Why six-team Test divisions is not the answer

In the wake of South Africa and Australia’s crushing Test series wins over New Zealand and Sri Lanka there have been renewed calls for the introduction of a divisional structure for the longest format of the game. Some justifications for these calls are more convincing than others, and little indication is often given for how it could work in practice. Perhaps the most workable (though, as we will see, in my view nonetheless undesirable) solution is put forward by Tim Wigmore, and it’s his proposal - http://third-umpire.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/how-six-team-test-championship-would.html - that I will refer to in the course of this article. I will argue that, for a variety of reasons, a two-divisional structure is unworkable. However, my position is in fact not that far from Tim’s, and the international schedule that he proposes is quite similar to my optimum schedule.

Rationale

The primary rationale for the two-tier solution put forward by Tim is that it will provide ‘context’. This is a fairly reasonable thing to wish for. It is true that the lower ranked teams in particular are sometimes left with few long-term objectives in the five-day game, and that in six-team divisions operating on four-year cycles they would rarely find themselves out of contention for either the number 1 ranking, promotion or relegation. Nevertheless, I do feel that Test series should have enough context to them in their own right: it is some current scheduling issues which often prevent that from being the case. In particular, I believe that teams should play longer series against those that they are closest to in ability. Too often middle-ranking teams such as Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand play each other over two matches, preventing personal battles from developing, and making it difficult for teams to prioritise these encounters.

I also feel that Tim’s proposal to allow teams to arrange series against opponents from outside of their division could undermine the extra ‘context’ provided by a divisional structure. The losses resulting from relegation would be minimised, particularly were one of the bigger teams to go down, and there would also be less to gain from promotion. In the example Tim provides, were England relegated to Division Two they would still play twenty-two Tests over a four-year period against Australia, India and South Africa. Thus, it is hard to see exactly what they would have lost, other than now being forced to play Tests against some of the lesser lights.  Of course, in any two divisional system such a caveat is a necessity: the loss of the Ashes and a number of other encounters could have huge financial implications. However, I feel that a two-divisional system in which teams have a very similar schedule regardless of the division that they play in would be quite weak.

The second reason that Tim advocates a ‘two-tier’ structure is to promote ‘competitiveness’. On this I think the point is somewhat missed. As usual, the finger is pointed at Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for being involved in one-sided Tests. But in truth the number of Tests the pair are involved in is minimal. Bangladesh played just two Test Matches in 2012 (both of which, incidentally, turned out to be interesting games). In fact, since the start of 2010 Bangladesh have been involved in only 14 Tests. They have not won any of them, but they have been competitive for passages of play and the infrequency of their opportunities can’t help them in any way. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe’s return has been confined to four one-off Test Matches. We should not point the finger of blame too squarely at West Indies or New Zealand either. West Indies v Australia was one of the closest fought encounters of 2012, and New Zealand have beaten both Australia and Sri Lanka within the past 18 months. Thus, the vast majority of ‘one-sided’ series have in fact involved established nations: India in both England and Australia, Sri Lanka in Australia, England in the UAE. On this point my conclusion  would thus be that one-sided matches are an inevitability, and would be just as likely to occur in Tim’s two-tier system as in a single-tier system.

Practicalities

As I have said Tim’s proposal is far more likely to work than many other such proposals. However, there would still be issues. Firstly, Test series can’t just be scheduled over night. In England tickets usually go on sale up to a year in advance, and venues like to know which teams will be visiting at least a few years in advance. A divisional system makes that difficult. Secondly, even the best-planned schedules rarely come to fruition. Curveballs like security issues, finances and the IPL have led numerous international series to be delayed, cancelled or re-formatted in some other way. Right now this is only a frustration to the players and supporters. But when Test series are part of a league it would likely cause bigger problems.

Play-off matches

I am a cautious supporter of such matches, whilst not seeing them as either the saviour of Test cricket or that important in the long run. A series of well-marketed play-offs could help with ‘context’ (though this function would be limited, in my view), whilst providing the five-day game with a showpiece occasion outside of the Ashes, and thus open to the other major teams. But I’m not sure that Tim’s suggestion would work. Test grounds outside of England and sometimes (though not always) Australia are rarely full, even when the home team is involved. I don’t believe this is necessarily an indicator of lack of interest, but nevertheless suggests that the play-offs would be unlikely to be well supported. By holding a showpiece occasion without much of an audience, the myth that Test cricket is dying would surely be perpetuated, which would not be good for the game. In fact, it could turn the supposed decline into an actual one.

Promotion of associates

I am a strong believer that cricket does itself few favours by allowing only ten members a place at its top table. This reinforces the idea that the sport is a private members club of former British colonies, and makes life very hard for those below the glass ceiling. Therefore, Tim’s proposal to allow two current Associates to play Test cricket, and to perhaps also allow more teams to aspire to Tests through the Intercontinental Cup is a good one.

From the point of view of those nations that would be promoted I only have a small gripe with Tim’s proposal: the idea that they could return to the Intercontinental Cup should they perform poorly. My view is that this would be a financial disaster for the teams involved, who would have had to make big investments in order to host Tests in the first place. Whilst Test status would not be irrevokable, I would only advocate removing it when performances and administration are truly sub-standard, such as with the current Zimbabwe team.

My proposal

I will now proceed to outline what I would do:

1. All teams awarded Test status would remain in a single division. There would be no obligation for every team to play each other, although over a four-year cycle each established team should play at least eight different opponents in at least in a two match series home and away, including at least eight three-match series and at least two series of four or more matches. This would set 42 as the minimum number of Tests to be played by top teams in each cycle. New teams would be allowed to arrange Tests on a more ad hoc basis, and would not be expected to play a full schedule.

2. Full Member status would be awarded to those teams that, through the Intercontinental Cup, prove themselves to be consistently strong enough (a judgment to be made on the basic of recommendations from the ICC's cricket committee, made up of former and current players from around the world). With this they could play ODIs and could arrange Tests.  The barrier for inclusion would be set at around the current standard of Ireland and Afghanistan, allowing them to play Tests in the near future.

3. The current ICC rankings would be retained. Every two years the top two teams would contest a series of play-off matches for the ICC Test Championship mace (which would no longer be routinely awarded to the number 1). The series would feature three matches: two hosted by the team ranked 1^st, and one hosted by the team ranked 2^nd.

The schedule that England would fulfiill under these changes would in fact not be far  off that which Tim proposes for England were they in Division One. A degree of greater ‘context’ would be provided by the Test Championship play-off, but ‘context’ would be provided more by longer series between closer ranked teams than by this. The cricket world would also be expanded, without the ‘new’ teams facing the same obligations that Bangladesh did when they were ‘new’, and which led to a repetitive  and damaging string of heavy defeats.