Test divisions
Tim Wigmore takes a detailed look at the ICC’s Masterplan
It is a great myth that Test cricket remains essentially unchanged from when the first Test was played in 1877. It has been played over three, four, five or unlimited days. It has been played with different types of cricket balls. It has been played in the day or under floodlights. It has been played with six or eight-ball overs. The number of teams has risen from two to ten.
Yet now looms the biggest change in the 139-year history of Tests. Within three weeks, the ICC could vote to introduce two divisions, with seven teams in Division One and five in Division Two, playing under a league format every two years to determine promotion, relegation and the overall winner of the Test crown.
The significance of this reform could hardly be overstated. Finally every match would count for something greater than the series it is part of, and Test cricket would follow sports the world over in being structured around an easily understood league format. Whereas now the pinnacles of the format – the Ashes, which happens too often, or India-Pakistan, which happens too rarely – are only open to those lucky enough to be born in the right country, now anyone
could reach the summit. Finally, Test cricket would cease to be run like a snooty Victorian private members’ club.
For years administrators have uttered endless platitudes about ‘protecting the primacy of Test cricket’ without doing anything of the sort. In 2011, more was spent by the ICC executive board on their own entertainment than was on offer to the team who were ranked as the world’s No. 1 Test nation. A few weeks ago, Zimbabwe dropped off the Test rankings because they hadn’t played enough. The unmourned loss, even if only temporary, of 10 per cent of Test cricket’s nations was another reminder that Test cricket risks sleepwalking into a future in which, besides the Ashes and a few other marquee series, it is reduced to being a quaint form of the game, loved by a few romantics, but ignored by everyone else. As ICC chief executive David Richardson said last week: “If we really want Test cricket to survive, we can’t have the number of Test teams diminishing.”
It doesn’t have to be this way. The introduction of two divisions, with an easily understood structure, would finally be a constructive answer to Test cricket’s problems. If Test cricket has provided such wonders with a terrible structure then imagine how popular it could be with a system that had real consequences for victory and defeat, and in which every match counted towards an overall league?
Many in the ICC have long recognised as much. Richardson has been pushing for the introduction of a divisional structure since 2004, but has repeatedly suffered roadblocks: essentially, full member boards that wanted to be free to organise matches whenever they wanted, the lack of spirit of cooperation between countries and the predominance of short-term thinking among administrators. Even the World Test Championship, a distinctly modest plan for semi-finals and a final between the four top-ranked teams every four years, was postponed and then abandoned, because more cash could be earned playing the Champions Trophy.
Why should this time be different? The winds of change blowing through the ICC – all three of the main instigators of the regressive reforms instigated two years ago by Australia, England and India have left their posts or, in the case of Giles Clarke, had their wings clipped – has created a rare moment of opportunity. The stunning commercial success of the World Twenty20 was a reminder that Test cricket needs to be reinvigorated if it is to continue to thrive. There is recognition that, for Test cricket’s commercial and sporting well-being, it needs to become more inclusive.
Most important, as ever, is self-interest. The value for bilateral TV rights is falling, even as interest in ICC events soars. Giving Test match cricket context is a way to remedy this. The ICC has paid heed to declining attendances – England’s Test match with Sri Lanka at
Headingley attracted crowds over 10 per cent down on the corresponding fixture two years ago – and to lessons from other sports. Rugby sevens has grown at a stunning rate since introducing the World Rugby Sevens Series in 1999, with every match across the ten events a year counting towards the overall winner of each year’s Sevens Series.
Broadcasters the world over revere context in sport. Playing Tests within a structured format would be a way to grow the pie, make everyone better off and ensure the continued vitality of the format. A league system would not only give fans of countries involved more reason to watch, but make them more inclined to watch matches not involving their teams. If only a tiny percentage of Indian fans had a new reason to watch England play Sri Lanka, because it would impact whether India would be able to stay up in Division One, the economics of Test cricket could be transformed.
The other reason to hope is the pragmatism of what is being proposed. Deliberately, the schedule would not be all-encompassing, giving teams scope to organise Test series outside the schedule: so the Ashes would still take place as now if England or Australia were relegated to Division Two. Nor is it coincidence that the plan is for seven teams in Division One – and the proposal would need the support of seven of the ICC’s ten full members to be voted through.
Some of those who rail against the plan do so fearing for the future of West Indies cricket – based on current rankings, the West Indies would be in Division Two.Yet the West Indies would still be free to organise Test matches against teams in Division One, just as they do now. The threat of being in Division Two would compel administrators in the Caribbean, and other nations too, to lift up the quality of governance, which would ultimately lead to better cricket in the pitch. And, for now, the West Indies playing Afghanistan to decide promotion to Division One would make for a far more captivating spectacle than the sad pummelling of the West Indies in Australia last winter. It also demeans Test cricket to imagine that any countries have an immutable right to play with the elite even if they keep losing, and that successful new nations are incapable ofemerging. Other sports now enjoy huge TV audiences for countries once considered also-rans - look at the interest in Japan in last year’s Rugby World Cup - and the same could soon be true of Test cricket.
Nothing in the ICC is ever easy, and those hoping for the introduction of a proper structure have been disappointed too many times before. But the coming weeks hold out hope that Test cricket could finally cease to have an existential crisis. Instead, it could embrace a format that would provide more money and more excitement for fans, and safeguard the future of cricket’s most cherished format.