BLOOD, SWEAT & TIERS

Two-tier Test cricket has been all over the media. Here's Warnie:

Two-tier system crucial to saving Test cricket

I love Test cricket, but I think it is has got to the stage where there are some things that need to be addressed.

I reckon we need a two-tier system for Test cricket with a grand final for the top two sides in a neutral venue in a one-off Test.

Two tiers sound fine in theory, but is it likely in practice? In other words: would it receive an ICC stamp of approval?

In the short term, with the Future Tours program already locked in well into the future, it's unlikely. If two-tiers are going to be introduced, it will be on the back of persistent, long term pressure from influential voices and institutions.

There's also the question of those infamous ICC voting blocks.

Say the four most commonly mooted nations, Australia, South Africa, India and England, go into the top tier. It's certainly possible that Sri Lanka, the West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan could vote for a system that relegates them to the second tier, but not without heavy compromises, quirks to the draw (marquee matches, for instance) and loads of lolly.

For detailed reference see The Russ Manifesto.

(It seemed like a good idea to separate the future of Test cricket comments in the First Test post into a post of their own; you know, to prove to the ICC that massive, wholesale change is not only possible, but really quite painless.)

TIER MARIA

What was that I was saying about the getting two tiers up and running?

Windies legend Garner fires up over two-tier push

FAST-bowling legend Joel Garner has attacked the advocates of a two-tier system for Test cricket and said the International Cricket Council should instead focus on correcting the shocking imbalances in wealth to ensure a strong and diverse cricket world.

There, perfectly encapsulated in the opening paragraph, staring you in the face, is the issue shelled in a nut.

In short: don't want two tiers; do want pots of money.

In response: The WI accept two tiers, and in return they get "heavy compromises" such as the retention of "marquee matches" and "loads of lolly".

PS: You're right. Tier Maria is tangential at best, although it is from Jamaica, mon. I could have written Black Maria, which would have made even less sense, and may well have been misinterpreted.

Comments

[Adsy]

New idea from Hoggy on SEN to save tests: Both sides have 70 overs max in the first innings.

Yes, thats it.

His reasoning was it will produce more results, and stop games in the subcontinent where the first side makes 700 and the game is predictably a wash after that. Being a fast bowler he also said there will be less instances of quicks having to bowl 30-40 overs an innings.

It would bring a side like the Windies back into the game (like 20/20 has done) and promote some interesting tactics:
- If the pitch is a bit green, do you bat first in the worst of the conditions for 70 overs so you can bowl last?
- Do you bowl first and take the chance of chasing on the last day?
- Do you stack your batting in the hope of making a big enough score in the second dig?
- Do you play more all-rounders in the middle to help maximise your score in the 70 over innings?

It probably adds the tactics of 50/50 cricket to the Test arena, and whilst it could do with a bit more tinkering maybe (would this favour picking four fast bowlers for the 70 over part in particular over a spinner?). I reckon its probably not a bad idea.

Another idea on the end of the two tier Test ladder is to make bonus points part of the system to promote attacking play. Bonus points examples could be:
- Taking 4+ wickets in a session
- Making 130 runs plus in a session
- Declaring 8 down or less
- Bonus points for outright wins

The options are endless. The idea is to make certain meaningless games like the Windies mean something.

[Adsy]

By the way, word around the traps is that Hodge was hanging on for Hussey to fail so he could get a final crack at Test cricket, but his 60 odd in the first Test was the final nail in the coffin. He also didn't personally have a problem about finishing up his Shield career in the middle of a season, however others around the team are supposedly fuming about it.

[Russ]

Adsy, i would make for short tests, but is that really a good idea? I'm inclined towards a test championship, played in tiers, but with regional qualifiers and more teams. Pretty much every game is meaningful. In the off years you play the Ashes, Border-Gavaskar etc.

Decisive tests have a 270 over batting limit across both innings. That makes them six days, but it would have made the India-Sri Lanka snore fest from a fortnight ago pretty interesting.

[Adsy]

I think shorter Tests are a good idea. Fits in well with today's current taste for "instant entertainment" whilst still not messing fundamentally with the game too much. It would be more palatable for television execs who seem to have the game in their hands I think, especially in the subcontinent.

I had a look at the Test Championship proposal and its a great setup, but politics could play a bit of a role in the "regional" setup. Not sure if Australia v Namibia 3 home/3 away tests would fly. NZ run into traditional powerhouses Australia AND South Africa, whilst England get the hopeless Windies and a handful of ICC Associate countries.

But hey, why not just combine the two ideas?

[Russ]

Adsy, it is 1 home and away for Namibia/Zimbabwe, 2 home and away for NZ and SAF (the series lengthen as the games get more serious (more profitable). A short and sweet thrashing of an associate and one of NZ/Zim to start the summer has just enough novelty to be interesting, and is short enough not to freak out the administrators.

The Northern zone only has one qualifier, which makes things fairer - essentially half the test sides in each region qualify directly. It is a bigger problem having Ireland in their 3-team group, but it only takes one upset draw/loss for things to get interesting.

Ultimately NZ would need to roll two of WI and (Sri/Pak/Ind) to make the world group - that's their level right now, but they are at a low ebb. I estimate, based on the past 20 years and more that they'd probably either roll Aus or RSA or get through the world group about 40% of the time. And they get a healthy dose of meaningful cricket against decent (if not always the best) sides in the interim. It is much more unfair to Zimbabwe/Bangladesh who are likely to get relegated to an associate group in the regionals, but, hey it is not easy trying to expand the game AND balance the fixtures AND ensure the big-4 get lots of games against each other.

I don't think test cricket has that big an issue. It struggles because noone cares about (most) results, but institute a half decent championship and people will start watching. I read yesterday (I think) that they think they've solved the white ball problem for test cricket, so day/night tests will roll around sooner or later as well.

[The Don has risen]

thre is a very easy way to have exciting contests.
Have better pitches.

That one in NZ was way better than the one in Brisbane.
All wickets in India should be dup up and rebuilt

[Adsy]

Sorry Russ, I zigged when I should have zagged whilst looking at the chart.

I guess my argument was to "jazz" up current Test cricket in lieu of implementing something as wide ranging as a Test championship, especially given the reticence of some higher Test nations to adopt what looks like an excellent proforma to see the game go forward, as you mentioned in your manifesto.

If your going to be revolutionary in changing the game, why not take the Packer model as gospel;
a. Change the format (70 overs first innings)
b. Change the time the game is played (day/night Tests)
c. Change the structure (World Cup/Test Championship)
d. Bring in the TV dollars (naming rights/TV rights for the championship?)

In fact, it may indeed take a rebel group with someone like a Packer to get an idea like this off the ground at all, rather than wait for the ICC to stuff around and continue to be beholden to certain sections of the cricket world like they already are.

[pat]

Blood, sweat and Greens. The man's a fucking Oz Champion! Top effort from the Wezt Oztralian to knock out the brilliant Roy Jones Junior, but, what's more to do it all for the Mighty EELS!!!

[Tony]

In case you are interested - and I completely fail to see why you wouldn't be - I tacked on an addendum to the bottom of the post.

[Russ]

Thanks for the link Tony. I better finish writing it soon. After the weekend. The graphic I've been plugging went AWOL when you transposed the comments. So, here it is again: My Proposed Test Championship

The FTP hasn't been decided beyond 2012 either, incidentally. They are doing it right now, or thereabouts, (hence the increasing interest in formats and championships) for the period 2013-2016. It seems unlikely anything beyond a very basic set of quarters, semi-finals and final every couple of years between the 8 top ranked teams will occur.

Garner's thoughts were mentioned several times by Chappelli in Brisbane. They don't seem to get that the West Indies, for all their money troubles, are still able to play top-level cricket, and therefore in a vastly superior position to the associates being propped up with development money. I don't mind shifting some revenue to the Windies, but if it comes at the expense of 4 or 5 emerging nations what actually have you gained?