But at the end of the day there’s always a trophy up for grabs, and knowing how Australians approach Test match cricket there’s never a game that we’re not trying to win as quickly as possible.

I’d like to see a working model.

STEVE WAUGH
(former Australia captain and member of MCC World Cricket Committee)

Test cricketers want to be able to say they’re the world champions of Test cricket.

We can say it in the Twenty20 and 50-over game but Test cricket continues on and on. There’s the ranking system but there’s no actual trophy where you can hold it aloft.

Something definitely needs to be done to lift the profile of Test cricket. Most players still believe it is the pinnacle of the game and why not reward that every couple of years with a Test cricket championship or a trophy you’ve won.

Work should commence immediately on devising the appropriate format.

ANDY FLOWER (England coach)

I think it’s quite a good concept. It gives more of an aim to every Test. Maybe if they announce a winner every two years would be about right. To change the champion team every year would be a bit strange.

But I would like to see the proposal before making a final judgment.

RAHUL DRAVID
(India Test batsman and member of MCC world cricket committee)

If there’s something to play for, it’s definitely going to make a difference.This sort of thing would help motivate players because when No 7 plays No 8 it’s almost

Link

[Ahmed_B]

ICC urged to consider Test championship by players union
By Nick Hoult
01 Dec 2009

Fica, the Federation of International cricket Associations, has written to the International Cricket Council to ask them to scrap the future tours programme and instigate an annual Test championship.

The chief executives of the 10 Test playing nations are meeting in Dubai on Tuesday and are expected to put the finishing touches to a tours programme that will be the framework for the international game for eight years between 2012-2020.

But Fica have asked them to reconsider at a time when Test cricket is enduring a decline in popularity around the world. Last week the Gabba in Brisbane recorded its lowest crowd for 15 years as Australia crushed the West Indies while the prospect of India becoming the number one ranked team in Test cricket has failed to draw crowds for their current series against Sri Lanka.

Tim May, the chief executive of Fica, has written a report, seen by Telegraph Sport, in which he sets out the need for more meaningful international cricket and calls for the ICC to bring in independent consultants to review the state of the game. “We believe that the model of bi lateral ad hoc series that have been cricket’s structure for the past century (and again from 2012-2020) is fast becoming an outdated model, and will be unable to cater for the changing cricket landscape,” he writes.

“It is unusual for FICA to request the ICC and its member boards to review a decision of the ICC board, however, we are of the firm opinion that there are serious flaws in the proposed 2012-2020 FTP that will severely threaten the primacy of international cricket in future years.”

May’s suggestion, which follows an MCC plan to introduce a Test championship, is for the formation of two conferences of four teams each.

Teams play one series against each other side in their conference and one team from the other conference with a semi-final and final to determine the winners adding up to 12 Tests per year. A fourth year would be reserved as an Icon Year for series such as the Ashes and the World Cup.

Link

[zainab]

Might be a good idea. Teams will play more matches against each other.

[Eshen]

India rule Test arena while trying to kill it

JAMIE PANDARAM

December 7, 2009

TEST cricket's new No.1 team, India, is not scheduled to play a single long-format game at home for nearly two years.

The outrageous absence of home Tests for such a length of time underscores the problems faced by the traditional format. In a recent survey, only seven per cent of Indian fans considered Test cricket to be their favourite form of the game. That would probably have risen after India became just the third side in rankings history to assume the prized No.1 status, but those fans must now wait until November 2011 to see their team in whites on home soil.

A scheduled three Tests against world No.2 South Africa has been cancelled, denying all cricket supporters of a major series that would have had significant impact on the rankings. Instead, the Proteas will play five one-dayers.

Requests for explanation on India's schedule from the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in India were unanswered by the time the Herald went to print last night.

They won't admit it, but the fixtures are determined purely by television revenue. Indian broadcast moguls are not interested in Tests because they rate poorly - as indicated by the recent survey - while ODIs and Twenty20s push their numbers through the roof.

So there is increasing pressure from the BCCI - which sells matches for a handsome profit to television networks - to scrap Tests for more ODIs and Twenty20s. The ICC has not stood up to India for years and clearly isn't about to start by the looks of the Future Tours Program - which has been manipulated from its original plan to accommodate the BCCI's thirst for short-format games. The situation is also not helped by the willingness of Australia, England and South Africa to jump at every chance to play meaningless ODIs in India, simply to boost revenue for the BCCI in return for partnerships in the Champions League Twenty20 competition and other financial benefits.

It is incredible that India, long seen as promoting the death of Test cricket by driving the proliferation of Twenty20 matches, has reached the sport's pinnacle. Only Australia and South Africa had sat atop the tree since the Test Championship was introduced in 2001. But after routing Sri Lanka by an innings and 24 runs in the third Test in Mumbai to clinch the series 2-0, India leapfrogged Graeme Smith's side, with Australia rising to third above Sri Lanka.

India's coach Gary Kirsten said his team was powerless in the structuring of fixtures. ''This team enjoys staying together and I am sure everyone enjoys all forms of the game,'' he said. ''We just go out and play whatever is scheduled.''

Iconic batsman Sachin Tendulkar had dreamed of such success when he started his Test career 20 years ago - and said his countrymen had shared his ambition. ''It is fantastic to be the No.1 Test team,'' said Tendulkar. ''I have been waiting a long time to get to this position. Not just me, but the entire country waited for it. The players have worked very hard. ''

As the No.1 Test team, India's only home series for the next 21 months will be against the lowest-ranked team Bangladesh (ninth), before hosting the eighth-ranked West Indies in November, 2011.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/...1206-kd0r.html

[zainab]

India will have an away series in BD, not a home series. BD has never been invited to India, India feels that the crowds will not turn up and will be a big loss to their revenue.
India wants to play more 20/20s and ODIs and this is what they will be getting until the current FTP ends. I am sure the new FTP will guarantee the top 5 teams more test matches, leaving out the lower ranked teams in the cold. BD might be lucky to be playing 2 to 4 Test matches per year after 2011. A two tier system might be better for the lower ranked teams, it will guarantee more matches.

[Neel Here]

India rule Test arena while trying to kill it

typical aussie spin !

what was the crowd size at the Ind-SL game and the Aus-WI game ?
it was over 150,000 over the 5 days at mumbai. ind-aus series easily saw much higher turnout.

even for the 2006-07ashes test series at adelaide oval it was 136,761 ! this time half the ground was empty, I doubt it crossed 100,000.

so much for the test loving australian crowd and the test hating indian one !

fact no 2 :
tests played in the 2000's. in bracket is the number of away matches.

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

india 6(2) 13(7) 16(11) 5(3) 12(6) 8(2) 12(9) 10(7) 15(6) 6(3) = 103(56)

eng 12(5) 13(6) 14(7) 13(6) 13(6) 13(6) 14(7) 11(4) 12(5) 12(5)= 127(57)

aus 8(3) 14(8) 11(6) 12(4) 14(7) 15(8) 10(5) 4(0) 14(7) 11(8)= 113(56)

RSA 11(5) 13(7) 9(1) 12(9) 11(7) 11(6) 11(3) 9(2) 15(11) 4(1)= 106(52)

test matches played/year for the 4 countries :

india - 10.3 tests/year (54 % of those away matches)
england - 12.7 tests/year (45% of those away matches)
aus - 11.3 tests/year (50% away matches)
RSA - 10.6 tests/year (49% away matches)
is this really some huge difference ??

don't forget that england plays that many tests by not playing too many ODI's (and generally sucking at it) and that approach has been criticised time and time again in england itself.

[Eshen]

Ha ha ha, looks like the Aussie spin forced BCCI to reschedule two Tests against SA that they canceled earlier

[eclipsjohn]

The International Cricket Council (ICC) is the international governing body of cricket. It was founded as the Imperial Cricket Conference in 1909 by representatives from England, Australia and South Africa, renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965, and took up its current name in 1989.The ICC has 104 members: 10 Full Members that play official Test matches, 34 Associate Members, and 60 Affiliate Members. The ICC is responsible for the organisation and governance of cricket's major international tournaments, most notably the Cricket World Cup.

[yaseer]

It was coming. I think ICC just waiting for the right time to split the Test nations in two-tiers. It is not feasible to split it by having 8 teams in the 1st tier, as it will not make any difference. Now, with degraded West Indies, always mediocre New Zealand, De-graded+Political issues with Pakistan, there is a possibility to split the with 6 teams each. This is what the big guns want - play each other more and earn more money. I do not see it coming in 1/2 years, but definitely there is going to be some change to make sure big teams play each other more. Opening window for IPL also boosts ICC to go for this.

[DETTA]

If a Test Championship with semi-finals and a final is desired, then can they each consist of one match, which would hinge on winning the toss on a flat pitch and batting first for several days?

To be fair, the semi-finals and final would have to consist of three Tests each so the rub of the green would be evenly spread; and if we allow for practice games and acclimatisation, we are talking of more than a month for each encounter.

To allow for three-match semi-finals and finals, an enormous amount of time would therefore have to be set aside in the calendar, with knock-on effects. If England reached the semi-finals, at home, they would have to cancel a tour by another country at short notice. Sorry, Australia, we can't play the Ashes this summer, we've got a Test Championship semi instead.

Unfortunately, the time for a Test Championship consisting of a league – without any semi-finals or final – may come to pass sooner rather than later. West Indian cricket seems to have a death wish, to judge by the inability of its administrators and players to pull together. Not even the ultimate humiliation of being beaten at home by Bangladesh has sparked any common sense, purpose or sanity.

Trinidad and Tobago are already talking of going their own way. Yes, it would be a great shame if they did. But only a common culture has held the Anglophone West Indian territories together, and this no longer appears to be strong enough. All other Test teams have been, and are, nation states.

Future West Indian administrators might just be competent enough to assemble a decent team for World Cups and Twenty20 tournaments. But in Test cricket their incompetence is now a sorry fact; and it might prove better for all concerned, in the long run, and after a painful separation, if the West Indian territories were to do what Trinidad proposes.

If so, then we immediately have a league of two, or three, natural divisions. Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka would make up the first division. Play each other home and away in series of at least three Tests (but more if you want, as in the Ashes), give two points for a series win and one for a draw, and at the end of every three or four-year cycle you have a winner, with every game having a context.

At present you have a winner of the ICC Test Championship every year. But only one person on the planet, the inventor, can understand the points system – which sometimes involves teams changing position without a ball being bowled.

The second division would start off by consisting of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and the five main West Indian territories: Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and perhaps a Combined Islands team. There would be a real incentive for them to top their division and play off against the bottom team in the first division at the end of the cycle. National, not regional, pride would become the driving force, with the aid of governments and without the West Indian board getting in the way.

A third division would then consist of Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Canada and the like. Again the division's top team at the end of the cycle would play off against the bottom side of division two – on the latter's grounds, so that promotion is feasible but difficult.

Statisticians might say the whole corpus of Test records will be devalued. But that cannot be a prime consideration – and the standard would rise if only the first division had Test status, and the second division played first-class internationals.

Besides, the historical corpus has already been devalued by Bangladesh – and by the West Indies reserve team who have just been beaten by them.

[al-Sagar]

Bangladesh will be the champions of the inaugural Test championship. thats why team are fearing to start it