On 25 okt, 22:49, (max.it) wrote:
James Siviter
22 October 2009

http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES2/articles/000068/0068...

and I thought that I was the only one with this idea.

max.it


Interesting article. The 'incentive scheme' for the Intercontinental
Cup is a good idea.

I am not really in favour of a promotion/relegation model in Test
cricket. I'd be looking more in the direction of granting the winner
of the Cup a one-off Test against a full-member nation, or even a
series of first class matches against the 'A' teams of full-member
nations.

RtH

Do we really need more Test playing countries? I think it is good
enough to have just the top 8, but since Bangladesh have already been
given the status and the game in Bangladesh is pretty big, they can
continue. Zim's case is different...I think they have better talent
than Bangladesh rather had better talent. I am inclined to believe
that if things are well organized in Zim they will rise at least to
where they were during 99-00.

Apart from these teams we don't need more Test playing nations. Let
the others play first class games in Test countries' domestic
tournaments, like Ireland and Holland have their national teams in the
County circuit, Kenya have their national team in RSA's domestic
circuit, Canada have it in WI domestic. And then sometime in the
future ensure that only the top 8 teams play official Test matches and
relegate/promote 2 more (currently Zim and Ban are in the promoted
state). Also the promoted teams play only Tests with 6, 7, and 8
ranked teams.

By doing this we can ensure that the teams at 9 and 10 are at least as
good as the domestic teams, plus gross mismatches in Test cricket are
largely avoided because 9 and 10 play only against 6, 7, and
8...probably just 7, and 8. After a few years if we notice that one of
the "permanent" nations have been consistently (device a formula for
that) at number 8 then relegate them to rank 9 and promote the 9 to 8.
Let the "permanent" nation win back its place...it shouldn't be tough
for it because for one it would be an insult to be relegated and would
keep them on their toes to play quality cricket. If they get relegated
and find it difficult to come back to "permanent" status then they
deserve to not be in the top 8. But here is the thing, if the number 8
gets relegated it should not mean that number 9 should necessarily get
promoted. the promotion should be based on how dominant they have been
against the associates plus their results against 6, 7, and 8.

There would be a question that if permanent # 8 is just relegated
without promoting # 9 then what is the incentive for them to do well.
This can be addressed by ruling that permanent # 8 which is now
relegated to 9 cannot play against 1 to 5 until they come back up to
the top 8, and will have to play a minimum number of associate games
other than 9, and 10.

Thoughts...