World cricket seems to be a rather dystopian place at the moment. So much of cricket seems to have moved away from the realms of logic to far shakier ground. International cricket is a closed shop, and is being pushed into a cold corner by the might of the money flaunting Premier Leagues. There seems to be so much wrong in cricket at the moment, or at least so much that I think could be improved, that I felt compelled to write an article on it all.
The Banglasesh-Zimbabwe Test series produced good, fighting cricket, but what did it really count for?
Regarding Test cricket, I think I explained what I believe should be done pretty well: eleven Test nations, including Ireland, have to play each other once in a three-match WTC Test series. This gives them all a minimum of thirty Test matches, while they are perfectly entitled to organise more matches outside of the WTC program. Points can be earned with three for a Test win, two for a tie, one for a draw and none for losing. There would also be one bonus point awarded if a team whitewashed their opposition over the three games.
We now have a simple, easy to understand ranking system. The system would also reward attacking cricket; with only one point in a draw, there is no benefit in preparing flat tracks. It would also add context to series like Bangladesh against Zimbabwe, where good, sometimes thrilling cricket was played out for the bottom places in the rankings. How would it do that? With relegation.
Not straight relegation, but a system where the top team from the Intercontinental Cup gets a three-match play-off series, on home turf if possible, against the last place finisher in the WTC. These three matches would have Test status and would run concurrently with the WTC Finals. The WTC Finals would involve the top four teams, playing semi-finals and a final to decide the World Test Champions. This would all happen over a four-year cycle.
In the lower reaches, the Intercontinental Cup would have nine teams, who each play each other once in a four-day first-class match. They would end up playing eight first-class fixtures, although they are perfectly entitled to arrange more cricket for themselves outside the program.
Ideally, the bottom side from the Intercontinental Cup would be relegated into the Intercontinental Shield, which would be an eight-team knockout tournament on neutral turf, such as the UAE. This last level would be most problematic, as there is a slight shortage of high-quality international teams, but if it was for the eight highest placed teams on the WCL ladder not in the Intercontinental Cup, that would make sense.
Regarding Test cricket, I think I explained what I believe should be done pretty well: eleven Test nations, including Ireland, have to play each other once in a three-match WTC Test series. This gives them all a minimum of thirty Test matches, while they are perfectly entitled to organise more matches outside of the WTC program. Points can be earned with three for a Test win, two for a tie, one for a draw and none for losing. There would also be one bonus point awarded if a team whitewashed their opposition over the three games.
We now have a simple, easy to understand ranking system. The system would also reward attacking cricket; with only one point in a draw, there is no benefit in preparing flat tracks. It would also add context to series like Bangladesh against Zimbabwe, where good, sometimes thrilling cricket was played out for the bottom places in the rankings. How would it do that? With relegation.
Not straight relegation, but a system where the top team from the Intercontinental Cup gets a three-match play-off series, on home turf if possible, against the last place finisher in the WTC. These three matches would have Test status and would run concurrently with the WTC Finals. The WTC Finals would involve the top four teams, playing semi-finals and a final to decide the World Test Champions. This would all happen over a four-year cycle.
In the lower reaches, the Intercontinental Cup would have nine teams, who each play each other once in a four-day first-class match. They would end up playing eight first-class fixtures, although they are perfectly entitled to arrange more cricket for themselves outside the program.
Ideally, the bottom side from the Intercontinental Cup would be relegated into the Intercontinental Shield, which would be an eight-team knockout tournament on neutral turf, such as the UAE. This last level would be most problematic, as there is a slight shortage of high-quality international teams, but if it was for the eight highest placed teams on the WCL ladder not in the Intercontinental Cup, that would make sense.
India and Sri Lanka seem to feature in about a million bilateral ODIs. They are not alone.
ODI cricket is suffering from an identity crisis caused by constant tinkering and being over-played. By the time you've learnt the latest lot of regulations, October comes around and they've all changed again; usually to become more complex. Shane Warne made a good point on the commentary for the Champions' Trophy: the regulations are now so detailed and intricate that there is little place for freedom and creativity on the part of captains. He would rather see ODIs completely de-regulated, and freedom handed back to the captain to do what he wants. This would play into the hands of a more creative captain, like Brendon McCullum, although whether it would improve one-day cricket remains to be seen.
Whether or not Shane Warne's idea is the answer or not, the ICC desperately need to pick one format and run with it. Stop tinkering. That applies both to the World Cup and the format itself. The World Cup has not remained unchanged since the second edition way back in 1979. It is set to shift to move to a ten-team tournament by 2019, with a qualifying system that excludes Associates quite comprehensively. The ICC will point out that it is more meritocratic and will produce a higher standard of cricket. I frankly do not care. I don't want to see the Netherlands, Scotland, Afghanistan and the rest all shut out of playing in the World Cup. Where would we see upsets, giant-killings? If Ireland get Test status, then that means that one of the Full Members would also miss out on the World Cup. Guaranteed. As I've said previously, the ICC has forgotten one of the two words in the tournament's name, and it isn't "Cup".
My final issue is with the lack of context for ODI cricket. Sri Lanka, in the last two years, have played 56 ODIs. That's more than double the total played by South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. What is the point? Who actually cares about all these series, and why do they have to be five and seven matches long? Surely a more intense, condensed series, like the Champions Trophy, like the Asia Cup, but also like the three-game series that often go to the wire, would benefit the game more?
Whether or not Shane Warne's idea is the answer or not, the ICC desperately need to pick one format and run with it. Stop tinkering. That applies both to the World Cup and the format itself. The World Cup has not remained unchanged since the second edition way back in 1979. It is set to shift to move to a ten-team tournament by 2019, with a qualifying system that excludes Associates quite comprehensively. The ICC will point out that it is more meritocratic and will produce a higher standard of cricket. I frankly do not care. I don't want to see the Netherlands, Scotland, Afghanistan and the rest all shut out of playing in the World Cup. Where would we see upsets, giant-killings? If Ireland get Test status, then that means that one of the Full Members would also miss out on the World Cup. Guaranteed. As I've said previously, the ICC has forgotten one of the two words in the tournament's name, and it isn't "Cup".
My final issue is with the lack of context for ODI cricket. Sri Lanka, in the last two years, have played 56 ODIs. That's more than double the total played by South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. What is the point? Who actually cares about all these series, and why do they have to be five and seven matches long? Surely a more intense, condensed series, like the Champions Trophy, like the Asia Cup, but also like the three-game series that often go to the wire, would benefit the game more?
I really do love the World Twenty20 though.
And now for a bit of a confession: I love Twenty20 Internationals. I think they're a fantastic spectacle, seeing two nations fight it out in an intense environment. I love the World Twenty20, too. Even if it moves to a slightly expanded structure with 16 teams, it will be a great spectacle. It's short, sharp, and exciting.
What I don't love so much are the Twenty20 rankings. They are at best transient and at worst inaccurate. When Bangladesh beat Ireland (or rather, edged past by the skin of their teeth) in three Twenty20s last year, they shot up the rankings. For edging past Ireland. While Ireland are a good side, beating them doesn't entitle you to a top-five berth in the rankings. Especially when you move on through Europe and collect two defeats from the Associates there. At the end of the day, winning the biennial World Twenty20 must enough for a team to say that they are the World Champions? Who needs rankings?
What I don't love so much are the Twenty20 rankings. They are at best transient and at worst inaccurate. When Bangladesh beat Ireland (or rather, edged past by the skin of their teeth) in three Twenty20s last year, they shot up the rankings. For edging past Ireland. While Ireland are a good side, beating them doesn't entitle you to a top-five berth in the rankings. Especially when you move on through Europe and collect two defeats from the Associates there. At the end of the day, winning the biennial World Twenty20 must enough for a team to say that they are the World Champions? Who needs rankings?
For the most part, domestic cricket should remain untouched.
Domestic cricket is always the responsibility of that nation's board. There are, though, (as always) a few things that I think have been overlooked in the quest of making a nation's domestic season more appealing than the next country. Firstly, as I've said previously, the points systems are ridiculous. I won't go into detail here, but would advise the relevant boards to follow the KISS rule.
I would also like to see more Associate nations being included in the domestic structures of the Full Members. Namibia have been included in the Provincial Series, but they are the exception, not the rule. Canada have been elbowed out of the West Indian season, and the Netherlands and Scotland are to bid farewell to county cricket at the end of this season, too. I think the following changes might be in order:
Smaller teams could also find their way into smaller competitions. Denmark for the Minor Counties, perhaps, or PNG for the Futures League.
My final idea for domestic cricket, which I think would benefit the game as a whole, would be the creation of Premier League licences. This way, cricket boards have to apply for a Premier League licence to run a Twenty20 franchise competition. This would mean that Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the West Indies would all need Premier League licences, as would Australia and (possibly) Zimbabwe for their competitions. A Premier League licence would mean:
Twenty20 competitions like the old Caribbean T20, the Friends Life T20, HRV Cup and Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy would not need Premier League licences, which would mean that they could run whenever they like in the year, but could also end up clashing with a Premier League. As a result, it would be sensible for some of these competitions to get Licences as well. International, first-class and List A cricket would all carry on as normal through the window.
I would also like to see more Associate nations being included in the domestic structures of the Full Members. Namibia have been included in the Provincial Series, but they are the exception, not the rule. Canada have been elbowed out of the West Indian season, and the Netherlands and Scotland are to bid farewell to county cricket at the end of this season, too. I think the following changes might be in order:
Smaller teams could also find their way into smaller competitions. Denmark for the Minor Counties, perhaps, or PNG for the Futures League.
My final idea for domestic cricket, which I think would benefit the game as a whole, would be the creation of Premier League licences. This way, cricket boards have to apply for a Premier League licence to run a Twenty20 franchise competition. This would mean that Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the West Indies would all need Premier League licences, as would Australia and (possibly) Zimbabwe for their competitions. A Premier League licence would mean:
Twenty20 competitions like the old Caribbean T20, the Friends Life T20, HRV Cup and Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy would not need Premier League licences, which would mean that they could run whenever they like in the year, but could also end up clashing with a Premier League. As a result, it would be sensible for some of these competitions to get Licences as well. International, first-class and List A cricket would all carry on as normal through the window.
Pretty much all of the ideas here are aimed towards two goals: to make cricket fairer and more appealing.
The final item on my lengthy wish-list is for a Welsh cricket team. It won't happen because the coffers would take such a big hit, but if it did, I could see Wales being a weighty Associate. They would, I expect, give Scotland and the Netherlands a good game, possibly even a good beating. It's a pity that the chances of a European Quadrangular ODI tournament is an impossibility - it would be a fantastic thing for cricket on the continent.
These ideas are wide-ranging, and pretty much all unlikely to happen. Money is a stumbling block that many of them would not overcome. However, if they did, then they would all help to create a cricketing environment where it is possible to progress from the very bottom to the very top, and where the spectator get full value for money. All cricket would have some kind of context, and, I believe, cricket as a whole would be healthier for it.
These ideas are wide-ranging, and pretty much all unlikely to happen. Money is a stumbling block that many of them would not overcome. However, if they did, then they would all help to create a cricketing environment where it is possible to progress from the very bottom to the very top, and where the spectator get full value for money. All cricket would have some kind of context, and, I believe, cricket as a whole would be healthier for it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment