World cricket has been run so badly in recent times that it’s easy to get overexcited when administrators finally make the right noises. However, it’s hard not to feel at least cautiously optimistic about recent events at the ICC. There are still a lot of things to discuss – and there’s always the risk that positive statements are merely PR exercises – but it certainly sounds like the authorities are serious about boosting test cricket.
Here’s what I find most encouraging of all: they’re talking money. This suggests that they’re getting real. If the ICC wants test cricket (and indeed all international cricket) to be the pinnacle of the sport, then it needs to be the best paid form of the game. Professional cricketers are real people with real families, real anxieties and real aspirations. If we want them to focus on test cricket above all else, we have to make it worth their while. Pride in the shirt isn’t always enough when there’s a mortgage to pay.
The current situation, in which securing a one-month contract at the IPL is the peak of some players’ ambition, is an absolutely desperate state of affairs. Every time someone like Chris Gayle hints that T20 is where it’s at, and that he’d much rather play T20 for megabucks than endure the grind of test cricket for his country, it feels like a kick in the guts. It’s test cricket’s road to hell.
Although we’ve all enjoyed watching the West Indies globetrotters in T20 events, it’s tragic that so many of their best players have turned their backs on test cricket. Although political shenanigans with their board haven’t helped, I can understand why so many of them prefer to chase T20 pay cheques. As it stands, England and Australia’s test cricketers earn much more than their international peers. It hardly seems fair.
Consequently it was reassuring to hear the ACB’s James Sutherland hit the nail on the head after the recent ICC Committee and Board meetings:
Some of the key things there are about trying to make way to ensure the best players play international cricket, that they’re available and they don’t feel under pressure to go and chase money in T20 leagues.
I really can’t imagine N Srinivasan, who had such a personal stake in the Chennai Super Kings, saying the same thing. That’s why it’s good news that Srinivasan has gone and Shashank Manohar is the new ICC chairman. Perhaps the penny has finally dropped?
The obvious problem with committees is that they talk a lot and don’t always get things done. However, the situation at the ICC is clearly improving. For example, it’s likely that Manorhar will be unopposed in the upcoming elections. This is good news for world cricket because he intends to reduce the BCCI’s share of the pot and distribute more money to nations that need it. There’s still the odd sop to the powerful nations – the ICC praised India’s hosting of the World T20 despite all the dismal organisational cock-ups – but there’s always going to be a little bit of political give and take.
The great news (which we’ve mentioned before) is that the sinister big three power-grab orchestrated by Srinivasan, with support from England’s very own pantomime villain Giles Clarke, now appears certain to be rolled back. This is extremely welcome news; pats on the back all round for the makers of Death of A Gentleman. However, this alone obviously isn’t enough. Once again Sutherland recognises the problem:
Part of (the process) is elevating the primacy of all forms of international cricket but particularly Test cricket, and looking to build context. Whether that’s through leagues or championships or whatever it might be.
Now this is where things get a little complicated. Most right-minded people will agree that international cricket should be the pinnacle of the sport, and that creating windows for big bucks T20 tournaments is problematic, but people have different opinions as to how international cricket should be reformed. We’ve argued about the various options on this site many, many times.
The main two plans are (a) creating a world test championship (with or without two divisions) and (b) introducing a points system for bilateral series, whereby the team that amasses the most points over a series of test, ODI and T20 games will be declared the overall ‘winner’. My personal opinion is that both options are worth trying – if only because the alternative of doing nothing is far worse. However, neither system is perfect.
As those who have thought about a test championship long and hard will admit, it’s a great idea in theory but extremely difficult to implement – especially if you want to safeguard traditional series like The Ashes. Meanwhile, others worry that a points based system like the women’s Ashes could be used as an excuse to cut down the number test matches played. Indeed, a points system would also undermine the integrity and importance of traditional test series.
It could well be that the problems associated with any new system prove insurmountable. However, at this stage I see no point in focusing on the obstacles. I’d rather be optimistic that something workable can be devised. The solution might not be to everyone’s taste, and it might take some tinkering after its birth, but I’m at least happy that an appetite for serious reform has emerged.
The first step towards solving a problem is recognising that one exists; therefore I see the ICC’s recent change in attitude as extremely positive. The ICC has stated that ‘administrators must embrace innovation and understand the demands and expectations of the spectators and fans … growing interest in the traditional form of the game’. A year ago, the ICC seemed determined to ignore supporters and shrink the global game, so things are certainly looking rosier.
With all these things I guess we’ll have to wait and see what eventually transpires. The ICC has made it clear that discussions about various reforms are still ongoing, and there’s still much work to be done, but at least we can sense the winds of change. Let’s just hope the winds don’t turn out to be hot air.
Here’s a summary of where things stand after the most recent ICC Chief Executives Committee and Board Meetings.
There’s general recognition that international cricketers should be better paid. The hope is that the gap in pay between England/Australia players and those of poorer nations should be cut.
Most ICC members are against creating new windows for domestic T20 tournaments in the international schedule (although the IPL will remain). For example, Australia will play international fixtures during the Big Bash.
The ICC wants to find “a model which adds greater context to international matches … as a matter of priority” in order to engage new fans. Test series need to be more appealing and relevant. Nick Hoult has suggested that a simplified test championship might be introduced, with four points for a win and two for a draw.
The feedback from the day-night test at Adelaide was extremely positive. More matches will be scheduled and there could be multiple day-night tests in the coming twelve months. Organisers were delighted with the big crowds attracted.
There’s still a possibility that cricket could become part of the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. Discussions are at an early stage but it’s something that’s being considered.
Ireland and Afghanistan have been granted $500,000 each to help them develop and possibly push for full member status in the future.
Some Windies players were severely criticised for their comments immediately after the World T20 final. Darren Sammy in particular was very vocal in criticising the West Indies board. Marlon Samuels was also censured for his gloating at Ben Stokes’ expense.
Last but by no means least, the ICC have confirmed that the position of chairman must be thoroughly independent. No candidate can simultaneously hold a position with a national board. This completely scuppers Giles Clarke’s plan to seize control of world cricket and plot abominable acts from his secret volcano lair.
I’d be interested to know what you think of these latest developments. Do you share my (cautious) optimism or will you remain cynical until reforms are actually implemented? What’s more, do you think the ICC will introduce the right kind of restructure? I hate to think what might happen if this opportunity is blown.
James Morgan
James, good summary. I am not sure that all ICC members oppose T20 windows or just Australia (and probably England) but we will see how that plays out.
Just prior to the meeting I completed the report on the survey I was running. Thanks for your help on that front, the response (1070 people) was far more than expected, and a very representative sample. You can read/download here:
idlesummers.com/post.php?postid=1948
Sending it around to various stakeholders, the most important point, expressed multiple times was “there is a willingness to embrace change”. At some level they all know they need it – not least because the willingness of players to ditch international cricket has forced the their hands. If it takes the threat of being irrelevant to force reform then I am all for it.
Hopefully they’ll take on board some of the key findings in my report – the importance fans place on opportunity; that the championship should be a large component of the structure; that it can coexist with traditional series – and make something that drives Test cricket forward.
Great work Russ. 1070 responses is excellent. Keep fighting the good fight.
Okay to throw it out there.
How about the players are centrally contracted by the ICC That way the games can be managed including Test matches, T20’s down to the State/County games.
The players are paid the same across the board from the same pot.All players have the same incentives as well.
Just a thought.
“As those who have thought about a test championship long and hard will admit, it’s a great idea in theory but extremely difficult to implement ”
I have thought about it long and hard, and I honestly have no idea why it would possibly be difficult to implement. All you do is organise the schedule a bit more coherently and then apply points to the series over a 4 year period.
This rather glosses over the complexities AB! How many teams are you planning to include and how long will the series be? Presumably, nine and three, over four years, but where does that leave Zimbabwe, and what will it mean for Ireland et al in the future? Will there be relegation? How will you finance teams if they are relegated and can’t host India? How will you finance teams generally, given they are currently lacking for adequate funds?
If there is relegation, is four years too long a cycle, as a decent team could go down on the back of performances from several years before. Ditto the champion team. If we were in the third year of a cycle now, Bangladesh would go down, and South Africa would win, but neither would be deserving on current form.
And that’s even before the fact that playing more matches between England and WI and reducing England vs Australia will make for less competitive cricket. (Financially it is an even worse outcome).
James is right, its not simple. I think it can be done. But there are lots of issues.
2 groups of 7 teams, minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 tests per series, to be played home and away within a 3 1/2 year period.
Top 2 play off in a race-to-2 series.
Bottom team plays off with top team of second group for promotion/relegation.
ICC collected prize money distributed to all teams.
4 years is about right. The peak of most “good” test teams lasts about 5 -10 years.
Playing test matches during T20 competitions seems eminently sensible, because there is so little overlap between the best test cricketers and the best T20 players – but I do think ODIs and T20s should be scheduled to as not to clash with domestic T20 fixtures so that the white ball specialists are available.
Sorry AB, but that’s simply not true. WI T20 has diverged from their Test team but most people think that’s a bad thing. Root, Stokes and Moeen Ali play all forms for England.
The two beaten SFs have many players who play both forms. Dhawan, Sharma, Kohli, Rahane, Ashwin, Jadeja for India; Guptill, Williamson, Santner, Anderson, Taylor for NZ.
There are very few T20Is played so they aren’t a big issue in scheduling. India played one in twelve months recently. The issue is the scheduling of the franchises. These need to be designated ‘blocks’ in the calendar and no international cricket scheduled at the same time. ABDV shouldn’t be forced to choose between his country or making nearly ten times as much in a franchise. We aren’t going to like the choices players are going to start making.
The fact that team selectors with their thoughts trapped in the 1990s insist on playing their test cricketers in the T20 team does not in any way prove that those players are the best T20 cricketers.
“The two beaten SFs have many players who play both forms”
Yes, the two BEATEN teams. Says it all.
The nations with the largest pools of players are the ones where the teams in different formats are going to diverge most. Your ideas would favour the larger nations and penalise the smaller ones (as if there isn’t enough of that already).
Also, the players who play in all formats are likely to be the very top names. They shouldn’t be made to choose.
I’d add as well that the teams that got to the SFs didn’t do too badly! Most people thought NZ’s selection was brilliant. India perhaps made some selection errors but, in my view, that was largely picking Raina and Yuvraj who don’t play in their Test team.
Root – freak
Stokes – isn’t really good enough at t20 so is there on reputation rather than earnt it
Ali-‘the guy isn’t a test player in any way
India barely play tests and 2020 differently now sadly.. That’s more an indication of their processes to produce players than anything
New Zealand
Guptil isn’t a test player, just shoe horned in.. Only player that is is the freak Williamson.
Basically, barring a very very limited number of freaks you could play 2020 and tests at the same time and not hurt tests. Pay tests more and maybe less players will just learn biffing and might actually learn technical aspects again.
India have 18 tests scheduled between June 16 and March 17 against 5 different nations, after only playing 8 in the previous 18 months.
Another point: how in gods name is “4 for a win and 2 for a draw” simple?
Here’s a far simpler solution: 2 for a win and 1 for a draw? That’s right, I just divided the points by 2. I can’t actually believe someone suggested that.
As it stands, the perfect simple solution would simply be: 2 points for winning a SERIES (minimum 3 games), 1 point for drawing a SERIES, and 1 point for winning each test match.
So if you win a test series 3-0, you get 5 points, oppo gets 0 points.
If its 3-2, its 5 points vs 2 points
If its 2-2, its 3 points vs 3 points
works perfectly. The winner of the series is appropriately rewarded, but the point per match also eliminates the problem of dead rubbers.
They might want to leave some scope for bonus points. A 4-2 split would allow that. You’ll have to ask Nick Hoult what the exact thinking is mate. My information on this is second hand.
I suggest growing the game internationally would be an excellent way of growing Test cricket. Then if one of the countries has a problem with enthusiasm for the sport there will be plenty of others to take their place. If, say, Italy could arrive on these shores with their own Shane Warnetti, a Brett Locatelli and an Italian Gale Force, I reckon there would be plenty of interest, not least from the many Italian expats.
Now to go really wild, if you had maybe 20+ Test nations, why play series at all? How about single matches, as football and rugby do and throw in the occasional World Cup?
Going to splash my face with cold water now
WordPress ate my post!
Oh well, to cut some lengthy ramblings short:
1) Even though I like the noises coming from Manohar, I’d like the election to be contested.
2) I fear the main motivation for these concessions is to keep cricket out of the Olympics which would endanger the ICC’s monopoly position (and question India’s regime on drug-testing).
3) Going back to a status quo ante the B3 Power-Grab with a Test Championship bolted on, would still be a crap situation. There was a lot wrong with how cricket was run before Srini-Giles-Wally came along.
4) Crunch time is likely to be in June once the elections are out of the way in late May.
Perhaps cricket could follow football’s approach to the Olympics? Effectively make it an U21 or U23 tournament for younger players. The game would get much needed exposure on the world stage but the existing structures wouldn’t be affected too much. It’s just a thought (off the top of my head actually).
PS Apologies about WordPress. All it takes is for the server to go offline for a millisecond – the precise millisecond you pressed ‘send’. Either that or it could be a broadband connection issue your end. My Sky broadband is notoriously unreliable. My wireless often drops out for 2 seconds and then kicks in again. Bizarre. Still, getting everything from Sky somewhat subsidises the cost of Sky Sports. They gave me an all inclusive deal.
No blame to yourself James about WordPress – just a general yelp of frustration!
The problem with a U21 or U23 Olympic format for cricket is that the IOC want the top Indian players. I don’t think they’d go for it. I think it would have to be T20. The only disruption would be to the English calendar but a fortnight once every four years has to be a price worth paying.
The other issue has been about ground facilities when the Olympics has been staged in countries with no cricket heritage. Drop-in pitches have solved that. The Warne-Tendulkar games in the USA showed how it can be done with a will to make things happen.
Look what Olympic status is doing for rugby:
http://www.scmp.com/sport/rugby/sevens/article/1934055/china-and-usa-lead-rugby-sevens-global-explosion-after-olympics
“Effectively make it an U21 or U23 tournament for younger players”
Horrible idea – either take it seriously or don’t partake at all. Football should be kicked out of the Olympic games. The pointless face that is Olympic football manages to reflect badly on both the Olympics AND football, which is no mean feat.
Football doesn’t need the Olympics anyway: football is bigger than the entire of the Olympics. Cricket, sadly, is not.