Herman's Ideas on the Future of International Cricket

As a keen follower of Cricket at all levels (see my Global Ratings), and as an enthusiast of all sports (see my Olympic pages) I have a few ideas about how cricket can move forward in the twenty-first century. Here are some of my ideas:

1- Ideas for Test Cricket

The main question that haunts the ICC nowadays is about the test status of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Kenya. Has test status been awarded to Bangladesh too early? Should Kenya receive test status? Should Zimbabwe be deprived of test status?

I believe it is time to re-think the philosophy behind test cricket. Test cricket is the pinnacle of the sport, and it should be played by the best players. Who are most likely to be professionals. And who more often than not play their craft in a professional league, not necessarily exclusively in their own country. It is absurd to believe that countries like Bangladesh and Kenya will ever be able to create professional leagues that can keep their top players. Rather, we shall see Kenyans playing for professional teams in England or South Africa, where they will be joined by the pick from Nepal, Namibia, Argentina and Fiji. When these cricketers reach professional levels, there should be a Test team available for them.

Which is why I believe that all cricketers ought to have the right to play test cricket. At the moment, they have not. Kenyans, Namibians, Canadians and Dutch have shown the world what they can do, yet they are unable to be picked by any test team. Gavin Hamilton played some fine cricket for Scotland in the 1999 World Cup, but he then had to move to England in order to get a test place. He has not been recalled since, but still he has lost the right to play ODI's for Scotland. And there must be other stories like that.

Which is why I advocate keeping the current number of 10 test teams, but change the name (or at least the meaning) of five of them:

• Zimbabwe would become "Rest of Africa" and the Kenyan players would be eligible to that team;
• West Indies would become "Americas", which would stop the strange fact that a cricketer from the US Virgin Islands is eligible for test cricket, but one from the nearby Turks & Caicos Islands isn't;
• England would become "Europe", allowing people like Gavin Hamilton to play test cricket without giving up his Scotland ODI status;
• Bangladesh would become "Rest of Asia", allowing them to pick from the upcoming batch of Nepali youngsters;
• New Zealand would become "Oceania", although I don't see many Fijian or Japanese test cricketers on the horizon;
• Australia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa would remain as they are.

That way, all cricketers, whereever they come from, have a chance of one day playing at the highest level.

I don't really advocate changing the names of the teams straight away. Too many people might be emotionally linked to "New Zealand" or "West Indies", while for a Scotsman or even a Dutchman, playing for "England" can be no less rewarding that it is for a Welshman (don't forget that England actually comprises Wales!)

Also remember that almost all test teams started off as continental teams:

• Welsh players have always been eligible for "England", and no-one has ever suggested calling the team "Britain". Ireland and Scotland only joined the ICC as Associate members in 1993 and 1994 respectively, before that their cricketers were eligible for England without reserve. During the Rebel tours crises there was even talk of Dutch and Danish players making it into the England team
• When Australia played the first ever Test match in 1877, there was no such country as Australia, rather a number of separate British colonies. There were 2 New Zealand cricketers making it into the Australian test team in the 19th century, and only in one case did the cricketer really move home.
• The same is true of South Africa. In 1888 there were four separate countries in Southern Africa. When John Traicos played his first test (South Africa's last before the boycot), he lived in Rhodesia.
• The West Indies have always been a transnational team. In the early sixties there was some talk of a West Indian federation, but first Jamaica and then gradually the other islands gained their independence separately from one another, while West Indian cricket continued as if nothing had happened. Incidentally, the limits of the (cricket) West Indies have never been officially set. Why is it that Belize, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are outside the current WICB, while the US Virgin Islands are in it?
• India too was politically far from a simple one state when their first test was played in 1932.

So the idea of continental test teams is far from new.

2- Ideas for One-Day Cricket

In One-Day cricket, I would go exactly the opposite way.

Zimbabwe and Kenya (and Namibia) may well provide cricketers for a single "Africa" team, but they can easily keep playing one-day internationals separately. In fact, I would recommend that they regularly play real continental championships among themselves, and with South Africa as well.

The same is true in the other continents, and then we reach two interesting cases:

In Europe, there is room for a separate ODI team for Wales. In the past two summers, a team called Wales has played against a team from England. True, the Welsh teams were boosted by the help of the foreign international playing for Glamorgan during that year (Gary Kirsten and Michael Kasprowicz respectively), but the Welsh won the first and came close in the second of these matches. Imagine how interesting a real European championship would be, with Wales providing the springboard for Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands to bridge the gap with England.

Whereas in the Americas, the main countries (Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad, and I would include Antigua) are undoubtably able to field teams that have no difficulty with any of the associates, and would even give Australia a run for their money.

This would mean that there would be 16 first-class ODI teams (England, Wales, Antigua, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand).

What would that do to the World Cup? Already, the ICC has decided to bring the number of Associate Qualifiers from 3 to 5. I'm certain that some of the countries in the Leeward and Windward Islands would like to get a chance (Grenada, St Lucia, St Vincent, St Kitts), but could you not imagine a World cup with 24 teams? Look at the following 6 groups:

Australia	South Africa	England	New Zealand
Zimbabwe	Pakistan	Sri Lanka	India
Bangladesh	Kenya	Wales	Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda	Guyana	Trinidad & Tobago	Jamaica
St Vincent	Grenada	St Kitts & Nevis	Netherlands
Un.Arab Em.	Canada	Namibia	Scotland

Any problems with organizing this in the Caribbean in 2007?

I for one would like to see Ireland take on St Vincent for a place at stake in the World Cup. I'm not certain who would win.

3. Qualification for the World Cup

It seems unfair to me that the full members do not have to qualify for the World Cup. Certainly, I don't see any chances for any of the teams to fail to qualify into a 14-team World Cup, but I think it is sportingly unjust for Kenya to have to risk non-qualification while for Zimbabwe qualification is certain.

Speaking in May 2008, I would like to see a structure like the following:

• Later this year, the top 8 teams will be playing the Champions' trophy. I suggest the top six qualify automatically for the next Champion's trophy in 2010 (and thereby also for the World Cup in 2011).
• The bottom two teams of this years' Champions' trophy should join the two remaining full members (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and the top Associates (there is no way to whittle down the current six teams to four before then) in 2009 for what I would call the Champions' Trophy Second Division. The top two teams from that competition qualify for the Champions' Trophy 2010. Those two and the numbers three and four qualify for the World Cup 2011. That way, the current ten teams have every chance of guaranteeing their place well before the tournament takes place. But at least they'd have done it on the playing field.
• The other six teams (quite probably the same six as currently slated) are joined by six other teams in the World Cup qualifier, already scheduled for 2010, with four teams qualifying for the World Cup in 2011.

The structure could then be streamlined for the next series of matches to make the qualification for the World Cup of 2015:

• The top eight teams would qualify for the Champions' Trophy, to be held in 2012 and 2014. Two teams would be relegated.
• The teams finishing 9-12 would qualify for the CTD2, to be held in 2013. They would be joined by two relegations from the CT, and by two promotions from the D3. The top two qualify for the CT 2014, two others might qualify for the WC2015.
• The teams finishing 13-14, and the top four non-qualified teams from the 2010 WC qualifier, would constitute the third division, to be played in 2012 for the first time. Two more teams join them from D4. These eight teams (13-20) play in 2012 and 2014, with two up and two down. The 2014 event is also the WC quaifier. I would urge the ICC to award two extra places and bring the WC to 16 teams again.
• D4 would be played among the teams ranked 19-26, in the odd years. The first staging could be in 2011 (the WC year) with the bottom four teams from the 2010 WC qualifier, two teams (those placed 3-4) from division three held in 2009, and two teams from a new D5:
• D5 would be played among the teams 25-32, in even years. The first staging is in 2010. It comprises the teams 5-8 from the 2009 division 3 and the teams 3-4 from the 2008 division four, and two qualifiers from D6:
• D6 would be played among the teams 30-38, in odd years, for the first time in 2009. 5-8 from 2008 division four, and teams 3-6 from the 2008 division five.
• D7 is held in even years, starting in 2010, with two relegated teams from D6, and 10 regional qualifiers (2 from each zone)

In order to qualify for the 2015 WC, a team has to play (at least) in D3 2014, D4 2013, D5 2012, D6 2011, and D7 in 2010.

This structure is based on the current set of teams, not the extended one including all the West Indian countries separately.

4. Ideas for first-class international cricket

The ICC are planning awarding full membership to up to six new countries, and are thinking of a test championship in two tiers. Yet at the same time they are conducting the first intercontinental cup, which is played over three days only. I would propose creating a second tier of four day matches instead.

The membership could be divided into a number of categories:

1. five-star members: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka. These play 5-day matches, and are joined therein by three multi-national teams: Americas, Rest of Africa, Rest of Asia (with England also being able to draw from the other European nations and New Zealand also from the Pacific ones)
2. four-star members: Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Trinidad & Tobago, Wales, Zimbabwe: These could play continental 4-day matches, where they are joined by some multi-national teams (Leeward Islands, Windward Islands, Rest of Europe, Rest of Asia, Rest of Africa); a transcontinental championship can be envisaged, as well as tours (Bangladesh in the Carribean, anyone?)
3. three-star members: Canada, USA, Bermuda, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Namibia, Uganda, UAE, Nepal, Antigua & Barbuda, maybe some others. These play 3-day matches, which would be used to select the multi-national teams that can face the 4-star teams in later stages.
4. two-star members: the other associates, who should be urged to play more multi-day cricket (2-day matches);
5. one-star members: the affiliates

5. Rain-affected Test matches

Test cricket is being played at very different times of the year nowadays. Even ten years ago it would seem unthinkable to have test cricket in May in England and in June in the Caribbean. No wonder then, that more matches are being rain-affected. In the past, this was not much of a problem, but today, with World Championship points at stake, this is no longer the case. Let's give an example:
Bangladesh have played 29 test matches to date (June 2004) and have lost all but three. Two of them were heavily rain-affected, but the third saw Bangladesh score 416 and 271. Their opponents, the West Indies, were 113/0, chasing 336, when the match ended. At that time, a total of 382 overs had been played, so rain (on the third and fourth days) had cost the match 68 overs. 223 in 68 overs is an interesting prospect, and maybe both sides could have felt robbed of some chances of a win. But the match is slated as a draw and shall count as such in the table.

I think this introduces an extra element of unfairness, and I think something should be done about it. How about this:

Introduce a fourth possible finish to a match: apart from won/lost, tied and drawn, have a match called abandoned. A test match is abandoned if through whatever reason the full quota of overs have not been completed. For purposes of the Test Championship, it is as if the match has not been played (player's averages are of course counted as if the match was completed, and so forth).

In order not to have too great a number of abandoned test matches, schedule a sixth day, a reserve day. Since this day will only be needed in cases of severe weather problems, that should not be too much of a problem. The players will hardly mind playing on a sixth day if the second has been rained out. The sixth day will not be used if a full's day play has been possible on all five days, so this does not change anything to the length of a match, and draws are still as interesting as they always were.

My idea would be to fix the length of a test match at 450 overs. That would also settle the problem of slow over rates. No team can increase their chances of a draw by deliberate slow bowling. In stead, if play has to end because of light at the end of day 5, the players have to come back for maybe an hour on the next day.

Written 2003-10-23 - Last Modified : 2008-05-17