The current proposal for tiers is not so that New Zealand, South Africa, and Pakistan can play India, Australia, and England more. It's so that there can be more Ashes series and more Border-Gavaskar Trophy series now that these big nations don't have to take any time out of their schedule to play Bangladesh or the West Indies. India, Australia, and England will continue to play against New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka no more and no less than they do now. The current proposal is a blatant money grab that will see Bangladesh and the West Indies go the way of Zimbabwe. That's not growing the game.
@oliverqueen5883 No doubt a tiered system, if done correctly, would be great for Ireland, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe, who all currently just exist in some irrelevant no-man's land outside of the World Test Championship. I'm not sure the current proposal will help in the long-term though. West Indies cricket will die and Bangladeshi cricket will decline if they stop playing the top seven nations. Zimbabwe, Ireland, and Afghanistan will continue to languish at the bottom of the rankings but they'll just have two more compatriots to rot with at the bottom, worlds away from ever dreaming of challenging any of the top seven nations as the gap inevitably widens. I hope the ICC can find a better way of fixing the system for the betterment of ALL Test nations.
Great vid. I have a few points. 1. The WTC is already a quasi tier system. India, England, and Australia play roughly half their test matches against each-other rather than the implied 1 quarter that would be presumed from being in a "9 team competition". 2. England is not really ranked 6th and would be in no great danger of being relegated to a 2nd tier in a fairer system. The thing damaging England right now is that WTC points are decided on a per game basis rather than a per series basis, as well as the fact they play against the world beating India and Australia. Other nations that appear to "overtake" England universally have an "easier draw". In reality they are the 4th best team and significantly ahead of 5th place! 3. It's a great point that the status quo is already heavily tiered in many ways. Ireland doesn't play much and Bangladesh do? Scotland and Netherlands are excluded from playing a 4 day game against each-other for what reason? 4. I think resolving these grey areas with promotion/relegation is the only fair way. If Ireland is flogging Afghanistan all the time they should start playing the Windies, if Sri Lanka is always flogging the Windies they should be playing India, etc. 5. A smaller "tier 1" would reward successful nations like South Africa and New Zealand with more series against the "big 3", right now there's nothing in the system to reward them more than struggling teams like the Windies except for the 1 WTC final game every 2 years. 6. I think to take the pressure off the lower tiers organising many series they could have progressively fewer teams. For example, tier 1 could have 7 nations, tier 2 5 nations, tier 3 3 nations and allow 1 match series, and then tier 4+ having only 2 nations. This way nations naturally play more test cricket per year as their ability and capacity slowly change over time. The numbers could be tweaked later if interest expands.
I'm confused. You say England are 4th best and daylight behind them. Ok, so who are your top 3. Some combo of SA, Aus and India seems reasonable, but then you are saying NZ are daylight behind England after they've just beaten India 3-0 and thrashed England in their last match. Right now, all you can confidently say is England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka make up the second group of three and any of them can beat the other on their day.
@@MatiuPirihimanawe’ve just beaten New Zealand in New Zealand and have won 3 of our last 5 matches in NZ, and 6 of our last 8 against them if you include their most recent tour over here. We’ve clearly shown we’re a better side than them over recent contests.
@MatiuPirihimana the only important point I'm making is that right now England are *way* too strong to be relegated in a fair system with 7 spots in the top league. I could see the argument that NZ is above England, but I don't think that's fair to say yet. Perhaps if NZ puts up solid results for the next year and a half. The trouble is NZ don't play against good teams often enough. I think you have to be cautious extrapolating from the kiwi tour to India in the very short term. And of course the South Africa tour to NZ basically can't count because SA sent a B team. The current ICC rankings put Australia way in the lead, then India and South Africa essentially tied in 2nd, then England just a shade behind in 4th, the NZ way back in 5th, then an even bigger gap to Sri Lanka in 6th, then a small gap to Pakistan in 7th, etc.
2. WTC points are pro rata percentage based, how does that negatively affect England more than anyone else? If you're good enough to beat someone 2-0 or 3-0 you should be good enough to beat them 4-0 or 5-0 3. Scotland and Netherlands have no incentive to play a 4 day game and without the test label it would hemmorage money. Without the ICC ran Intercontinental Cup I doubt we will see any FC cricket between associates. 5 & 6. If test funds were pooled neither of these points would be an issue at all
@nathanelder3192 2. It's a percentage of total Test wins rather than being adjusted for series length like in 2019-2021 cycle. If a team plays 5 tests against India and then 2 tests again Bangladesh and 2 tests against Sri Lanka then the India series is where the *majority* of their points are on offer. What I'm saying is that the fact the Big3 play long series against each-other and shorter series against other nations artificially deflates the ladder position of the weakest of the Big3. But in a fair system the should melt away. Ergo I think the fearmonger of England's potential relegation that I have seen if misinformed. 3. I'm saying they should be sanctioned to play it, yes. 5 and 6. Yes there should be some sharing, but even I don't think there will be *complete* sharing. The participating nations in the profitable series will profit the most and thereby be a reward for teams that make it into the top league.
Test already doesn't has enough countries and gate keeping most revenue generating games away from less economically potent teams will only strengthen status quo and will be hard for them to get sustainable. I think it's overall not good for game to officially create tiers
But isn't that how sport works though if you wanna play the big money making games well get better. If hull city want to make money well get better and get into the premier league. We shouldn't be doing favours to teams cuz they were good 50 years ago. 1 country shouldn't be getting more tours than other cuz they're a better vacation spot
@@paramtageja6891 It's a nice idea but it's not really how sport works at this level. The teams that draw the biggest crowds and attract the biggest broadcast deals are the ones that get to play in all the big games. You could be playing cricket at a higher level than any nation has ever done, but if you have a population the size of New Zealand then you'll always be begging for scraps from the likes of India and England. It sucks but it's unlikley to change even in a tiered system.
@@paramtageja6891 but they pooling of revenues in uefa and epl to ensure smaller teams get financial support and equitable share of revenues inorder to promote competitiveness and reduce gap b/w quality of teams hence making the sport more exciting!
The issue is not "not enough countries playing Tests". I would posit there are already *too many* countries already playing Tests. Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland hardly ever play Test matches. I can't recall the last time they played Test cricket against anyone other than each other - and even then, they play a 2 Test series and that's it for the year. With 12 countries actively involved, there's the potential for 6 Test series going on around the world at any one time. Clearly, that doesn't happen. At most we have 3 series, before a break of several months - which means 6 teams are twiddling their thumbs at any point. The reason is that the interest is that - outside of England, India and Australia - the interest is just not there. Fans will not turn up for 4 days (even though they're supposed to be 5 day matches) of Test cricket in enough numbers to make it worthwhile. The market has spoken, which is why there are so many domestic 20-over leagues around the world. South Africa had their Test players in their domestic league rather than playing Test cricket when WTC points were on the line, for crying out loud.
The problem with the 2 tier model is that test tours are expensive and need to be resourced properly. Many lower ranked teams currently rely on tours from India, Australia and England to survive financially. Without these tours, it will be cost prohibitive for most tier 2 teams to undertake test tours. Hence, without proper funding for the tier 2 teams, they will become largely T20 only, even more so than under the status quo.
"Australian cricket fans are at risk of being plunged into a television black hole for Sri Lanka, with no network having yet acquired the rights for the two-Test series. Three weeks out from the first Test in Galle, AAP has been told that neither Foxtel or any other Australian television broadcaster had so far agreed to show the matches." ^ this is devastating. I remember during the 2000's and early 2010's some excellent series in Sri Lanka covered by Foxtel. Nathan Lyon's debut comes to mind. Any serious test cricket fan in Australia would want to see this series.
I think something will definitely be worked out. England have faced similar scenarios recently and something has always been worked out. If they don't though I think it'll end up just getting streamed on youtube.
Tiers can be done well, if it was just the current 12 teams and you kept the 3 series away and 3 at home like the current WTC you can organise it so that you play 2 away and home against teams in your own tier then 1 home and away against the lower one. Bigger teams teams can still play lower ones but boards still get the revenue they so clearly desire.
You hit the nail on the head regarding the finances. I have always felt it similarly. There should be some incentive for smaller teams to play test cricket. If we go for a tiered system which means more test series between the big3 or big 4 and more revenue which only benefits the big 3, it doesnt help test cricket. I think having a pooled revenue is a great option which wont get an approval. But, at the very least, something like 30 percent of the revenue generated in the tier 1 should go to supporting test cricket in tier 2. This is how we will get more test teams and this is how we will get the smaller nations to take test cricket seriously.
Yeah, pretty much. I think a lot of the backlash to the tiered suggestion is because its coming from the heritage group, the "big three". I don't think anyone is convinced that the pool will be anything more than a stagnant pond. I'm worried about teams like WI and Bangladesh just getting nothing in tier 2 and as a result having no path back. Also nobody is convinced that any of those big three teams will allow themselves to be relegated. Cancel the ashes because England is in tier 2? No chance. I would support a system like you described, but what has been put forward just stinks of three boards saying, these are the teams we want to play going forward, good luck everyone else.
We can have the last team in tier one demoted to tier 2 n top team of tier 2 promoted to tier 1....also in tier 1 we will keep teams like Pak, sl etc so that they will be the one demoted as they are shit, also a change in points system is required...to make sure that the team which plays many matches doesn't face any disadvantage....u can see how england, Australia n india play so much of cricket but still somehow south africa with 2 match series somehow qualifies for the final...so a long discussion is needed but acc to me this is good for test cricket...it will make sure it survives for long in the era of t20s and leagues...
@@shardulkedar6689as you said you'll keep Pakistan and Sri Lanka so that they're the ones that relegated but what if England or India were the ones by chance to get relegated I guarantee they'll scrap the system on the spot. And you saying big 3 play more matches and south africa qualify by Playing less matches against lesser teams, well who's fault is that. It's not south Africa's fault that the big 3 want to play each other all the time
@@paramtageja6891As a West Indian fan, I am okay with the tiers in concept but I know India in particular along with probably Australia and England won't be demoted ever in reality and not based on cricketing prowess.
The main issue with the Super League as is, is how different the number of games certain teams play and who their opponents are. South Africa didn't play a single game against England or Aus, whereas India played them in over half their games. If we're going to keep the Wtc system, then teams should play every other team and every team should play the same number of games. If we say the first 3 games of every tour count for WTC points, then that doesn't stop longer tours, it's just that the first 3 games are where you can win WTC points. And if you play every team, then one cycle can be a home series, and the next will be away.
Love it, I have nerd documents on this too, with four tiers. Tier 1 5 day tests and minimum 3 test series, tier 2 five day tests minimum two test series, tier 3 four day tests mimimum two test series, tier 4 three day tests minimum two test series. below that, we have 5 confederations. Americas, Indo-West Asia, East Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa. Each confederation decides their own system to find a champion, the confederation winners go to the global playoff, the winner of the global playoff gets automatic promotion to tier 4 whilst last place in tier 4 gets automatically relegated back to confederation play. Personally, I think 6 teams is fine per tierr, even 5. One advantage with that is there could be rules around "development series", for example if there's only five series in a two year cycle then there's a lot fo room in the calendar, in which case you could have rules about bi-laterals must be played between tiers to help with development and growth. Alternatively, tiers of five, but now it's every year. Four series a year, with automatic promotions and relegations, it will mean lots more shifting and interest. Also, it creates a situation whereby tier 2 has legitimacy. Under current proposals, tier 2 could be quite sad if it's West Indies and below. But if Tier 2 is Pakistan, England, West Indies, Bangladesh, and meanwhile Tier 3 already starts with Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland, that is a hell of a lot more interesting and more people would be more likely to watch other tiers. And lastly - bring it all together, all the formats. It's no longer the WTC, it's the WCC. A whole series of minimum 3 T20, 3 ODI and 2 tests has points valuations. No more white ball/red ball tours, just cricket tours, all formats on a equal playing field. Bilaterals of one format could in theory still exist as it's only 4 series a year.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Wow. I see that you have made a very interesting point here which I didn't consider. make it a full long tour of all 3 formats. Like the good old days when you would have proper tours. But the problem is long tours means bigger squads which is not a privilege enjoyed by many teams. So either we start with the test matches and then go to white ball
Actually, test cricket is already a 2 tier system. 1. The first being Australia, England and India who control cricket and who play each other the whole time. 2. And then the rest.
The main issue I see currently with the proposed two-tiered system is the amount of countries playing test cricket. We've only got 12 test nations at the moment, and a tiered system would work much better if we have at least 16 or more test nations playing. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we want more countries playing this amazing form of the game so as to make the possible tiered system more viable. In order to get more countries playing tests, the Big 3 and the ICC must invest in smaller cricketing nations, allowing them the financial capability to start and continue playing test cricket. This applies to current test nations as well, such as Zimbabwe and Scotland, who do play test cricket, but who would be able to play even more of it if there was a stronger financial viability.
The big teams corner all the resources and then they use it as further excuse for excluding the lower teams (because they're not performing). It's ridiculous to me that Shastri could say without any restraint that the bottom teams should not be playing the higher-ranked teams, why? Because they're bad, and why are they bad? Well, because they don't have good First-Class structures. Well there you go, shouldn't the ICC step in to resolve this teething problem. Obviously until you build decent foundational structures, you won't have good teams. And while we're at it, why don't non-test teams get at least FC matches against test teams? I mean for eg, India can easily schedule a 4-day game with Scotland in preparation for their England tour. You can have a 4-day game against Namibia before touring South Africa, and a 4-day game against Nepal before touring India. This to me is an obvious lacuna which somehow is never pointed out. Unless you give more FC games to players of lower-ranked teams, how will they improve? And how will FC teams upgrade to test cricket without adequate exposure? And I barely see any scope for change because the big teams and broadcasters call all the shots, and they're only interested in more and more monopolization instead of investing in smaller teams.
I think a 3 tiered system would work the best with 6 teams in each tier. Make the third tier matches 4 day events equivalent to First Class cricket working like the Intercontinental Cup best team in which Afghanistan and Ireland were granted the test status. Put a pathway in place for teams below the third tier to replace the worst teams from the third tier with some sort of multiday cricket or even one day cricket like WCL Division 1 teams normally used to play in the Intercontinental Cup. - Pooling the money for each tier like the other ICC tournament with some percentage of that pool passed down to the lower tier (like PL does to the EFL) would may be make it more feasible for lower tier teams to play multiday cricket. - Have a fixed number of series for each team in each tier in a cycle unlike in the current WTC included within a mandatory series between tiers with their points being worth more or less for the teams than series inside a tier depending which tier the two teams are and may be a neutral venue series. This allows the legacy series like the Ashes or BGT to happen if somehow the teams end up in different tiers and possibility of IND vs PAK series at a neutral venue. For example for IND in Tier 1 : vsAus(H), vsSA(A), vsNZ(H), vsPak(N), vsSL in tier 2(A) *Matches between Tier 2 and 3 teams -First class status - The top teams at the first class tier need to show they have infrastructure and domestic structure in place for them to be granted promotion to test tier 2 replacing the lowest ranked teams there and similar for teams wanting to get into the First Class tier, with ICC defined criteria
This video is a more detailed version of an opinion I've held on Test cricket for nearly a decade. Thank you Jarrod for explaining this incredibly well
The problem is, nowhere in the new model is promotion/relegation discussed - presumably to keep them Australia, India & England cash flow going, even if 1 of the sides were to have a dip.
Another thing about comparing test cricket to a proper league system. What makes test cricket unique in this perspective, is that even in tiers u don't play typical league games. It'll still be played.as bilateral series. There will be a trophy at the end of every series to win. So I don't think that it'll be irrelevant. Coz u aren't playing one - off matches. U are playing series. When you are locked into a series 1-1 and go into the 3rd match being the decider, no one cares about the greater tier context, ppl wanna see who wins the series.
You can also have overlapping tiers. Like if England was to fall down a tier they would still play the Ashes across tiers. This is like the NFL where they play home and away within their division but the other half of their matches are against teams outside the division.
lol no that makes a mockery of the whole thing. If we dropped down a tier, we play the teams in the tier we’re in, especially as there is all of the white ball and the hundred commitments and only so much space in the calendar.
A tier system with promotion and relegation sounds interesting, I hope something like that happens if we are ever going to have a tier system in Test Cricket.
Exactly, if you are not able to play with top test playing nation it should be because you are bad at test cricket and not because some old folks decide who gets to play and who does not. Countries given freedom to make pitch of their liking + 4 day test + tier. Is the way to go
Combination of a pool and tier system is probably the best way forward. If we don’t want newer test nations getting pumped by nations that are already well established could we use some nations A sides to foster talent through competition. In regards to the WTC cycle some changes definitely need to be made as we can’t have some teams playing nearly double the matches of others, some teams are playing two match series whilst others are playing 3 or 5 and finally point deductions that make no sense.
Truth is there could be 12 test match quality sides if resources and governance was sound in each test playing nation. Unfortunately it’s not. It’s a lot easier to ensure some level of equality in a club based competition than a country one. It’s also easier to get marketing going well in a club competition, some countries are so poor at their marketing they just don’t have a clue and so they don’t bring as much to the table as they should be. I don’t like the 2 tier system, but if there are nations not pulling their weight in terms of their first class structure, their planning and growth of the red ball game, then they either need to be helped along or maybe they need to be paused till the next cycle while they get their house in order. So no one gets kicked but some teams get the tough love they need (and assistance) to ensure they are always on a good path towards growth.
An efficient tier system is the way forward, even if it has flaws initially it can be refined over time. - A two-tier system with 7 teams in Tier 1 and 5 teams in Tier 2. - Over a two-year cycle, Tier 1 teams compete against each other for the WTC title, while Tier 2 teams vie for promotion. Promotion and Relegation: - Before the next cycle begins, the top 2 teams from Tier 2 and the bottom 2 from Tier 1 will participate in a multi-nation tournament. - The top 2 teams from this tournament advance to Tier 1 for the next cycle, while the remaining 2 move to Tier 2 to try again. This system ensures that Tier 2 teams have ample opportunities to play competitive cricket and are rewarded for strong performances. As the competition grows and teams become more competitive, the system can be adapted to accommodate future changes and challenges.
Slight disagreement, it would hard for fans to digest test numbers being thrown out the window because of lower quality tests. It’s already weird we see so many records being broken by unknown players playing other unknown players. Instead, the first tier can be test cricket, and the other tiers can be some form of international first class cricket (official first class games but not test games). The tiers can be top 10, 11-15, and 16-20. This way, the associate nations are still playing their quality (ie Ireland and Netherlands are playing nations with experience, not Japan or Belgium). 9th ranked team plays 2nd team of tier 2, 10th ranked team plays 1st team of tier 2. Same sort of format for relegations and promotions between tier 2 and tier 3. We don’t want to tinker a lot with traditional test cricket, that’s the reason we love the game. And keeping a top 10 structure will keep test cricket that way, but this structure allows (or rather forces) associate and affiliate nations to play first class cricket, giving it importance. Also gives a chance for a team like Ireland to play India Australia and England in a proper test series (with merit). It would be difficult to fund the first class games for 20 nations but if test cricket grows in other countries, viewership might increase as well. One thing is for certain, as classist as it sounds test cricket should remain for the elite. We can’t have some Australian expat in Belgium smacking 40 year old part time cricketers in jersey and creating a test record for himself. If the test records are all broken and not hard fought, we won’t like it as fans.
Do you think that if India regresses as a test nation the clamour around the two tier system will die down ? India have a transition on their hands. With Ashwin gone, and the triumvirate of Jadeja, Kohli and Sharma on their last legs..if they were to have a bad tour to England then suddenly India would have a gaping hole in their test side for the home season.
The most important aspect of any new system will be the promtion/relegation capacity. It doesn't matter as much how many teams are in the division so long as the team's on the outside know there is a guaranteed method of getting into it. Just watch their boards get busy once they've got that to focus on. Division 2 would have to be made to look properly competitive though - I can imagine NZ getting stuck down there playing Ireland, Afgahnistan and Scotland, it would be no way to prepare for a play off match with a division 1 team
The first thing to recognise is there is no chance they will ever risk India, Australia or England dropping in to a 2nd tier. That means there will never be as few as 6 teams in 1st division, as that presents too great a chance of the big money generating tours being locked out because one of the big 3 fell out of the top division. Which means you need 8 teams in the 1st division at a minimum. But for a division to work, you need to play every team in the division an equal number of times. They're not reducing the frequency of Australia, India & England series, because that's where the money in test cricket is made. And if you want all series of equal length, that means you're playing 7 test series with 4 or 5 matches each every two years. That's 140 or 175 days of test cricket per nation, every two years. Then you fit T20, ODI and franchise T20 in amidst all that? Or do we reduce the length of series between the major nations, or their frequency to once every 3 years? Is the path forward and the way to drive growth in the game really to have Australia and India play only once every 3 years in a 3 test series? Does anyone really think we can advance the game by having the best quality and highest profile series played in shorter series, less often? Its why I just don't think a league works. It makes me wonder if the best answer isn't something closer to boxing, with a system where you earn the right to play higher tier nations through victories against lower tier nations. It would mean there are no leagues with tables of wins and losses, so no requirement to play Windies as often as you play England, just because Windies snuck in to 8th place in the rankings. But it would allow for a kind of system where nations would have a clear pathway to earn tours against higher profile nations.
Well the hope is the lower teams after playing many matches with higher teams, they improve their cricket... So at start we might see uncompetitive test series, but after some time the gap would be reduced... I also think the lower tiers should play 4 day tests and only top tier should play 5 day tests
@@pitchipuka1613 That's a decent hope, but it would take many years to start to see results. That's a lot of years of sitting through 4 or 5 test series between India and West Indies before they hopefully use the money to start bringing some talented kids through the system. I'm not sure that bulk of long, generally poor cricket is going to produce the money to start fixing things, especially not if it means the best quality, highest earning tours start happening less.
What you said would create a situation where basically the lower teams would just give up on test cricket cuz they're will be no incentive for the board or the players to play test cricket. In boxing you have to go one way whereas in cricket you can just switch formats and leave test cricket and make more money. First it will be west indies but in some years it's going to be New zealand or south africa cuz they're talent pool isn't deep enough to create world class players generation after generation and then you're again back to the drawing board with only a handful of teams playing test cricket
@@paramtageja6891 That isn't remotely true. I am saying giving smaller nations automatic series is not even close to practical. Recognising that doesn't somehow cost smaller nations any funding - its the situation they're in now. What I am suggesting is a mechanism where they can clearly see what on-field performances they would have to deliver to gain those series. You're also assuming that not having those series means no funding. That's only true if we keep the current broken funding arrangements, and I never said we should keep those systems. Stop making up ideas to argue against and instead read what I'm actually writing.
I can’t escape the conclusion that ultimately, Test cricket’s future health (certainly outside of the Big 3) comes down to the implementation of a CBA and resource sharing like you mentioned Jarrod. Would the EPL be such a strong league and an engaging overall product if at inception, Manchester United and Liverpool had been allowed to sell the TV rights to their home games separately to the smaller clubs? I doubt it. While not a perfect system, selling all games within a league as a package both increases exposure for smaller teams and revenue as a whole, from which the sport can grow. Highly doubt the Big 3 would agree to this though as they already get the lion’s share of $$- and why would Turkeys vote for Christmas?
I don't like the idea of the tier system for Test matches. It should be the best XI cricketers of one country against another, with bilateral agreements on who is playing whom (i.e. it doesn't need to be a League to have relevance!). It would be great if some of the smaller Test playing countries could get more of the global revenue to help them keep developing, and I also reckon there should be no barriers for non-Test teams playing each other and calling them Test matches.
it could be although there was a mystique in the 70's and 80's that is hard to rival. What we have now though, in the past 20 odd years are 4 really good teams and 2 pretty good teams (NZ & SL) going at it... and Pakistan and the West Indies and some others.
definitely an interesting discussion, 2024 was probably the best year of test cricket I can remember, the big Australia and India series was record breaking and a great watch, but also when smaller teams took it to the bigger teams like West Indies and Australia or new Zealand to India. the risk is that changing what we have right as it seems to be getting momentum might ruin it. but also I think this is the perfect time to start expanding the sport whilst retaining some of the heritage and prestige that makes the sport great. clearly the big teams playing each other more is good for the game but so is when a smaller team gets a good go, I would go further and have 3 tiers of 8 or 9 where 2 or 3 are relegated or promoted. I'm not sure how the money side would work, that's for egg heads who like maths, but I think the competition and drama a 3 relegation 3 tier system would bring is good for the game, there's definitely more talent out there.
2024 was great year of test cricket cuz test cricket as a game and a product is so unique and amazing. It had nothing to do with its administration or it's system
When it comes to cricket I'm a bit of a traditionalist, as I much prefer the longer forms of the game.. But when it comes to the status quo etc I agree with Jarrod's analysis. I think the best way forward is to grow the game. Cricket is already growing in many countries, which I'm sure is mostly thanks to the fantastic cricketers from the subcontinent who have migrated elsewhere, taking their love of the game with them. This is the time to harness that enthusiasm and put money behind it. In my view, if this opportunity is missed then I suspect Test cricket will wither and die. I'm pretty sure T20 will survive, but I would love to see Test cricket as a truly global sport. The game needs its next Packer revolution and I think it's overdue, so I'm in favour of tiered Test leagues. I think the WTC has already made a difference, as there is no such thing as a dead rubber any more; imagine the impact promotion/relegation battles would have.
I think before they start tiered(2 or 3) test cricket, they need to give enough time and resources to teams to improve their rankings to give them a chance to be in tier 1. Once relegated they would stay there for long periods till the start of the next test championship cycle.
Tier 3: 2 divisions of 3 day first class international matches? Promotion *earns* you test status for the duration of your stay in Tiers 2 & 1. Kind of like the non-league bits of a football pyramid. Means test status still means something. Cool ideas, I think, but I suspect moot considering all the financial implications. As a Scot I'd love to see something like it though.
Think where we could be if we had done this with East Africa starting in the 1970s or Kenya in the 2000s and let them access test cricket then. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania now have a combined population of over 160M. A huge potential market for fans in a relatively decent timezone for watching matches in the sub-continent (or vice versa) and plenty of chance to develop both regional rivalries between themselves and with the Southern African cricket nations. Instead, they are all stuck playing Challenge League with little chance of progressing.
More teams playing is good, however we run the risk of teams be unable to break through the ranks. You'll dominate your tier, move up and get demolished and fall back down, and never be able to get the experience. It is optimistic you talk about putting context to stats, but its futile when you see how they get treated now, people will constantly talk about how Williamson averages 20 in SA or how their D team doesn't count, and the amount of "but they didn't win an away WTC series" until India. There certainly will be folks how dismiss it as "lower tier bullying" or something.
Yes, But only if its meaningful for the world test championship (WTC). My proposal is 2 year cycle. 3 tiers. Teams from tier 1 can play teams from tier 2/3 but doesn't count towards WTC points. Only 5 teams in tier 1 and 5 teams in 2, rest in tier 3. (Yes that means some top teams will be in tier 2, maybe 3 from time to time.) Each team plays each other team in their tier at least twice (home or away) in each cycle. (if there is a 3,4,5 test series, two of those tests will be nominated as "counting" towards WTC points, if there is Draw due to weather, another test in that series can be nominated if it is available.) Each teams will have 8 tests counting towards WTC. (Bonus points for away test wins). Some calculations will be required to ensure teams submit the same amount of home/away test results. WTC final will be mobile, The country that currently holds WTC chooses venue. (even if they are not involved in final) Relegation/Promotion games will occur at same time as WTC with tier 1, last place playing tier 2, 1st place for promotion/relegation. and same for tier 2/3
Having an organised system for test matches would be good, with a set number of games play at a time of year for the best cricketing weather, if you want test to be the highest form of the game. Then we can talk about having a tier system and a season which will last many years to get a result if each team plays a series twice a year once home and once away. Yes open test match cricket to any country that wants to compete. Having a organised global calender for national and internation cricket would be great for the game, rather than this haphazard way things are done now.
You make a lot of sense. Unfortunately the heritage system needs to go, but they won't go for it. This is cricket. There's much hand wringing about growing the game, but every decision goes in the wrong direction, either for short term financial reasons, or because 'tradition'.
I’ve been thinking a tier system would be a good idea for years. Just to get the weaker teams playing more test cricket and the stronger teams to keep on their toes. You could even keep the WTC with the same 9 teams, and add a couple of others to the tier below, and whoever finishes last getting demoted and the best of the rest getting a chance to play amongst the big teams
I am very much a votary for the growth of the game and am frankly exhausted by all the efforts to preserve the status quo so that the big boards can profit as much as possible (before market saturation will inevitably catch up and these administrators, who really don't care for the sport, will move on to other profitable things). That being said, I don't agree with giving everyone Test recognition. I also disagree with giving everyone T20I recognition. Instead I think we should have a clear system of promotion and relegation from Test cricket. This is what I think could be a good tiered structure, and Jarrod, I hope you read this. I want a 3-tiered semi-osmotic structure for 4 teams. This should be based on rankings purely and not commercial heft, and it is extremely unfortunate that in cricket, the "experts" openly and explicitly talk about preserving the position of countries with commercial heft (like Ind, Aus, Eng) regardless of performance, while being indifferent to teams which perform well but have less commercial heft. So this is what I propose (I'll follow current test rankings for initial tier distribution): Tier 1 (Australia, South Africa, India, England); Tier 2 (New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies); Tier 3 (Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan). Teams belonging to Tier 1 will play each other, and each Tier 1 team will also play 2 teams from Tier 2. Those matches we can call Tier 1/2. Each Tier 2 team will play each other and also play 2 teams from Tier 1 (Tier 1/2) and 2 teams from Tier 3 (Tier 2/3). Tier 3 will play each other and 2 teams from Tier 2 (Tier 2/3). After every cycle, there should be promotion and relegation. There should also be a Tier 4 of First Class international teams or a revival of the Intercontinental Cup (why was it stopped?), so that the top team from this Tier can be promoted to test cricket and the bottom team from Tier 3 lose its test status for the next cycle. We can also have Tier 3/4 FC games so that there can be more matches in the calendar and each team is made more competitive. For eg, Netherlands would obviously benefit if they got to play FC games against Bangladesh. Promotion and relegation should be based on some kind of collective points formula taking into account both within-tier and cross-tier matches. In my view, the higher you're ranked, the more marquee and longer test series you should get to play. For example, if it is 12 test teams here, this is how I'll order it: Australia - 6 tests, South Africa - 6 tests, India - 5 tests, England - 5 tests, New Zealand - 4 tests, Sri Lanka - 4 tests, Pakistan - 3 tests, West Indies - 3 tests, Bangladesh - 2 tests, Ireland - 2 tests, Zimbabwe - 1 test, Afghanistan - 1 test. If you're playing any team in your bracket, then you play the number of matches mentioned. So Australia-South Africa should be the only 6-match series. If you're playing against a lower-bracket team, then you play the number of matches assigned to the lower-bracket team. So, Australia-India or Australia-England would be 5 tests. This obviously means that the most marquee series designed under this is Australia-South Africa, and for eg The Ashes to have 5 test matches, Australia-England will have to remain in the Top 4. I know this format would likely not be favoured by broadcasters or big boards. But I think it is both will justify the hype for big series, and it also gives an incentive to all teams to get better so that they can be part of longer and marquee test series. It's really strange to me that a powerhouse team like South Africa seldom gets more than 3 tests. Or India literally gets done with New Zealand tours (which they do once in 6 years btw) with only 2 tests. Something is not correct about this, and team opportunities are almost entirely linked to board revenue instead of performance. Anyway, I hope for all those who have read this, you'll share your views on it :)
If it does not happen in real life, U can at least try the tiered test system in a video game haha (like Cricket 24) - I may even do it myself even it is not a real-life model/prototype.
I think the tiered system will not work. Firstly open up test matches to any nation that wants to play and standardise test series to consist of 3 matches. Then create a tournment, similar to the UEFA champions league, You have a group stage where each team plays a series home and away and the winners of the groups going into a knockout stage. This tournment would be on probably a 5 or 6 year rotation and there would be a ranking system so you wouldn't get India Australia and South Africa in the same group. I think that this would be the best solution because that smaller nations get to play the big nations and every test series has meaning. Then guys you can mock England for not getting to the knock out stage.
I think so the 3 tiers system would be really good but the test played between the lower team tier shouldn't be counted as an official test it should be called something like an associated test or test A , because the lower team doesn't have the same quality of cricket that the tier one team would have.
If there is a fixture list that sees everyone play everyone, promotion and relegation, a path for new nations to join, no final that ruins the entire two year cycle as meaningless, and the chance for series between tier one and two outside the setup (if it’ll happen we’ll see but India would still make money for example and if England get relegated we can’t have the ashes cancelled). If these conditions are there I’m all for it Knowing the ICC it’ll be the opposite
They can use my Idea which I developed 2 years back : - Teams Classification Tier - 1 Tier - 2 Tier - 3 Australia West Indies Ireland India Pakistan Afghanistan England Sri Lanka Netherlands South Africa Bangladesh Scotland New Zealand Zimbabwe Points Criteria Same Tier Teams Outcome Home Away Test Win 18 24 Test Loss 0 0 Test Draw 12 16 Test Tie 15 15 When Higher Tier Plays Lower Tier (E.g., Australia vs. Pakistan or Sri Lanka vs. Afghanistan) Higher Tier Points: Outcome Home Away Test Win 12 14 Test Loss 0 0 Test Draw 4 6 Test Tie 6 6 Lower Tier Points: Outcome Home Away Test Win 20 26 Test Loss 2 3 Test Draw 8 12 Test Tie 6 6 When Tier 3 Teams Play Tier 1 Teams (E.g., Ireland vs. India) Tier 3 Points: Outcome Home Away Test Win 24 30 Test Loss 8 4 Test Draw 16 20 Test Tie 12 12 Tier 1 Points: Outcome Home Away Test Win 12 16 Test Loss 0 2 Test Draw 8 12 Test Tie 2 2 Match Requirements Per Tier Tier 1: Play 18-22 matches per year. Mandatory: 1-2 series with Tier 2 teams. Optional: At least 1 match with a Tier 3 team. Example: India (20 Matches) 6 with Australia 6 with England 3 with New Zealand 3 with South Africa 2 with Bangladesh/Sri Lanka/West Indies Tier 2: Play 12-14 matches per year. Mandatory: 2 series with Tier 1 teams. Mandatory: 1-2 series with Tier 3 teams. Example: Pakistan (14 Matches) 3 with West Indies 2 with Sri Lanka 2 with Bangladesh 3 with England 2 with Afghanistan 2 with South Africa Tier 3: Play 6-8 matches per year. Mandatory: 2 series with Tier 2 teams. Optional: At least 1 match with a Tier 1 team, if possible. Example: Ireland (7 Matches) 1 with Afghanistan 1 with Netherlands 1 with Scotland 1 with Zimbabwe 1 with Sri Lanka 2 with Bangladesh
As long as there are crossover games I can see merit in it. Obviously we can't have Australia, India, England et al playing each other and completely ignoring the rest - that reeks of greed and would make test cricket worse for it. There is merit where the likes of Afghanistan and Ireland have their focus on teams directly around them and having 1/2 series against a top 3 team - being destroyed by Australia or England every series just doesn't help their development (as we saw with Bangladesh's example), while at the same time it does offer that carrot to them to play such a presitgious team.
I think there is also the need to separate the currently ambiguous 'Test status' from the also ambiguous but very quantifiable criteria for full membership in the ICC.
No. Absolutely not. The idea of a Test is the highest level possible, and you can't have two or more highest levels of Cricket. This will end up accelerating its demise, as the Ind Vs Aus, Eng Vs Ind and The Ashes will all become trivialised if they happen every year to 18 months. The ICC just need to hold firm on TV rights deals and, if absolutely necessary, lobby the big boys' governments.
one of the main points of this video was that too much cricket is being played already. we wouldn't have to have any of those high profile series you've mentioned every year to 18 months, because there would be at least 6 teams in the highest tier. assuming you play 1 series every 4 months or so (because test series are generally accompanied by odi and t20i series as well, dont forget domestic t20s and FC cricket) that would mean 24 months, ie 2 years until those teams play each other again (which is already the status quo). the other reason i really like the three tier system, is that it provides room for growth of other nations. eventually, we might even end up with 8 or more teams in each tier, which means you can play more test cricket, without the high profile series getting saturated by too much cricket.
"They think I'm hiding in the stats, but I AM the stats." - Jarrod Kimber He's the hero cricket deserves, but not the one it listens to right now. So they'll shut him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A STATS KNIGHT ! 🦇
I can’t imagine tier 2 and tier 3 teams even playing tests. I suspect they will find it too expensive with little interest in their countries so they’ll just play T20’s instead
5 tests for tier 1 each team 2 years cycle. 1 year for away and 1 year home 7 teams 6 series in 2 years for every team. There should be a test window. 2 months for each series. So 6 months of test cricket every year. Tier 2 and tier 3 same just 3 tests a series.
How can you relegation promotion when India , England , Australia won’t be relegated no matter what. big team are already playing Against each other more. What this would do is that we might not see big team won’t play Against smaller test team at all and 2024 there were a lot of upsets were lower ranked team beat higher ranked team like Windies won Against Australia. Bangladesh winning in Pakistan and sri lanka winning 3rd test Against England
Before I answer, I need to know if it will put England down in 2nd tier. In all seriousness, I want whatever means the most countries get to compete at test cricket. Different teams in different conditions are what makes the game interesting. If Madagascar can put together a team and convince Australia to agree to a test match, why not? Things like the Ashes and BGT are great and I'm not arguing to get rid of them but it does mean Australia plays India and England ALOT and they don't play RSA or NZ very much which I'm not sure is healthy for the sport.
I like the idea of 2 tier split 7/5 coz the bottom five don’t have enough money to host many test matches as they don’t make good money. I am also in favour of Promotion and Relegation but not in the same way as EPL. 7th team from Tier One an 1st team from Tier Two should have a playoff at the end of 2 year cycle just like WTC final. If Tier Two first place beats Tier One last place then promote else better luck next time. Without promotion opportunities Tier Two teams will not have great incentive to improve their 5 day game.
Disagree with your point about "nobody knows how you become a Test nation". There is a set of requirements laid out for countries to get Full Member status (ie Test status) of the ICC, which includes having a First Class setup and, more recently, a formal Women's cricket setup. They also need to be performing at the international level (in ODIs and T20s) and be regularly competitive against Test nations in those formats. Then there is a vote amongst existing Test nations. It is certainly true that some nations, even recently admitted ones such as Ireland and Afghanistan, have not fulfilled all the requirements before being granted Test status - but the existence of those exceptions does not support your assertion that "nobody knows" how it is done or your characterisation of the process being whimsical. It is most definitely political (certainly now), but that is not the same thing.
I knew you’d say uganda! I’ve seen great players in those “smaller” countries! Henry Osinde played in Uganda before playing for Canada at the World Cup! Remember that golden generation of Kenyan cricketers who went to the semi of the World Cup?! Maurice Odumbe, Steve Tikolo, Kennedy Otieno etc! Those guys were world class!!! They beat the test teams on their way to the semi!!!!! It was an opportunity to grow the game in Kenya after those guys!! It was missed because the ICC is a club or cartel! They’re not really after growing the game! They do half heartedly! If they actually worked to grow cricket those countries would produce world class players within a few years!!!
The most shocking takeaway most of you are missing is Jarrod thinks Jaguar pivot was good. It was an unprecedented marketing disaster, and the last thing anybody should attempt. It tells you nothing that the current system is not working. Change is not always good, and by sheer incompetence, things can always get worse
This will only hurt the tier 2 sides. Sth Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and West Indies. No matter how good we get, and how bad relatively the top 3 get. If there was a tier system, we would be stuffed.
Biggest problem in cricket is people like Jarrod will never be able to be part of cricket governance. Even simple things take ages to implement in cricket because the right people are not in power
Jay shah biggest highlight is to bring the Caste system type system in test Cricket. What jarrod explains here is cricketing terms is "exploitation of labour by the Status Quo" "classism" and how developing a inclusive, diversified structure will create more holistic cricketing ecosystem benefitting all strata of Cricketers, cricketing nations and others (i.e Socialist structures as proposed by Marx) Unfortunately the Sarvarnas don't have the Bandwidth to draw parallels with cricket and society.
It's not a sarcastic comment. It's an social commentary on cricket and cinema. Either someone is ignorant and privileged to understand it (that's fine) or uneducated in the subjects of Polity and Sociology
So if two tiers had always existed, then England would've bounced between divisions. Right, so would the 90-91 / 93 / 94-95 / 97 / 98-99 / 01 / 02-03 Ashes have been held? How do iconic series still happen regardless of relegation/promotion? Are they scheduled separately as 'friendlies' etc ? As an Australian I'm not alone in considering The Ashes to be the only series worth caring about. I could happily go back to the days when only The Ashes existed. I'm pretty sure it was quite popular in Australia when it was only two teams. What's the solution to this issue? Furthermore, we complain that the current WTC lacks home v away relevance but the issue of India hosting Pakistan & vice versa isn't fixed by creating a tiered comp. Indian nationalism & ethnocentrism exist at hyper Modi level today. This will always thwart any meaningful competition between these teams.
You think Status Quo will change? I think BCCI, ECB and CA will make it so that they play each other more frequently and get even richer. And lower division teams that rely on the big teams to tour to keep them afloat will just go under. Unless BCCI allows more equitable sharing of the revenue, nothing will change, and its sad to see my country killing the game I love so dearly.
Test status is bullshit anyway. Anybody that wants to should be able to play 5 day cricket, and if the minnows play each other enough they might be good enough to take on the sharks.
Jarrod,with all due respect,Did you bother following the recent face off between Zimbabwe and Afghanistan? If you did,that's exactly what giving every other team test status would look like. Associate nations would fail to pull enough spectators, games would be boring and ludicrous,in the end,those 3-4 nations among the seven that you be putting in tier 1 would be relevant, and after all these rodeos,we would find ourselves the starting point. And comparing T20 status to that of Test is uncalled for from someone like you; Test Cricket is about merit and skills,which lead to legacy and create heritage,and it would always be about Heritage.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"I am the Stats!" - Jarrod having his Palpatine moment.
🤣
Or being Louis 14th
"I'm the state".
@@blazer9547 Les stats, c'est moi.
Beat me to it.
More like his Fauci moment.
Honestly I kinda want it just to see england get demoted to tier 2 😂😂😂
Yes.
I think we all do hahahha
ICC wont allow that 😂😂😂
Maybe india will be demoted 😂
Lol😂
The current proposal for tiers is not so that New Zealand, South Africa, and Pakistan can play India, Australia, and England more. It's so that there can be more Ashes series and more Border-Gavaskar Trophy series now that these big nations don't have to take any time out of their schedule to play Bangladesh or the West Indies. India, Australia, and England will continue to play against New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka no more and no less than they do now. The current proposal is a blatant money grab that will see Bangladesh and the West Indies go the way of Zimbabwe. That's not growing the game.
Yeah I guess but then we and Afghanistan can play more tests against the West Indies and Bangladesh etc.
@oliverqueen5883 No doubt a tiered system, if done correctly, would be great for Ireland, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe, who all currently just exist in some irrelevant no-man's land outside of the World Test Championship. I'm not sure the current proposal will help in the long-term though. West Indies cricket will die and Bangladeshi cricket will decline if they stop playing the top seven nations. Zimbabwe, Ireland, and Afghanistan will continue to languish at the bottom of the rankings but they'll just have two more compatriots to rot with at the bottom, worlds away from ever dreaming of challenging any of the top seven nations as the gap inevitably widens. I hope the ICC can find a better way of fixing the system for the betterment of ALL Test nations.
Great vid. I have a few points.
1. The WTC is already a quasi tier system. India, England, and Australia play roughly half their test matches against each-other rather than the implied 1 quarter that would be presumed from being in a "9 team competition".
2. England is not really ranked 6th and would be in no great danger of being relegated to a 2nd tier in a fairer system. The thing damaging England right now is that WTC points are decided on a per game basis rather than a per series basis, as well as the fact they play against the world beating India and Australia. Other nations that appear to "overtake" England universally have an "easier draw". In reality they are the 4th best team and significantly ahead of 5th place!
3. It's a great point that the status quo is already heavily tiered in many ways. Ireland doesn't play much and Bangladesh do? Scotland and Netherlands are excluded from playing a 4 day game against each-other for what reason?
4. I think resolving these grey areas with promotion/relegation is the only fair way. If Ireland is flogging Afghanistan all the time they should start playing the Windies, if Sri Lanka is always flogging the Windies they should be playing India, etc.
5. A smaller "tier 1" would reward successful nations like South Africa and New Zealand with more series against the "big 3", right now there's nothing in the system to reward them more than struggling teams like the Windies except for the 1 WTC final game every 2 years.
6. I think to take the pressure off the lower tiers organising many series they could have progressively fewer teams. For example, tier 1 could have 7 nations, tier 2 5 nations, tier 3 3 nations and allow 1 match series, and then tier 4+ having only 2 nations. This way nations naturally play more test cricket per year as their ability and capacity slowly change over time. The numbers could be tweaked later if interest expands.
I'm confused. You say England are 4th best and daylight behind them. Ok, so who are your top 3. Some combo of SA, Aus and India seems reasonable, but then you are saying NZ are daylight behind England after they've just beaten India 3-0 and thrashed England in their last match.
Right now, all you can confidently say is England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka make up the second group of three and any of them can beat the other on their day.
@@MatiuPirihimanawe’ve just beaten New Zealand in New Zealand and have won 3 of our last 5 matches in NZ, and 6 of our last 8 against them if you include their most recent tour over here. We’ve clearly shown we’re a better side than them over recent contests.
@MatiuPirihimana the only important point I'm making is that right now England are *way* too strong to be relegated in a fair system with 7 spots in the top league.
I could see the argument that NZ is above England, but I don't think that's fair to say yet. Perhaps if NZ puts up solid results for the next year and a half. The trouble is NZ don't play against good teams often enough.
I think you have to be cautious extrapolating from the kiwi tour to India in the very short term. And of course the South Africa tour to NZ basically can't count because SA sent a B team.
The current ICC rankings put Australia way in the lead, then India and South Africa essentially tied in 2nd, then England just a shade behind in 4th, the NZ way back in 5th, then an even bigger gap to Sri Lanka in 6th, then a small gap to Pakistan in 7th, etc.
2. WTC points are pro rata percentage based, how does that negatively affect England more than anyone else? If you're good enough to beat someone 2-0 or 3-0 you should be good enough to beat them 4-0 or 5-0
3. Scotland and Netherlands have no incentive to play a 4 day game and without the test label it would hemmorage money. Without the ICC ran Intercontinental Cup I doubt we will see any FC cricket between associates.
5 & 6. If test funds were pooled neither of these points would be an issue at all
@nathanelder3192
2. It's a percentage of total Test wins rather than being adjusted for series length like in 2019-2021 cycle. If a team plays 5 tests against India and then 2 tests again Bangladesh and 2 tests against Sri Lanka then the India series is where the *majority* of their points are on offer. What I'm saying is that the fact the Big3 play long series against each-other and shorter series against other nations artificially deflates the ladder position of the weakest of the Big3. But in a fair system the should melt away. Ergo I think the fearmonger of England's potential relegation that I have seen if misinformed.
3. I'm saying they should be sanctioned to play it, yes.
5 and 6. Yes there should be some sharing, but even I don't think there will be *complete* sharing. The participating nations in the profitable series will profit the most and thereby be a reward for teams that make it into the top league.
Test already doesn't has enough countries and gate keeping most revenue generating games away from less economically potent teams will only strengthen status quo and will be hard for them to get sustainable. I think it's overall not good for game to officially create tiers
But isn't that how sport works though if you wanna play the big money making games well get better. If hull city want to make money well get better and get into the premier league. We shouldn't be doing favours to teams cuz they were good 50 years ago. 1 country shouldn't be getting more tours than other cuz they're a better vacation spot
@@paramtageja6891 It's a nice idea but it's not really how sport works at this level. The teams that draw the biggest crowds and attract the biggest broadcast deals are the ones that get to play in all the big games. You could be playing cricket at a higher level than any nation has ever done, but if you have a population the size of New Zealand then you'll always be begging for scraps from the likes of India and England. It sucks but it's unlikley to change even in a tiered system.
@@paramtageja6891 but they pooling of revenues in uefa and epl to ensure smaller teams get financial support and equitable share of revenues inorder to promote competitiveness and reduce gap b/w quality of teams hence making the sport more exciting!
The issue is not "not enough countries playing Tests". I would posit there are already *too many* countries already playing Tests.
Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland hardly ever play Test matches. I can't recall the last time they played Test cricket against anyone other than each other - and even then, they play a 2 Test series and that's it for the year.
With 12 countries actively involved, there's the potential for 6 Test series going on around the world at any one time. Clearly, that doesn't happen. At most we have 3 series, before a break of several months - which means 6 teams are twiddling their thumbs at any point.
The reason is that the interest is that - outside of England, India and Australia - the interest is just not there. Fans will not turn up for 4 days (even though they're supposed to be 5 day matches) of Test cricket in enough numbers to make it worthwhile. The market has spoken, which is why there are so many domestic 20-over leagues around the world.
South Africa had their Test players in their domestic league rather than playing Test cricket when WTC points were on the line, for crying out loud.
The problem with the 2 tier model is that test tours are expensive and need to be resourced properly. Many lower ranked teams currently rely on tours from India, Australia and England to survive financially. Without these tours, it will be cost prohibitive for most tier 2 teams to undertake test tours. Hence, without proper funding for the tier 2 teams, they will become largely T20 only, even more so than under the status quo.
Would help if the BCCI weren't hoovering up 31% of the distribution money and that was used to properly finance everyone.
@@iseabbvThey bring in the most money though...
"Australian cricket fans are at risk of being plunged into a television black hole for Sri Lanka, with no network having yet acquired the rights for the two-Test series.
Three weeks out from the first Test in Galle, AAP has been told that neither Foxtel or any other Australian television broadcaster had so far agreed to show the matches."
^ this is devastating. I remember during the 2000's and early 2010's some excellent series in Sri Lanka covered by Foxtel. Nathan Lyon's debut comes to mind. Any serious test cricket fan in Australia would want to see this series.
I think something will definitely be worked out. England have faced similar scenarios recently and something has always been worked out. If they don't though I think it'll end up just getting streamed on youtube.
If there are no rights Sri Lankan yet channel will show it
Yeah free tv secured the rights today and it’s at a good time in the arvo here so everyone will be watching ❤
Tiers can be done well, if it was just the current 12 teams and you kept the 3 series away and 3 at home like the current WTC you can organise it so that you play 2 away and home against teams in your own tier then 1 home and away against the lower one. Bigger teams teams can still play lower ones but boards still get the revenue they so clearly desire.
This video should be titled "Why cricket is a heritage sport"
You hit the nail on the head regarding the finances. I have always felt it similarly. There should be some incentive for smaller teams to play test cricket. If we go for a tiered system which means more test series between the big3 or big 4 and more revenue which only benefits the big 3, it doesnt help test cricket. I think having a pooled revenue is a great option which wont get an approval. But, at the very least, something like 30 percent of the revenue generated in the tier 1 should go to supporting test cricket in tier 2. This is how we will get more test teams and this is how we will get the smaller nations to take test cricket seriously.
Yeah, pretty much. I think a lot of the backlash to the tiered suggestion is because its coming from the heritage group, the "big three". I don't think anyone is convinced that the pool will be anything more than a stagnant pond. I'm worried about teams like WI and Bangladesh just getting nothing in tier 2 and as a result having no path back. Also nobody is convinced that any of those big three teams will allow themselves to be relegated. Cancel the ashes because England is in tier 2? No chance. I would support a system like you described, but what has been put forward just stinks of three boards saying, these are the teams we want to play going forward, good luck everyone else.
We can have the last team in tier one demoted to tier 2 n top team of tier 2 promoted to tier 1....also in tier 1 we will keep teams like Pak, sl etc so that they will be the one demoted as they are shit, also a change in points system is required...to make sure that the team which plays many matches doesn't face any disadvantage....u can see how england, Australia n india play so much of cricket but still somehow south africa with 2 match series somehow qualifies for the final...so a long discussion is needed but acc to me this is good for test cricket...it will make sure it survives for long in the era of t20s and leagues...
@@shardulkedar6689as you said you'll keep Pakistan and Sri Lanka so that they're the ones that relegated but what if England or India were the ones by chance to get relegated I guarantee they'll scrap the system on the spot. And you saying big 3 play more matches and south africa qualify by Playing less matches against lesser teams, well who's fault is that. It's not south Africa's fault that the big 3 want to play each other all the time
@@paramtageja6891As a West Indian fan, I am okay with the tiers in concept but I know India in particular along with probably Australia and England won't be demoted ever in reality and not based on cricketing prowess.
The main issue with the Super League as is, is how different the number of games certain teams play and who their opponents are. South Africa didn't play a single game against England or Aus, whereas India played them in over half their games. If we're going to keep the Wtc system, then teams should play every other team and every team should play the same number of games. If we say the first 3 games of every tour count for WTC points, then that doesn't stop longer tours, it's just that the first 3 games are where you can win WTC points. And if you play every team, then one cycle can be a home series, and the next will be away.
Love it, I have nerd documents on this too, with four tiers. Tier 1 5 day tests and minimum 3 test series, tier 2 five day tests minimum two test series, tier 3 four day tests mimimum two test series, tier 4 three day tests minimum two test series. below that, we have 5 confederations. Americas, Indo-West Asia, East Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa. Each confederation decides their own system to find a champion, the confederation winners go to the global playoff, the winner of the global playoff gets automatic promotion to tier 4 whilst last place in tier 4 gets automatically relegated back to confederation play.
Personally, I think 6 teams is fine per tierr, even 5. One advantage with that is there could be rules around "development series", for example if there's only five series in a two year cycle then there's a lot fo room in the calendar, in which case you could have rules about bi-laterals must be played between tiers to help with development and growth.
Alternatively, tiers of five, but now it's every year. Four series a year, with automatic promotions and relegations, it will mean lots more shifting and interest. Also, it creates a situation whereby tier 2 has legitimacy. Under current proposals, tier 2 could be quite sad if it's West Indies and below. But if Tier 2 is Pakistan, England, West Indies, Bangladesh, and meanwhile Tier 3 already starts with Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland, that is a hell of a lot more interesting and more people would be more likely to watch other tiers.
And lastly - bring it all together, all the formats. It's no longer the WTC, it's the WCC. A whole series of minimum 3 T20, 3 ODI and 2 tests has points valuations. No more white ball/red ball tours, just cricket tours, all formats on a equal playing field. Bilaterals of one format could in theory still exist as it's only 4 series a year.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Wow. I see that you have made a very interesting point here which I didn't consider. make it a full long tour of all 3 formats. Like the good old days when you would have proper tours. But the problem is long tours means bigger squads which is not a privilege enjoyed by many teams. So either we start with the test matches and then go to white ball
Actually, test cricket is already a 2 tier system. 1. The first being Australia, England and India who control cricket and who play each other the whole time. 2. And then the rest.
The main issue I see currently with the proposed two-tiered system is the amount of countries playing test cricket. We've only got 12 test nations at the moment, and a tiered system would work much better if we have at least 16 or more test nations playing. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we want more countries playing this amazing form of the game so as to make the possible tiered system more viable.
In order to get more countries playing tests, the Big 3 and the ICC must invest in smaller cricketing nations, allowing them the financial capability to start and continue playing test cricket. This applies to current test nations as well, such as Zimbabwe and Scotland, who do play test cricket, but who would be able to play even more of it if there was a stronger financial viability.
The big teams corner all the resources and then they use it as further excuse for excluding the lower teams (because they're not performing). It's ridiculous to me that Shastri could say without any restraint that the bottom teams should not be playing the higher-ranked teams, why? Because they're bad, and why are they bad? Well, because they don't have good First-Class structures. Well there you go, shouldn't the ICC step in to resolve this teething problem. Obviously until you build decent foundational structures, you won't have good teams.
And while we're at it, why don't non-test teams get at least FC matches against test teams? I mean for eg, India can easily schedule a 4-day game with Scotland in preparation for their England tour. You can have a 4-day game against Namibia before touring South Africa, and a 4-day game against Nepal before touring India. This to me is an obvious lacuna which somehow is never pointed out. Unless you give more FC games to players of lower-ranked teams, how will they improve? And how will FC teams upgrade to test cricket without adequate exposure?
And I barely see any scope for change because the big teams and broadcasters call all the shots, and they're only interested in more and more monopolization instead of investing in smaller teams.
I think a 3 tiered system would work the best with 6 teams in each tier. Make the third tier matches 4 day events equivalent to First Class cricket working like the Intercontinental Cup best team in which Afghanistan and Ireland were granted the test status. Put a pathway in place for teams below the third tier to replace the worst teams from the third tier with some sort of multiday cricket or even one day cricket like WCL Division 1 teams normally used to play in the Intercontinental Cup.
- Pooling the money for each tier like the other ICC tournament with some percentage of that pool passed down to the lower tier (like PL does to the EFL) would may be make it more feasible for lower tier teams to play multiday cricket.
- Have a fixed number of series for each team in each tier in a cycle unlike in the current WTC included within a mandatory series between tiers with their points being worth more or less for the teams than series inside a tier depending which tier the two teams are and may be a neutral venue series. This allows the legacy series like the Ashes or BGT to happen if somehow the teams end up in different tiers and possibility of IND vs PAK series at a neutral venue. For example for IND in Tier 1 : vsAus(H), vsSA(A), vsNZ(H), vsPak(N), vsSL in tier 2(A)
*Matches between Tier 2 and 3 teams -First class status
- The top teams at the first class tier need to show they have infrastructure and domestic structure in place for them to be granted promotion to test tier 2 replacing the lowest ranked teams there and similar for teams wanting to get into the First Class tier, with ICC defined criteria
jarrod unbelievable breakdown as always. thankyou
This video is a more detailed version of an opinion I've held on Test cricket for nearly a decade. Thank you Jarrod for explaining this incredibly well
The problem is, nowhere in the new model is promotion/relegation discussed - presumably to keep them Australia, India & England cash flow going, even if 1 of the sides were to have a dip.
Is the Sunil Gavaskar bit a dig at Kohli :P
Clearly.
more like sharma
This is the best take on this topic, I agree with this idea.
Another thing about comparing test cricket to a proper league system. What makes test cricket unique in this perspective, is that even in tiers u don't play typical league games. It'll still be played.as bilateral series. There will be a trophy at the end of every series to win. So I don't think that it'll be irrelevant. Coz u aren't playing one - off matches. U are playing series. When you are locked into a series 1-1 and go into the 3rd match being the decider, no one cares about the greater tier context, ppl wanna see who wins the series.
You can also have overlapping tiers. Like if England was to fall down a tier they would still play the Ashes across tiers. This is like the NFL where they play home and away within their division but the other half of their matches are against teams outside the division.
lol no that makes a mockery of the whole thing. If we dropped down a tier, we play the teams in the tier we’re in, especially as there is all of the white ball and the hundred commitments and only so much space in the calendar.
A tier system with promotion and relegation sounds interesting, I hope something like that happens if we are ever going to have a tier system in Test Cricket.
Exactly, if you are not able to play with top test playing nation it should be because you are bad at test cricket and not because some old folks decide who gets to play and who does not.
Countries given freedom to make pitch of their liking + 4 day test + tier. Is the way to go
Combination of a pool and tier system is probably the best way forward.
If we don’t want newer test nations getting pumped by nations that are already well established could we use some nations A sides to foster talent through competition.
In regards to the WTC cycle some changes definitely need to be made as we can’t have some teams playing nearly double the matches of others, some teams are playing two match series whilst others are playing 3 or 5 and finally point deductions that make no sense.
Such a great video Jarrod! Brilliant exposition. Cricket world needs more of you and more like you!
Truth is there could be 12 test match quality sides if resources and governance was sound in each test playing nation. Unfortunately it’s not. It’s a lot easier to ensure some level of equality in a club based competition than a country one. It’s also easier to get marketing going well in a club competition, some countries are so poor at their marketing they just don’t have a clue and so they don’t bring as much to the table as they should be. I don’t like the 2 tier system, but if there are nations not pulling their weight in terms of their first class structure, their planning and growth of the red ball game, then they either need to be helped along or maybe they need to be paused till the next cycle while they get their house in order. So no one gets kicked but some teams get the tough love they need (and assistance) to ensure they are always on a good path towards growth.
An efficient tier system is the way forward, even if it has flaws initially it can be refined over time.
- A two-tier system with 7 teams in Tier 1 and 5 teams in Tier 2.
- Over a two-year cycle, Tier 1 teams compete against each other for the WTC title, while Tier 2 teams vie for promotion.
Promotion and Relegation:
- Before the next cycle begins, the top 2 teams from Tier 2 and the bottom 2 from Tier 1 will participate in a multi-nation tournament.
- The top 2 teams from this tournament advance to Tier 1 for the next cycle, while the remaining 2 move to Tier 2 to try again.
This system ensures that Tier 2 teams have ample opportunities to play competitive cricket and are rewarded for strong performances.
As the competition grows and teams become more competitive, the system can be adapted to accommodate future changes and challenges.
Slight disagreement, it would hard for fans to digest test numbers being thrown out the window because of lower quality tests. It’s already weird we see so many records being broken by unknown players playing other unknown players. Instead, the first tier can be test cricket, and the other tiers can be some form of international first class cricket (official first class games but not test games). The tiers can be top 10, 11-15, and 16-20. This way, the associate nations are still playing their quality (ie Ireland and Netherlands are playing nations with experience, not Japan or Belgium).
9th ranked team plays 2nd team of tier 2, 10th ranked team plays 1st team of tier 2. Same sort of format for relegations and promotions between tier 2 and tier 3. We don’t want to tinker a lot with traditional test cricket, that’s the reason we love the game. And keeping a top 10 structure will keep test cricket that way, but this structure allows (or rather forces) associate and affiliate nations to play first class cricket, giving it importance. Also gives a chance for a team like Ireland to play India Australia and England in a proper test series (with merit).
It would be difficult to fund the first class games for 20 nations but if test cricket grows in other countries, viewership might increase as well.
One thing is for certain, as classist as it sounds test cricket should remain for the elite. We can’t have some Australian expat in Belgium smacking 40 year old part time cricketers in jersey and creating a test record for himself. If the test records are all broken and not hard fought, we won’t like it as fans.
Whichever tier India is in will be tier 1. True story.
Do you think that if India regresses as a test nation the clamour around the two tier system will die down ?
India have a transition on their hands. With Ashwin gone, and the triumvirate of Jadeja, Kohli and Sharma on their last legs..if they were to have a bad tour to England then suddenly India would have a gaping hole in their test side for the home season.
The most important aspect of any new system will be the promtion/relegation capacity. It doesn't matter as much how many teams are in the division so long as the team's on the outside know there is a guaranteed method of getting into it. Just watch their boards get busy once they've got that to focus on. Division 2 would have to be made to look properly competitive though - I can imagine NZ getting stuck down there playing Ireland, Afgahnistan and Scotland, it would be no way to prepare for a play off match with a division 1 team
Love the idea of tiered system. Let’s just do it.
The first thing to recognise is there is no chance they will ever risk India, Australia or England dropping in to a 2nd tier. That means there will never be as few as 6 teams in 1st division, as that presents too great a chance of the big money generating tours being locked out because one of the big 3 fell out of the top division. Which means you need 8 teams in the 1st division at a minimum. But for a division to work, you need to play every team in the division an equal number of times. They're not reducing the frequency of Australia, India & England series, because that's where the money in test cricket is made. And if you want all series of equal length, that means you're playing 7 test series with 4 or 5 matches each every two years. That's 140 or 175 days of test cricket per nation, every two years. Then you fit T20, ODI and franchise T20 in amidst all that? Or do we reduce the length of series between the major nations, or their frequency to once every 3 years? Is the path forward and the way to drive growth in the game really to have Australia and India play only once every 3 years in a 3 test series? Does anyone really think we can advance the game by having the best quality and highest profile series played in shorter series, less often?
Its why I just don't think a league works. It makes me wonder if the best answer isn't something closer to boxing, with a system where you earn the right to play higher tier nations through victories against lower tier nations. It would mean there are no leagues with tables of wins and losses, so no requirement to play Windies as often as you play England, just because Windies snuck in to 8th place in the rankings. But it would allow for a kind of system where nations would have a clear pathway to earn tours against higher profile nations.
Well the hope is the lower teams after playing many matches with higher teams, they improve their cricket... So at start we might see uncompetitive test series, but after some time the gap would be reduced... I also think the lower tiers should play 4 day tests and only top tier should play 5 day tests
@@pitchipuka1613 That's a decent hope, but it would take many years to start to see results. That's a lot of years of sitting through 4 or 5 test series between India and West Indies before they hopefully use the money to start bringing some talented kids through the system. I'm not sure that bulk of long, generally poor cricket is going to produce the money to start fixing things, especially not if it means the best quality, highest earning tours start happening less.
What you said would create a situation where basically the lower teams would just give up on test cricket cuz they're will be no incentive for the board or the players to play test cricket. In boxing you have to go one way whereas in cricket you can just switch formats and leave test cricket and make more money. First it will be west indies but in some years it's going to be New zealand or south africa cuz they're talent pool isn't deep enough to create world class players generation after generation and then you're again back to the drawing board with only a handful of teams playing test cricket
@@paramtageja6891 That isn't remotely true. I am saying giving smaller nations automatic series is not even close to practical. Recognising that doesn't somehow cost smaller nations any funding - its the situation they're in now. What I am suggesting is a mechanism where they can clearly see what on-field performances they would have to deliver to gain those series.
You're also assuming that not having those series means no funding. That's only true if we keep the current broken funding arrangements, and I never said we should keep those systems.
Stop making up ideas to argue against and instead read what I'm actually writing.
@@outandaboutintheworl you compared it with boxing. You have negative iq
I can’t escape the conclusion that ultimately, Test cricket’s future health (certainly outside of the Big 3) comes down to the implementation of a CBA and resource sharing like you mentioned Jarrod.
Would the EPL be such a strong league and an engaging overall product if at inception, Manchester United and Liverpool had been allowed to sell the TV rights to their home games separately to the smaller clubs? I doubt it. While not a perfect system, selling all games within a league as a package both increases exposure for smaller teams and revenue as a whole, from which the sport can grow.
Highly doubt the Big 3 would agree to this though as they already get the lion’s share of $$- and why would Turkeys vote for Christmas?
I don't like the idea of the tier system for Test matches. It should be the best XI cricketers of one country against another, with bilateral agreements on who is playing whom (i.e. it doesn't need to be a League to have relevance!). It would be great if some of the smaller Test playing countries could get more of the global revenue to help them keep developing, and I also reckon there should be no barriers for non-Test teams playing each other and calling them Test matches.
This is a golden era of test cricket.
it could be although there was a mystique in the 70's and 80's that is hard to rival. What we have now though, in the past 20 odd years are 4 really good teams and 2 pretty good teams (NZ & SL) going at it... and Pakistan and the West Indies and some others.
definitely an interesting discussion, 2024 was probably the best year of test cricket I can remember, the big Australia and India series was record breaking and a great watch, but also when smaller teams took it to the bigger teams like West Indies and Australia or new Zealand to India.
the risk is that changing what we have right as it seems to be getting momentum might ruin it. but also I think this is the perfect time to start expanding the sport whilst retaining some of the heritage and prestige that makes the sport great.
clearly the big teams playing each other more is good for the game but so is when a smaller team gets a good go, I would go further and have 3 tiers of 8 or 9 where 2 or 3 are relegated or promoted.
I'm not sure how the money side would work, that's for egg heads who like maths, but I think the competition and drama a 3 relegation 3 tier system would bring is good for the game, there's definitely more talent out there.
2024 was great year of test cricket cuz test cricket as a game and a product is so unique and amazing. It had nothing to do with its administration or it's system
@paramtageja6891 maybe, and maybe it could be better with a change, it's just worth considering
When it comes to cricket I'm a bit of a traditionalist, as I much prefer the longer forms of the game.. But when it comes to the status quo etc I agree with Jarrod's analysis. I think the best way forward is to grow the game. Cricket is already growing in many countries, which I'm sure is mostly thanks to the fantastic cricketers from the subcontinent who have migrated elsewhere, taking their love of the game with them. This is the time to harness that enthusiasm and put money behind it. In my view, if this opportunity is missed then I suspect Test cricket will wither and die. I'm pretty sure T20 will survive, but I would love to see Test cricket as a truly global sport. The game needs its next Packer revolution and I think it's overdue, so I'm in favour of tiered Test leagues. I think the WTC has already made a difference, as there is no such thing as a dead rubber any more; imagine the impact promotion/relegation battles would have.
I think before they start tiered(2 or 3) test cricket, they need to give enough time and resources to teams to improve their rankings to give them a chance to be in tier 1. Once relegated they would stay there for long periods till the start of the next test championship cycle.
Tier 3: 2 divisions of 3 day first class international matches? Promotion *earns* you test status for the duration of your stay in Tiers 2 & 1. Kind of like the non-league bits of a football pyramid. Means test status still means something. Cool ideas, I think, but I suspect moot considering all the financial implications. As a Scot I'd love to see something like it though.
Think where we could be if we had done this with East Africa starting in the 1970s or Kenya in the 2000s and let them access test cricket then. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania now have a combined population of over 160M. A huge potential market for fans in a relatively decent timezone for watching matches in the sub-continent (or vice versa) and plenty of chance to develop both regional rivalries between themselves and with the Southern African cricket nations. Instead, they are all stuck playing Challenge League with little chance of progressing.
More teams playing is good, however we run the risk of teams be unable to break through the ranks. You'll dominate your tier, move up and get demolished and fall back down, and never be able to get the experience.
It is optimistic you talk about putting context to stats, but its futile when you see how they get treated now, people will constantly talk about how Williamson averages 20 in SA or how their D team doesn't count, and the amount of "but they didn't win an away WTC series" until India. There certainly will be folks how dismiss it as "lower tier bullying" or something.
Yes, But only if its meaningful for the world test championship (WTC).
My proposal is
2 year cycle. 3 tiers. Teams from tier 1 can play teams from tier 2/3 but doesn't count towards WTC points.
Only 5 teams in tier 1 and 5 teams in 2, rest in tier 3. (Yes that means some top teams will be in tier 2, maybe 3 from time to time.)
Each team plays each other team in their tier at least twice (home or away) in each cycle. (if there is a 3,4,5 test series, two of those tests will be nominated as "counting" towards WTC points, if there is Draw due to weather, another test in that series can be nominated if it is available.)
Each teams will have 8 tests counting towards WTC. (Bonus points for away test wins). Some calculations will be required to ensure teams submit the same amount of home/away test results.
WTC final will be mobile, The country that currently holds WTC chooses venue. (even if they are not involved in final)
Relegation/Promotion games will occur at same time as WTC with tier 1, last place playing tier 2, 1st place for promotion/relegation. and same for tier 2/3
One way to preserve the legacy tests is to allow conference and non conference games like college football.
Having an organised system for test matches would be good, with a set number of games play at a time of year for the best cricketing weather, if you want test to be the highest form of the game. Then we can talk about having a tier system and a season which will last many years to get a result if each team plays a series twice a year once home and once away.
Yes open test match cricket to any country that wants to compete.
Having a organised global calender for national and internation cricket would be great for the game, rather than this haphazard way things are done now.
You make a lot of sense. Unfortunately the heritage system needs to go, but they won't go for it.
This is cricket. There's much hand wringing about growing the game, but every decision goes in the wrong direction, either for short term financial reasons, or because 'tradition'.
I’ve been thinking a tier system would be a good idea for years. Just to get the weaker teams playing more test cricket and the stronger teams to keep on their toes. You could even keep the WTC with the same 9 teams, and add a couple of others to the tier below, and whoever finishes last getting demoted and the best of the rest getting a chance to play amongst the big teams
It’d distort the integrity of individual statistics, which always need to be interpreted with a keen eye.
@@RegionalVariation so scoring a hundred against, I dunno, Ireland right now, doesn’t count?
I am very much a votary for the growth of the game and am frankly exhausted by all the efforts to preserve the status quo so that the big boards can profit as much as possible (before market saturation will inevitably catch up and these administrators, who really don't care for the sport, will move on to other profitable things).
That being said, I don't agree with giving everyone Test recognition. I also disagree with giving everyone T20I recognition. Instead I think we should have a clear system of promotion and relegation from Test cricket.
This is what I think could be a good tiered structure, and Jarrod, I hope you read this. I want a 3-tiered semi-osmotic structure for 4 teams. This should be based on rankings purely and not commercial heft, and it is extremely unfortunate that in cricket, the "experts" openly and explicitly talk about preserving the position of countries with commercial heft (like Ind, Aus, Eng) regardless of performance, while being indifferent to teams which perform well but have less commercial heft.
So this is what I propose (I'll follow current test rankings for initial tier distribution): Tier 1 (Australia, South Africa, India, England); Tier 2 (New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies); Tier 3 (Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan). Teams belonging to Tier 1 will play each other, and each Tier 1 team will also play 2 teams from Tier 2. Those matches we can call Tier 1/2. Each Tier 2 team will play each other and also play 2 teams from Tier 1 (Tier 1/2) and 2 teams from Tier 3 (Tier 2/3). Tier 3 will play each other and 2 teams from Tier 2 (Tier 2/3). After every cycle, there should be promotion and relegation. There should also be a Tier 4 of First Class international teams or a revival of the Intercontinental Cup (why was it stopped?), so that the top team from this Tier can be promoted to test cricket and the bottom team from Tier 3 lose its test status for the next cycle. We can also have Tier 3/4 FC games so that there can be more matches in the calendar and each team is made more competitive. For eg, Netherlands would obviously benefit if they got to play FC games against Bangladesh.
Promotion and relegation should be based on some kind of collective points formula taking into account both within-tier and cross-tier matches.
In my view, the higher you're ranked, the more marquee and longer test series you should get to play. For example, if it is 12 test teams here, this is how I'll order it:
Australia - 6 tests, South Africa - 6 tests, India - 5 tests, England - 5 tests, New Zealand - 4 tests, Sri Lanka - 4 tests, Pakistan - 3 tests, West Indies - 3 tests, Bangladesh - 2 tests, Ireland - 2 tests, Zimbabwe - 1 test, Afghanistan - 1 test.
If you're playing any team in your bracket, then you play the number of matches mentioned. So Australia-South Africa should be the only 6-match series. If you're playing against a lower-bracket team, then you play the number of matches assigned to the lower-bracket team. So, Australia-India or Australia-England would be 5 tests. This obviously means that the most marquee series designed under this is Australia-South Africa, and for eg The Ashes to have 5 test matches, Australia-England will have to remain in the Top 4.
I know this format would likely not be favoured by broadcasters or big boards. But I think it is both will justify the hype for big series, and it also gives an incentive to all teams to get better so that they can be part of longer and marquee test series. It's really strange to me that a powerhouse team like South Africa seldom gets more than 3 tests. Or India literally gets done with New Zealand tours (which they do once in 6 years btw) with only 2 tests. Something is not correct about this, and team opportunities are almost entirely linked to board revenue instead of performance.
Anyway, I hope for all those who have read this, you'll share your views on it :)
If it does not happen in real life, U can at least try the tiered test system in a video game haha (like Cricket 24) - I may even do it myself even it is not a real-life model/prototype.
Hey Jarrod! When are you coming to Nepal?
How about all the teams with blue caps in one group and all the teams with green caps in the other?
I think the tiered system will not work.
Firstly open up test matches to any nation that wants to play and standardise test series to consist of 3 matches.
Then create a tournment, similar to the UEFA champions league, You have a group stage where each team plays a series home and away and the winners of the groups going into a knockout stage. This tournment would be on probably a 5 or 6 year rotation and there would be a ranking system so you wouldn't get India Australia and South Africa in the same group.
I think that this would be the best solution because that smaller nations get to play the big nations and every test series has meaning.
Then guys you can mock England for not getting to the knock out stage.
I think so the 3 tiers system would be really good but the test played between the lower team tier shouldn't be counted as an official test it should be called something like an associated test or test A , because the lower team doesn't have the same quality of cricket that the tier one team would have.
If there is a fixture list that sees everyone play everyone, promotion and relegation, a path for new nations to join, no final that ruins the entire two year cycle as meaningless, and the chance for series between tier one and two outside the setup (if it’ll happen we’ll see but India would still make money for example and if England get relegated we can’t have the ashes cancelled).
If these conditions are there I’m all for it
Knowing the ICC it’ll be the opposite
We should encourage countries like SA and NZ to play more tests as they have that kind of talent . They also reached the finals of WTC
The second half is almost hilarious Jarrod, no way are you getting BCCI viewing rights in the pool, and that makes from at least 50% of the "pool"
They can use my Idea which I developed 2 years back : -
Teams Classification
Tier - 1 Tier - 2 Tier - 3
Australia West Indies Ireland
India Pakistan Afghanistan
England Sri Lanka Netherlands
South Africa Bangladesh Scotland
New Zealand Zimbabwe
Points Criteria
Same Tier Teams
Outcome Home Away
Test Win 18 24
Test Loss 0 0
Test Draw 12 16
Test Tie 15 15
When Higher Tier Plays Lower Tier
(E.g., Australia vs. Pakistan or Sri Lanka vs. Afghanistan)
Higher Tier Points:
Outcome Home Away
Test Win 12 14
Test Loss 0 0
Test Draw 4 6
Test Tie 6 6
Lower Tier Points:
Outcome Home Away
Test Win 20 26
Test Loss 2 3
Test Draw 8 12
Test Tie 6 6
When Tier 3 Teams Play Tier 1 Teams
(E.g., Ireland vs. India)
Tier 3 Points:
Outcome Home Away
Test Win 24 30
Test Loss 8 4
Test Draw 16 20
Test Tie 12 12
Tier 1 Points:
Outcome Home Away
Test Win 12 16
Test Loss 0 2
Test Draw 8 12
Test Tie 2 2
Match Requirements Per Tier
Tier 1:
Play 18-22 matches per year.
Mandatory: 1-2 series with Tier 2 teams.
Optional: At least 1 match with a Tier 3 team.
Example: India (20 Matches)
6 with Australia
6 with England
3 with New Zealand
3 with South Africa
2 with Bangladesh/Sri Lanka/West Indies
Tier 2:
Play 12-14 matches per year.
Mandatory: 2 series with Tier 1 teams.
Mandatory: 1-2 series with Tier 3 teams.
Example: Pakistan (14 Matches)
3 with West Indies
2 with Sri Lanka
2 with Bangladesh
3 with England
2 with Afghanistan
2 with South Africa
Tier 3:
Play 6-8 matches per year.
Mandatory: 2 series with Tier 2 teams.
Optional: At least 1 match with a Tier 1 team, if possible.
Example: Ireland (7 Matches)
1 with Afghanistan
1 with Netherlands
1 with Scotland
1 with Zimbabwe
1 with Sri Lanka
2 with Bangladesh
you need the big-3 to buy in, so you need an idea that improves what we have now, but doesn't put the entire short-term burden on the big-3.
As long as there are crossover games I can see merit in it. Obviously we can't have Australia, India, England et al playing each other and completely ignoring the rest - that reeks of greed and would make test cricket worse for it.
There is merit where the likes of Afghanistan and Ireland have their focus on teams directly around them and having 1/2 series against a top 3 team - being destroyed by Australia or England every series just doesn't help their development (as we saw with Bangladesh's example), while at the same time it does offer that carrot to them to play such a presitgious team.
And if your worried about stats give them test status but call the matches first class if they are not div 1 matches
I think there is also the need to separate the currently ambiguous 'Test status' from the also ambiguous but very quantifiable criteria for full membership in the ICC.
Is playing Australia a lot less profitable than playing England or India?
No. Absolutely not. The idea of a Test is the highest level possible, and you can't have two or more highest levels of Cricket. This will end up accelerating its demise, as the Ind Vs Aus, Eng Vs Ind and The Ashes will all become trivialised if they happen every year to 18 months.
The ICC just need to hold firm on TV rights deals and, if absolutely necessary, lobby the big boys' governments.
one of the main points of this video was that too much cricket is being played already. we wouldn't have to have any of those high profile series you've mentioned every year to 18 months, because there would be at least 6 teams in the highest tier. assuming you play 1 series every 4 months or so (because test series are generally accompanied by odi and t20i series as well, dont forget domestic t20s and FC cricket) that would mean 24 months, ie 2 years until those teams play each other again (which is already the status quo).
the other reason i really like the three tier system, is that it provides room for growth of other nations. eventually, we might even end up with 8 or more teams in each tier, which means you can play more test cricket, without the high profile series getting saturated by too much cricket.
"They think I'm hiding in the stats, but I AM the stats."
- Jarrod Kimber
He's the hero cricket deserves, but not the one it listens to right now. So they'll shut him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A STATS KNIGHT ! 🦇
Well said!
I can’t imagine tier 2 and tier 3 teams even playing tests. I suspect they will find it too expensive with little interest in their countries so they’ll just play T20’s instead
We need tri-series, quad-series in tests, nit just between Aus and Eng. But NZ-SL-SA-Pak and BAN-AFG-WI.
Ban is ranked higher than Pak tho?
@ India can’t stand a chance against Pak though, so they nicely escape playing red ball cricket with them.
@@manoharmeka999 delulu😂😂
5 tests for tier 1 each team
2 years cycle.
1 year for away and 1 year home
7 teams 6 series in 2 years for every team.
There should be a test window.
2 months for each series.
So 6 months of test cricket every year.
Tier 2 and tier 3 same just 3 tests a series.
I would like to see WTC into month long tournament with top 4 teams playing eliminators and qualifiers like IPL.
How can you relegation promotion when India , England , Australia won’t be relegated no matter what. big team are already playing Against each other more. What this would do is that we might not see big team won’t play Against smaller test team at all and 2024 there were a lot of upsets were lower ranked team beat higher ranked team like Windies won Against Australia. Bangladesh winning in Pakistan and sri lanka winning 3rd test Against England
Before I answer, I need to know if it will put England down in 2nd tier.
In all seriousness, I want whatever means the most countries get to compete at test cricket. Different teams in different conditions are what makes the game interesting. If Madagascar can put together a team and convince Australia to agree to a test match, why not? Things like the Ashes and BGT are great and I'm not arguing to get rid of them but it does mean Australia plays India and England ALOT and they don't play RSA or NZ very much which I'm not sure is healthy for the sport.
What about a moral tier for England?
I have zero confidence that the greedy, rich boards will let this happen. They’ll rather see cricket die out than give up a dime.
I like the idea of 2 tier split 7/5 coz the bottom five don’t have enough money to host many test matches as they don’t make good money. I am also in favour of Promotion and Relegation but not in the same way as EPL. 7th team from Tier One an 1st team from Tier Two should have a playoff at the end of 2 year cycle just like WTC final. If Tier Two first place beats Tier One last place then promote else better luck next time. Without promotion opportunities Tier Two teams will not have great incentive to improve their 5 day game.
I like the tiered system but I think it should be more than 7 teams in each division.
Disagree with your point about "nobody knows how you become a Test nation".
There is a set of requirements laid out for countries to get Full Member status (ie Test status) of the ICC, which includes having a First Class setup and, more recently, a formal Women's cricket setup. They also need to be performing at the international level (in ODIs and T20s) and be regularly competitive against Test nations in those formats.
Then there is a vote amongst existing Test nations.
It is certainly true that some nations, even recently admitted ones such as Ireland and Afghanistan, have not fulfilled all the requirements before being granted Test status - but the existence of those exceptions does not support your assertion that "nobody knows" how it is done or your characterisation of the process being whimsical. It is most definitely political (certainly now), but that is not the same thing.
I knew you’d say uganda! I’ve seen great players in those “smaller” countries! Henry Osinde played in Uganda before playing for Canada at the World Cup! Remember that golden generation of Kenyan cricketers who went to the semi of the World Cup?! Maurice Odumbe, Steve Tikolo, Kennedy Otieno etc! Those guys were world class!!! They beat the test teams on their way to the semi!!!!! It was an opportunity to grow the game in Kenya after those guys!! It was missed because the ICC is a club or cartel! They’re not really after growing the game! They do half heartedly! If they actually worked to grow cricket those countries would produce world class players within a few years!!!
The most shocking takeaway most of you are missing is Jarrod thinks Jaguar pivot was good. It was an unprecedented marketing disaster, and the last thing anybody should attempt.
It tells you nothing that the current system is not working. Change is not always good, and by sheer incompetence, things can always get worse
Why can't we just give tier 1 teams test status and crete something between test and firet class status or tier 2 and 3
Jarrod kimber with another Banger 🎉🎉
BCCI is going to destroy Cricket, that's what BJP does destroy things.
every body gets a test status and for 1.5 or 2 months top 6 or 8 teams come and compete in a particular venue for wtc every 3-4 years
This will only hurt the tier 2 sides. Sth Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and West Indies.
No matter how good we get, and how bad relatively the top 3 get.
If there was a tier system, we would be stuffed.
not really - the only thing that woul hurt teams is not playing against England or India.
As a West Indian fan, I would be okay with it once India, Australia and England can be demoted to Tier 2👌🏾
Mate I love your videos, but can you remove, or at least tone down the background music a bit?
Biggest problem in cricket is people like Jarrod will never be able to be part of cricket governance. Even simple things take ages to implement in cricket because the right people are not in power
I mean you see super leauges around the world, north melbourne arent getting relegated to the vfl
Jay shah biggest highlight is to bring the Caste system type system in test Cricket.
What jarrod explains here is cricketing terms is "exploitation of labour by the Status Quo" "classism" and how developing a inclusive, diversified structure will create more holistic cricketing ecosystem benefitting all strata of Cricketers, cricketing nations and others (i.e Socialist structures as proposed by Marx)
Unfortunately the Sarvarnas don't have the Bandwidth to draw parallels with cricket and society.
Your comment makes zero sense.
i hope it is a sarcastic comment
It's not a sarcastic comment. It's an social commentary on cricket and cinema.
Either someone is ignorant and privileged to understand it (that's fine) or uneducated in the subjects of Polity and Sociology
So if two tiers had always existed, then England would've bounced between divisions. Right, so would the 90-91 / 93 / 94-95 / 97 / 98-99 / 01 / 02-03 Ashes have been held? How do iconic series still happen regardless of relegation/promotion? Are they scheduled separately as 'friendlies' etc ? As an Australian I'm not alone in considering The Ashes to be the only series worth caring about. I could happily go back to the days when only The Ashes existed. I'm pretty sure it was quite popular in Australia when it was only two teams. What's the solution to this issue? Furthermore, we complain that the current WTC lacks home v away relevance but the issue of India hosting Pakistan & vice versa isn't fixed by creating a tiered comp. Indian nationalism & ethnocentrism exist at hyper Modi level today. This will always thwart any meaningful competition between these teams.
You think Status Quo will change?
I think BCCI, ECB and CA will make it so that they play each other more frequently and get even richer.
And lower division teams that rely on the big teams to tour to keep them afloat will just go under.
Unless BCCI allows more equitable sharing of the revenue, nothing will change, and its sad to see my country killing the game I love so dearly.
6 teams in tier 1 is too few because there remains a risk the biggest teams could get relegated...that's just not negotiable. Should be 8 minimum.
Test status is bullshit anyway. Anybody that wants to should be able to play 5 day cricket, and if the minnows play each other enough they might be good enough to take on the sharks.
Problem for test cricket is money.Lower team not have much money to run test cricket.
If Huffington Post was your model I'm not surprised it never worked champ.
Div 1: IND,AUS,ENG,PAK,NZ
Div 2: SL,WINDIES,SA,ZIM,IL,AFG,Bang
Div3: USA,Netherlands, Scotland,Canada,UAE
nobody wants this except corporates and people who are influenced by corporates
Has anyone told Jarrod that he looks like a long lost brother of Lance Klusener and sounds a bit like Jonathan Agnew (without the British accent)?
8 teams in each tier would be good because that will let england be in top tier and more countries the better
Jarrod,with all due respect,Did you bother following the recent face off between Zimbabwe and Afghanistan? If you did,that's exactly what giving every other team test status would look like. Associate nations would fail to pull enough spectators, games would be boring and ludicrous,in the end,those 3-4 nations among the seven that you be putting in tier 1 would be relevant, and after all these rodeos,we would find ourselves the starting point. And comparing T20 status to that of Test is uncalled for from someone like you; Test Cricket is about merit and skills,which lead to legacy and create heritage,and it would always be about Heritage.