Hello, this is your above average American cricket fan again... I've been watching with interest the current ICC Intercontinental Cup final between a pretty consistant Scotland side and the up-and-coming Afghanistan cricket team.
And I have to ask myself, so what?
What is in it for the winner?
As it is now, the ICC has a structure for the "big eight" Test teams to play each other, year after year, fighting for... rankings. True, a "Test Championship" is on the way, but realistically speaking, who is in the running? India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia and England are in the top five, and really the only countries with a shot.
West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh are contenders in the shorter forms of the game, but not really competitive in the 5 day game. They play against the top teams, but never really harbor a chance of winning.
Then there's the 'minnows': Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands... and now Afghanistan! While it is nice to see a new side gain international attention, under the current ICC 'system' (or lack of a system) Afghanistan and teams with smilar talent have nowhere to go and no framework to build for the future.
Imagine a large dinner hall where a large, elegant table seats eight people. India, Pakistan, South Africa England and Australia are there, feasting on the finest foods. The West Indies, New Zealand are there as well, but sitting at the far end of the table, rely on the others to pass down the few paltry morsels that remain after "the big guys" have taken the best morsels.
Next to this big table sits a smaller one, where Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands sit. There are empty seats, and depending on the year, someone like Kenya or Afghanistan is allowed to sit. After the waiters have attended to the big table, they bring what scraps are left fom the big boys' plates and dump them into a bowl where the little guys fight for what remains.
And outside this banquet room, standing in the cold, starving and watching the others eat are the lowliest nations; the UAE, Hong Kong, the United States, Canada and Bermuda. While they can dream of picking through the garbage one day, they know they will never be able to sit at the large table and fully enjoy the feast. This is no way to enjoy a meal, is it?
But what if, instead of a series of tables, the ICC chose a ladder structure instead? Here is the model I propose:
At the highest level, six teams would play 5-day cricket in a two year round robin format. Four 3-Test series the first year, one 3-Test series and a semifinal/final Test series the next. The winner, of couse, would be crowned Test Champion, but the loser would be relegated down to the next tier, where it gets interesting...
The second tier would have a further six teams, but they would be playing four-day Tests. This not only reduces the cost and time commitment for part-time nations like Ireland and Scotland, but would allow the 'better' of the second tier teams (Bangladesh, New Zealand) to hone their skills and improve their game without weakening themselves over extra days that aren't usually needed. The 4 day Test also promotes a more attacking cricket as teams strive for a result.
The winner of this second tier would then, after the two year cycle, be promoted to 5 day cricket and have the chance to eat at the big table. Do not underestimate how important this would be. For a team like Ireland to be able to win its way up to compete with the big boys on cricket's greatest stage... would they not fight harder? Would their nation not find a way to promote and grow the game? If Scotland or the Netherlands knew that someday they could play a Test series in India or Australia - would that not be incentive to promote better cricket in their countries?
Likewise, a third tier - one where 3 day matches are played - could have any number of teams, and give a platform for the smaller countries to build on. Imagine Afghanistan and the USA playing a three day series in Florida fo the right to step up and take on better competition?
It HAS to be an improvement on the current setup - one where the outsiders are always outside, and the big guys share the feast only amongst themselves.
If the ICC is truly serious about improving the game globally, then they need to consider a way to grow, for a game played amongst 8 members year after year has nowhere to go and nowhere to grow, and that is what's killing Test cricket today.
Please let me know what you think of this idea. I want to know what you think!
Sobosan
Enjoy live cricket on www.criclights.com
Adam Craig Gilchrist, nicknamed Gilly or Church, is a former Australian cricket player. He is an aggressive left-handed opening batsman and a record-breaking wicket-keeper of the Australian team. He has declared as the best wicket-keeper-batsman of the history. He has gained the world record as a wicket-keeper. He made the most dismissals among all wicket-keepers of the World in the ODI match and the most dismissals among the Australians in the test match. The strike rate of Gilchrist is the highest in both ODI and test cricket. He holds the record of the second fastest century of the test at present. He is the unique player who had scored 100 sixes in test cricket. He has also the record of having at least 50 runs in the three successive world cup finals in 1999, 2003 and 2007.
