Are India really the No.1 ranked team in the world? You could have fooled me. They were completely inept in this match: no backbone, no skill, and no clue. They looked like Sri Lanka back in the 1980s or perhaps even Bangladesh on their inaugural tour of England. That might sound harsh but put it this way: England’s victory at Lord’s was the third fastest (in terms of overs) test victory on these shores in the last 100 years. It was that one-sided.
India’s only excuse is that they clearly had the worst of the conditions. Most batting teams would have struggled under heavy skies at Lord’s. I’d wager England’s batsmen might have looked a bit foolish on the first day too. However, India didn’t help themselves by picking the wrong side. It takes a special blend of managerial negligence to pick two spinners and no proper third seamer in conditions like that. Had Trevor Bayliss done something similar, England fans would’ve been calling for this head.
However, it’s unfair to simply point to the conditions and India’s lamentable performance. England’s seamers were absolutely immense. Jimmy Anderson put on a swing bowling masterclass, Stuart Broad (eventually) showed his class, and Chris Woakes proved what a fine cricketer he is yet again. Sam Curran and Adil Rashid were barely needed.
I know some Indian supporters scoff at Jimmy’s performances, and call him Jimmy Clouderson (or something equally unoriginal and contrived), but here’s a little statistic for them: Jimmy’s test bowling average IN INDIA is better than Zaheer Khan’s. And I thought Zaheer was supposed to be one of your best seamers of the last decade?!
The truth is that we all appreciate Jimmy is fantastic at home and not quite so brilliant away, but he’s hardly bad overseas. Check out his record in the UAE too. The pitches over there are as dry as Blackadder’s wit. I think the lasts time they saw a cloud in Dubai was approximately 1968 – although reports indicate that might have been smoke from a visiting cruise ship.
Anyway back to matters at hand. India are now in disarray and they’ll have to produce something special – as well as hope for clear skies – if they’re going to salvage anything from this series. What must hurt is that they’re not even losing to a particularly good England side. They lost by an innings and plenty in this match, but only four England players made any sort of contribution: Anderson, Broad, Woakes, and Bairstow. They basically lost to 4 players. Plus the hosts didn’t even hold all their catches.
The broader issue here, however, is the fact that all test teams continue to get obliterated when they travel overseas. And it definitely takes the shine off wins like yesterday’s. Just look what happened when England last visited India. It was just as one sided at this match at Lord’s.
As Simon H pointed out in the comments section yesterday, of the last 160 odd tests played since 2015, only 16 have been won by visiting teams that lost the toss. And 5 of those were in the West Indies, 2 were in Zimbabwe, and 1 in Ireland. Basically, if you lose the toss away from home then you’re toast.
One suggestion doing the rounds is that the ICC should copy England’s county championship and abandon the toss. In other words, the away team simply decides whether to bat or bowl first. Had this been the case at Lord’s then we might have enjoyed a much more competitive contest. What’s more, this should help teams like England and Australia when they visit the subcontinent. It would certainly prevent hapless tourists from being caught on day 5 bunsens that turn faster than Big Nasty’s decks.
The problem, of course, is that such a move would undermine decades of history. And being a traditionalist myself this idea appeals about as much as spending an evening in the company of Giles Clarke. However, what else can we do that’s relatively easy to implement? The status quo surely isn’t an option as test cricket will die if so many results prove to be a formality.
I’ve heard it said that preparation is key to solving this issue. In other words, India only have themselves to blame for the paucity of warm-up matches and their failure to acclimatise. However, anyone who has followed the scheduling issues that have blighted our brilliant sport for the last few years will know it’s not quite that simple. After all, when are these extra games going to be squeezed in amongst the surfeit of domestic T20 tournaments, and the irritating abundance of international white ball contests that are tagged onto every tour?
It’s all very well for jaundiced old sods like us to say “well cut the number of white ball games” but deep down we all know this is never going to happen. The powers that be are enamoured with ODIs and T20s, see them as money-spinners, and it’s the longer forms that miss out as a result.
So what, exactly, is the solution to create more competitive and compelling test cricket? Pitches obviously play a role in this too but I’m failing to identify a silver bullet. Perhaps you can help me out in the comments section below because I’m all out of ideas.
And please, no facetious suggestions like allowing touring teams to use wider bats, or making home sides bat with four stumps rather than three. Well, you can do that if you must but ideas must be funny! And I mean proper Steve Hughes amusing, not Russell Brand crank calling Andrew Sachs ‘funny’.
James Morgan
Although I agree that India were very disappointing, I can’t remember a match in which the conditions for bowling and batting so much favoured one side over the other. The pundits were all saying that if England had batted first, they would still have won, but not by as much. I’m not so sure – I think they might have struggled to reach three figures on Friday.
I quite agree. Even some of the best sides, past and present, would have struggled against that attack in those conditions and many wouldn’t have reached three figures.
Day Five bunsens that turn faster than Big Nasty’s decks….
Thanks got making me laugh out loud this morning.
The umpiring in this Test really was top drawer.
Taking it all into account James, India have been massively disappointing for the supposed no 1 test team. Who makes this stuff up? Presumably based on bunsens on the sub continent. Even an underperforming Australia is heaps better than this lot. Well if we have 4 performing players as you say, they have 1 batsmen and a average bowling “attack” if it doesn’t turn.
Yes the scheduling is ludicrous in the extreme. 5 back to back tests starting in August? A touring side has no opportunity to play some county sides. Beautiful summer weather for 2 months with nothing but endless evening t20 rubbish. TWO County Championship Games in 6 weeks and no tests at all in July. I don’t watch t20 any more and last went to a match 3 weeks ago, and that after a 2 week break. And guess what just about every county has 6 CC games from the 19th on the bounce.
But I degress, yes this India side looks almost as poor as the 2014 lot. What a let down. And do we really want 2 day tests, men against school boys?
What’s clear is that India’s No.1 status was a farce produced by ridiculous scheduling. Allowing a team to play at home for over two years while only venturing abroad to thrash their regular whipping boys SL and WI grossly distorted the rankings.Oh, and as if that isn’t enough, they can also avoid playing at home the team most likely to beat them there If Arsenal could arrange a season’s fixtures like that, they’d be Premiership champions!
At least such blatant manipulation is finally returning to bite them on the backside (although they won’t be paying back the prize money I’m sure). The last two years, plus Kohli’s limits as a tactician, have lulled them into a nonsense strategy for away Tests. They need to play six specialist batsmen (if they can find six worthy of inclusion), three seamers and a spinner. Trying to muddle through with Pandya, the keeper and Ashwin bailing them out with lower order runs might work against WI but it isn’t going to work in England (or Australia or NZ).
The injuries to Kumar and Bumrah haven’t helped but wouldn’t have changed the results. Ishant Sharma showed here why he has a bowling average in the mid 30s – he can only bang the ball in back of a length but he can’t pitch it up and swing it. He’s very one-dimensional.
I hope India can rally but the schedule and their last two tours suggest it’s a pipe dream.
From watching the C5 highlights, Anderson did bowl well but there was excessive movement off the seam and an unpredictable bounce. Not quite what Lord’s should be producing for a test match.
Despite the result, all is far from rosy – Cook is past his sell-by date, there is no clear No.2, Root can’t convert his 50s (not that there have been many of those recently), they can’t rely on Woakes (a lucky flash in the pan this time), they won’t pick a proper spinner (Rashid is too easy to pick off at test level), Northeast is clearly regarded as beyond the pale for some reason, Anderson & Broad must be coming to the end of their careers (the former’s shoulder must be a cause for serious concern), Buttler only may have what it takes, Curran could go either way and there is far too much pressure on Bairstow to score runs after keeping wicket. Apart from that, it’s all good!
How about relaxing the overseas player rule? A player from country x would not count as overseas if their nation had a test series in England within the next two years (maximum of one such player per county). That would encourage players to get some experience of English conditions. The ECB would have to negotiate bilateral agreements to get similar opportunities for English players abroad. The down side is that international schedules are so full there wouldn’t be many windows for players to take advantage of these opportunities. And there’s no guarantee that it would improve techniques. Pujara’s spell in county cricket appears to have wrecked his confidence.
Interesting idea on overseas players. There’s no doubt that, 30-40 years ago, the large number of top class overseas players in English county cricket improved standards in that game, and helped make visiting teams more competitive (though the West Indies team of that period needed little or no help!). I can remember seeing (selectively) Sobers playing for Notts, Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge opening for Hants, Greg Chappell batting for Somerset, Viv Richards and Joel Garner playing with Beefy at Somerset (they won a lot of one day trophies as a result), Clive Lloyd and Farokh Engineer playing for Lancs, and many others.
On Pujara, I think he is just out of form.
Very small point but an error often repeated. Gordon Greenidge was not an overseas player. Learnt his cricket in England at Hants playing for the Colts and going through a typical IIs apprenticeship. Played with him from when we were both 16 years old. He could and should have played for England.
Thanks; I had forgotten that. If I recall correctly, you were allowed 2 overseas players in those days. That would explain why Hampshire could have Greenidge, Barry Richards and Andy Roberts in the same side.
To be fair to Greenidge, I don’t know whether the MCC would have been prepared to pick him in those days. Also, you can’t blame him for not wanting to open against the West Indian pace attack of those days!
I think you are right about the 2 overseas players rule, but (and I think I may have mentioned before) I have an old Wisden where I recall reading that there was a ‘property qualification’ which meant that if an overseas player owned property here…….they counted as domestic. The comment was in the context of explaining how Warwickshire could have Kanhai, Kallicharan, Murray and others (including Gibbs early on) in the same team.
Only the MCC (I assume it was them at that time) could have maintained property qualification into the 70s and maybe even the 80s! Perhaps an ancestor of Giles Clarke?
The problem with having overseas players in the county championship is that they tend to be in key areas, like top order batsmen and opening bowlers. This limits the opportunities for domestic talent. However the upside is most seem to spend a deal of time coaching youngsters, which has to be helpful to provide the county with successors when they leave or are called up. However, despite all the overseas talent in the 70’s how many young English players emerged. Not many. How has Warne’s stay at Hampshire helped produce young spinners?
I would be in favour of having at least 2 per county if they were prepared to make a long term contractual commitment. This would involve making their home here during the summer and bringing over their families, so they can properly integrate into club and country. Presently there is a ludicrously mercenary situation that allows players to play for a few white ball games and then disappear.
James,
Slightly off the point, perhaps, but attention has turned to Trent Bridge. There has been some media interest in who would be moved aside to make way for Stokes if he is through the legal process and at liberty by Saturday. It is an interesting question, of course. I do not think it is right to speculate on the verdict or, indeed, on any sentence were he to be convicted but have I got it wrong in thinking that the sainted ECB has, in fact, held over its own investigation pending the outcome of criminal proceedings? If I am right, his future looks less than certain – at least on an immediate basis – even if he receives the most favourable outcome. It would also save the selectors the Immediate, unenviable task of choosing which all-rounder to move aside but also has some potential implications for the longer term?
I have probably got this all wrong but, if not, it does seem to be a matter that may have been overlooked generally?
Keep up the good work!
Mark
Can we just take a few moments to enjoy what was a thorough thrashing of a supposedly good side who turned out to be feeble in the conditions. To his great credit the much maligned Kohli didn’t moan and make excuses and we should not feel bad about winning. I half expect letters to the Times from Lucian Boppity-Eartrumpet apologising for a demonstration of old colonial slaughter.
Test are supposed to be just that – examinations of the capabilities of teams and individual players in all conditions. The best teams and best players find ways to succeed in all conditions – perhaps less so than in the past but that says more about the determination of latter day players. Dammit all, an early hero of mine was Len Hutton and he fought and succeeded home and away, knowing that members of the cricketing establishment thought it wrong that an professional should captain England.
I am absolutely irrevocably unswervingly opposed to the idea of dispensing with the toss. Why on earth would anyone want to make it easier for touring teams to win? (In my more extreme moments I would probably go back to banning WAGS and kids from tours.) I am not resigned to the inability to cut down the number of (largely meaningless) white ball games.As far as I’m aware there is nobody within cricket, not even among the idiots who make up much of cricket’s administration, who denies the supremacy of Test cricket among the various formats of the games. So the answer to improving the quality of Test matches is not to mess with the playing regulations * but to clear the desks of the crap. People will remember the Lords Test for years. I can remember nothing about the ODIs as they had no meaning or purpose other than to make money.
Lovers of the game need to stand up and fight the money men or they will reduce the game to a very unlovely state.
* some regulations need tightening or enforcing, like over rates, but that’s a different matter
Cricket abandons traditions more than any other game, as it has more to abandon, being an older game than most? In essence there are no set in stone cricketing traditions, just stuff we’re used to. Don’t see an issue for the governing bodies abandoning the toss if it produces more interesting contests. The president, as you point out, has already happened on the county scene.
Can’t believe you’re giving tips to India on how to fare better. Leave it to them if they want to keep screwing up. We’ve had so many recent disappointments of our own let’s revel in the boot being on the other foot while it lasts. It’s our skills in exploiting the far from unplayable conditions that have brought this about as much as their incompetence.
Not sure more than any other game. My other game (chess) has seen similar developments with the move to rapid and blitz forms (which rather reduces the opportunities for 6 hour ‘strategic’ games designed to do a Boycott on the opponent). However, at least cricket has not seen the suggestion, as in chess, that top events should see body searches of top players (to avoid the use of technology). :)
Apologies to all chess players put there, of which I am one, albeit lapsed. Didn’t consider this point before launching into my diatribe.
Played chess at school, where we were always on a timer, so we made it to afternoon lessons, or the last bus home. Did play a few postal games though, which were open ended. One even lasted over a year and guess what, ended in stalemate.
Try telling the players who played in them or punters who attended them that the ODI’s are meaningless.
Also the ‘money men’ as you call them have been responsible over the ages for eastablishing most of our so called cricketing traditions. Right from the word go the gentry and cricketers we look back on with rose tinted glasses as ‘flannel led fools on the green sward’ were about as mercenary as you could get. Many were highly unpleasant characters who made no attempt to make cricket a civilised game, just using it for their own self aggrandisement. Ironically it wasn’t until the advent of the professional game that this changed generally for the better, as stricter guidelines were established for players and the structure we are familiar with was established.
I don’t need to tell them. They are meaningless to a very large number of cricket followers. I’m well aware of the early history of cricket with wealthy guys having teams playing for money. But why would I want to look back so far. I’m concerned with the development of the game in my lifetime which has been considerable. But I note that your views are nearly always diametrically opposed to mine so I won’t bother arguing the toss, as they say in cricketing parlance.
It wasn’t just the early history of cricket that saw the monied gentry in charge, it lasted into the 20th century. I would also dispute the extent of ODI meaninglessness to a ‘very large number of cricket followers’. There are many who regret the passing of a more gentile game, me amongst them, but I would say there are many more who don’t. These cannot be dismissed as not ‘real’ cricket fans, whatever they are. Our present day ‘heroes’ mean just as much to kids today as ours did to us. Could the cricketers of our day have played the audacious shots this present generation is doing with confidence and aplomb. This is a skill that requires much practice.
In our lifetime I would say cricket has come on leaps and bounds as an entertainment, which is what professional sport is designed to be. I would agree there has been a level of dumbing down to attract a more general audience, but test matches still attract huge interest and Sky now devotes a whole channel to the game, much of it live test match coverage. They wouldn’t do that if they saw it as a loss leader.
The fans who go to white ball games are there because it’s over in one day or less, they see both teams bat and bowl and overall it’s cheaper than tests. Add that to the fact it’s easier to get one day off than 5..
Oh, and corporates love to send people to white ball games
Overall, white balls fans are the ones who are more interested in beer and a partisan football style dumbed down game.. if that’s what everyone wants ( judging by the decline of draw Cricket recreationally you can only assume so)..I’d say Cricket is well and truly dying a death., let alone the decline in many skill sets which are most acutely noticed in test cricket.
What is this cricket that’s dying a death?
Don’t understand why people would rather see defensive based styles over attacking based ones. If you take fewer risks you’re more likely to grind out a score or concede fewer runs, but as entertainment value who remembers or is excited by it. Techniques are just different, that’s all. Certain ones have lapsed to be replaced by others. It doesn’t mean the game is dying, it’s just moving in a different direction consistent with society, just as it always has done.
The game used to have slots for different styles and so catered to a wider audience. Not everyone wants or can biff .. menaing they have no future in the game. Hence why you see them leaving and the juniors who aren’t hitters also quit.
Hence the game is dying
Add that to tests like this where batsmen are unable to bat long and you see the decline.. it’s pretty obvious. 2020 is for hitters do for enough , if you want to watch hitting go there. Tests are supposed to be for longer Styles but that is/has been lost
The banning of WAGs and children was never a hard and fast rule in the past. If it had been there would never have been that wonderful story about Mike Smith captaining England in Australia and on going out to bat shoving a toddler Neil Smith into the arms of a teammate with a request to look after him as the wife had gone shopping.
James
Most of what you say is true, but I think we also need to mention a big miss (in my view) for India: a fully fit Bhuvi Kumar. His control of line, length and swing is usually excellent and he would have been perfect in English conditions. Bumrah is also a high class bowler.
That said, apart from Kohli in the first test, the much vaunted Indian batting line up has, so far, signally failed to deliver. I don’t think Dhawan is suited to opening in England (for the same reason that Sehwag wasn’t: too inclined to play forcing shots early in the innings), and I think Rahul should open.. Karthik is shot (I would drop him for Pant). I can understand why Pandya is in the team but he’s not doing much to justify the “all rounder” tag (unless you mean an English style “bits and pieces” player). Let Ashwin do that job and pick 4 specialist seamers.
So what, exactly, is the solution to create more competitive and compelling test cricket?
Based on this summer’s Test series, we don’t play Test cricket anymore. We play two sets of two innings and add up the scores at the end. I bet Bayliss and Root have never sat down before a Test this summer and discussed how things might pan out over five days; I suspect selection meetings no longer discuss left right combinations for example.
Teams now are collections of individuals because most of them are white ball players, and in that form of the game, success is often down to stunning individual performances with no concern about rotating the strike, ‘keeping the score board ticking over’ etc.
I have long thought that Test cricket will decline and disappear not just because of declining audiences, but because we will run out of players able to play it, and that’s what is happening. This Test was a good example. I know we had some exceptional conditions, but to lose, effectively, two days to rain and still finish on day four…..!!!
As Edgbaston showed, you can have competitive and compelling Test matches between two not terribly good sides, but increasingly we are losing the time element. I have sat enthralled at Test matches, one of a hushed crowd fascinated by a tussle between bat and ball, with tight field placings keeping scoring to a minimum. It doesn’t happen very often nowadays, nor I suspect would the crowd at most Test matches take kindly to it if it did!
Finally.. someone who gets it
The problem with ‘old style’ test cricket is there was little ambition to create winning positions. Batsmen were content to allow bowlers to contain, relying on bad balls to score as they looked to build a position difficult for the opposition to win from. A big 1st innings often resulted in a dreary outcome. Nowadays batsmen will hit on the up and improvise extremely skilful shots in an attempt to wrest the initiative even when bowlers are bowling line and length. After all the purpose of the game is to score runs and no Batsman wants to get out. Vastly improved fielding has also reduced the chances of batsmen getting away with loose shots. The likes of Derek Randall would not stand out in the same way today. Though ironically I do think close catching has not come on in the same way.
I agree that there are basic technical skills not being addressed as before, but you can’t have everything. However, it is wrong to hold up this last test as typical example of the problem, conditions so favouring seam and swing with weather interruptions giving the bowlers breaks to recharge their batteries. Anyone would have struggled against Anderson and Broad this week.
I honestly feel that a game so influenced by conditions shouldnt have a toss of a coin to decide who gets the best of them. Tradition is all very well but for the good of the game the away side should get to pick.
Historically it hasnt made as much of a difference but in recent years, winning the toss has given a huge advantage. Possibly down to the decline of a draw and maybe due to spinners taking more wickets). Either way, I just dont think the toss is fair to the side that loses it.
James
I think you have identified the obvious solution in your discussion. Add dinner with Giles Clarke to the rewards provided to the losers and I am betting that tourists would suddenly develop hitherto unknown levels of ability to deal with English conditions. Add a gala dinner for the losers, if they are whitewashed, to be hosted by Clarke and addressed by Smith and Strauss and there is every chance the tourists will be able to field a fourth or fifth team and still win.
I’m not reading too much into this England victory and I’m not going to put it on the conditions either. I always expected one test to be this way where we get out for 200 in total, so it’s not completely unexpected. I’d just say this one thing as to why I wouldn’t worry too much about this match. Bairstow’s 93 was streaky and he was very lucky not to have nicked one of the 3437 deliveries he played and missed. It would have been an entirely different game altogether if Bairstow got out with the score at 100 or 101 or 113 or 135 or 146.
That said, an abject batting performance by India. Completely inept and they deserve to lose but I’m counting on us to not give it up yet.
Pretty much every away team is struggling in Test cricket at the moment – essentially that’s because they’re all much of a muchness, and there is currently no outstanding Test side playing at the level of the Windies in the 70s/80s or Australia at the turn of the millennium. This is exacerbated by all of the governing bodies trying to squeeze too many internationals into the schedule, and the consequent lack of preparation before Test series and lack of opportunity for recovery time in between Tests. Did we really need that ODI series against Australia, or could we have just spaced this Test series out a bit?
Having said that, I disagree strongly with the idea of dispensing with the toss – just as I did in the County Championship. If we want to encourage pitches which allow for a proper contest, rather than blatantly favour the home team, could we not factor this into the points system in the proposed World Test Championship? Maybe more points for winning away than at home, or a penalty to the home side for preparing “home” pitches?
Thy are all struggling because the players are white ball compromised. Technically but crucially mentally. It means they simply struggle to play red ball Cricket as soon as it’s not a road.
We have to accept that 99.9% of players can’t play multiple formats well
James
Interesting as ever, but I don’t see why you make a point of stating that India only lost to basically four players. Surely that is not what a five match series is about? Not every batsman (sorry, batter) can score a century every game and not every bowler take five wickets an innings. Throughout a five match series it only becomes an issue if a player doesn’t make a contribution at all. So far, in the two matches played Root, Bairstow Curran and Woakes have done well with the bat and Anderson, Broad, Stokes, Woakes and Curran have done so with the ball…by my reckoning that leaves Cook, Jennings, Butler, Malan/Pope to put something together over the next three tests….there was a comment earlier that Root was out of form , yet he scored 80 at Edgbaston!….and if Test cricket is going to be more exciting, then perhaps we need more games like this! Does anyone really want to see 600/5 dec v 550 on a flat pitch
I was delighted for Chris Woakes, who has had more than his fair share of injury problems in recent years. By all accounts he played a fine, patient innings. He, Anderson, Broad and Curran all bowled well at different times, but the dropped catches is still an area of concern. I do wish Root would go back into the second slip position, he is a pretty good grabber on the whole. Other areas of concern: Cook’s continuing run of low scores; Jennings isn’t exactly pulling up trees either; Buttler isn’t contributing either. You could bring back Stokes for Buttler, assuming Stokes is free to play and not sent down for affray !
Kohli is clearly in a class of his own in the India line up. Ashwin appears to be playing quite well and perhaps he could be put higher up the order. The India selectors obviously got the balance of the team wrong. Michael Vaughan reckoned they were all having a meeting on the balcony as England closed in on the victory on Sunday afternoon.
The only way that away teams can start to do better is for them to have more longer warm up games against decent county/state/provincial opposition. As another writer on here stated, we really didn’t need that meaningless five match ODI series against an under strength Australia. I also don’t think it is fair on Pakistan or New Zealand only to have two match series. But I guess the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia are the ones with all the power these days.
Hoping that Anderson can surpass McGrath’s record number of wickets taken by a seamer by the end of the summer, but he still has a way to go.
I put £50on England winning the series and I bet about once every 2-4 years. Why.. because these series are so predictable.. under no circumstances were India going to be competitive because they can’t play the moving ball., our own players are bad enough at it.
As far as quality goes, this series is pretty poor and yet again highlights the decline in standards.. sadly I’m sure with super buttler and now super stokes all will be well and England will be world class
How many times in test cricket have Australia won due to the exploits of Warne and McGrath? How many tests did West Indies win in the 70’s and 80’s because of their fast bowlers? How many tests did Underwood finish off for England? How many tests did New Zealand win because of Hadlee? How many tests did Pakistan win because of Wasim and Waquar? The list goes on and on, so I don’t see the exploits of 4 players at Lords being that unusual a trend.
I was under the impression that Root’s back was a big reason that prevented him being in the slips all day..
As far as Test Rankings go, why not increase the value of away performances, e.g. make away wins count double a home win and away draws count the same as a home win.
Another measure would be to standardise the schedule so that every 4 years the top 8 play each other home and away in a 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20s series. Get rid of 2 test series and random ODI trips like Australia’s this summer. I would love for there to be scope to keep the odd 5 test series like the Ashes or at least the odd one off test for Associates but not sure how that would fit. Could even play for promotion and relegation. Bottom side after 4 year cycle plays off against top Associate to retain place in the top tier.
That sounds a fantastic idea.
Of course the big 3 boards are never going to buy into it …