My Solution

Well I would firstly go back to Shane Warne's "Six Point Plan" from last year. He has arguably the sharpest cricket mind in the world, and has an uncanny knack of making some very good calls. Anyone remember what he said about Ravi Bopara after he had hit three consecutive hundreds before the 2009 ashes and everyone in England was convinced the new number 3 was here to stay? Just 4 innings later Warne's predictions of demise came true, and he remains in the wilderness of county cricket a year on. And the same is true for a number of his other predictions about players, competitions and results. So why no one in the ICC sat up and took note when he offered some genuine advice about the game I don't know.

Anyway, I would go with Warne's idea of two tiers to the test cricket system. This has numerous benefits, such as increasing the competitiveness of matches, as well as providing another incentive to struggling teams in the 2nd tier to as Warne states in typical no nonsense fashion "get their act together and get back amongst the elite". The least interesting games in any sport are when both teams are stuck in mid table with no hope of going anywhere, which is what the new proposals by the CEC (Chief Executive's Committee) would offer.

The two tiered system also offers up the possibility of opening up Test Cricket to many smaller improving nations, such as Ireland, Scotland and even Afganistan who beat the Scots in a 4 day game recently, and made a storm at the 20-20 world cup in March. I would have 6 teams in each league, and this provides the opportunity for 3 so called lesser cricket nations to have a real crack at some of the big boys, whilst saving them from heavy defeats at the hands of the best teams in the world. I believe it could really open up Test Cricket, as promotion and relegation from the second division could be made possible, allowing practically any nation who had the drive, organisation and talent (or should I say practice, to be discussed in another blog) the opportunity to making it to the top table of world cricket.

Warne's proposal, whilst not going into detail, hints at a competitive league based over a two year season. I think that is too long, and the four year season proposed by the CEC, ludicrous. Over four years any sports team can change beyond recognition. Look at the Australian team now. How many of them were playing four years ago? It would temper the joy of winning the league- there wouldn't be enough medals to go around for a start- and it would also create long periods where teams may decide to build for the future of the next league, in 2 or 3 years time, diminishing the value and quality of current matches. I think the real reasons for the 4 year proposal offered by the CEC are based on a lack of willingness, effort and resolve to tackle some of the more powerful forces in the game, notably the BCCI (the Board of Control of Cricket in India), who are famously in favour of retaining a greater proportion of one-day cricket.

For this reason, I believe, that whatever the logistical hitches in climate and traditional long held beliefs about tours, that the test league should take place over a maximum of twelve months. This retains interest in the league for both players and spectators alike, with no more long one sided tours where the last couple of matches are often dead rubbers anyway. My idea would be that every team in each league would play each other home and away, in one test, every year.

Obviously because of cricket's limitations in that it can't be played in the rain, this would mean that England especially had a clump of home fixtures followed by a clump of away ones. However, look on the bright side. Imagine a test match summer against all five of the best teams in the world. England and Australia would play each other for the ashes (admittedly reducing the importance of this iconic tournament) twice a year. There would be no more long 4 year waits to see the Aussies back on English soil, wondering who will retire in the process. It would happen every summer (provided they aren't relegated of course). And even if they were relegated, a summer of cricket against (perhaps) West Indies, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Ireland and Scotland isn't far off what some of the dross cricket is being served up from time to time at the moment anyway, and at least there would again be some meaning to winning matches.

I understand that many purists would be against the ending the idea of a "tour". But for England, it wouldn't be the end. Imagine a tour of the subcontinent, where instead of 5 drab games on flat pitches with 3 games ending in draws, England had to play India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan back to back, and win two of them to stand a chance of winning the championship? It would be the ultimate tour.

In order to protect the interests of the smaller nations who may perhaps fall into the 2nd tier, I would suggest "friendly" test matches, before the start of each teams home and away season. For instance, at the start of the sub continent tour, England could play a friendly against Bangladesh. This test despite being "friendly" would still have more significance than it currently does, as real judgments could be made on players effectiveness in foreign conditions.

One argument against a test league is that there isn't enough time to fit the games into one calendar year. I dispute this. England, and most other serious test playing nations (Australia, South Africa, India etc) currently play around 7 home and 7 away tests each year. My proposal could actually reduce the number of tests played, to 5 home and away, plus a couple of friendlies. So where are the time arguments now?

The reason behind the history of tours to foreign countries is purely logistical. Cricket playing nations being so far away from England and with no aviation in the early days it was pointless for a team to go to the other side of the world for one match. But tours have been consistently being reduced in length for the past decade. And take a look at some other sports. Some football players fly around the world for a game for their country of 90 minutes, then fly back ready for the game for their club within a week. I would be willing to bet that players would actually prefer shorter tours, even if it was for one friendly and one test, than the current situation, allowing players more time with their family. There have always been "reluctant travellers" amongst touring parties, look at Steve Harmison or Marcus Trescothick for examples, and shorter tours may reduce the chances that quality players like these are lost from the game.

A further argument, one which I believe is most compelling to the finance men behind the game and passive armchair fans, is that the league suddenly makes every game interesting. I myself am a big fan of cricket, but if South Africa are playing India (quite a big match in test cricket, the equivalent perhaps of Arsenal playing Liverpool in football) apart from a general faint interest in watching good cricket, I have no real incentive to watch the game, least of all care about the result. But if the league suddenly meant that a defeat for South Africa, for example, meant that England would suddenly have the chance to win the league, I would be glued to my seat along with every other England fan. It would increase television audiences around the world, and I dare say, inspire the odd Barmy army fan to actually go to the game and cheer the Indians on.

The final argument I intend to counter is that by introducing promotion and relegation the smaller nations will suffer. If the league was divided now, based on official ICC rankings, New Zealand and the West Indies would fall into the 2nd tier. These are the two countries I fear for the most in terms of Test Cricket. Whilst both nations have a strong history to the game, and the West Indies dominated for many years in the 80's, in no other country has interest in Test Cricket dwindled more dramatically, with serious mismanagement and a lack of money resulting in many players "retiring" from test matches in order to play in the more lucrative IPL. The argument is that denying these countries the right to compete against the likes of England and Australia will finish them off as test playing nations. I believe the opposite.

Firstly, I would allow these two countries to pick the teams they wish to play friendlies against, 2 at home and 2 away. This actually provides just as many quality test matches as they are currently playing. The relegation would also provide a kick-up-the-backside type of action. The message should be clear- you cannot continue playing substandard cricket and be bailed out by other nations. Let Ireland attempt to prove themselves against an old powerhouse of cricket. If England were in the same situation, getting hammered by the bigger sides consistently, I would have no objections to the same thing.

The money from TV revenues would have to be redistributed accordingly, and perhaps as old members of the original "elite", the bottom 3 teams pushed into the 2nd tier could be entitled to special treatment, financially and fixture wise, but this would be phased out over a few years, resulting in a real incentive for the national boards to prioritize test cricket and get back amongst the riches. This could later form a cricket equivalent of the "parachute payment" used in football to soften the blow of falling out of the Premier League.

The increase in competitive matches may also spark interest back home. Obviously ticket pricing is an issue, and one I intend to look further into, but interest can be stimulated in more enterprising ways than simply dropping ticket prices. The excitement of a home West Indies test in order to gain promotion would surely stir a new generation of West Indian fast bowlers more than another one sided home series defeat against a bigger power, certainly whilst West Indian cricket is on its knees at any rate.

So for those that are still wondering how the fixture scheduling would work, here is my rough outline:

June: English Preseason Friendlies (including one day matches)

July/August: English Home season, 5 tests, one against each team

September: Subcontinent Preseason (including one day matches)

October/November: Subcontinent Season- 5 tests, one against each team

December: Southern Preseason friendlies (including one day matches)

January/February: Southern Hemisphere season, 5 tests, one against each team

Feb/March/April: West India season, or possible second half to sub continental season, possible time for an ICC world cup/champions trophy

April/May: IPL window

Obviously exact dates and logistics would have to be sorted out, but surely that is not an insurmountable problem?