Icc Changes

Top Contributors
futureblackcap

futureblackcap

Well-Known Member
Apologies if I've missed something but these are some of the following recent ICC changes:

The Test Championship has been fully backed for a four year cycle (starting in 2017)
Every Test playing nation will play a minimum of 16 Tests in each four year cycle
The Champions League is history
The World T20 is every four years, not every two
The Womens T20 World Cup has been expanded to ten teams
Afghanistan has been awarded Associate Status
Players returning to an Associate nation from a full-member will only have to wait two years instead of four

Thoughts?
 
NO!! :mad: I had typed a massive post, but then accidentally navigated off the page. :mad::mad::mad: The following will probably be more concise than what I originally had.



futureblackcap said:
The Test Championship has been fully backed for a four year cycle (starting in 2017)
Click to expand...
Excellent! I'm not a fan of England and India hosting just about every tournament over the next six years -- South Africa and New Zealand got shafted big time -- but they're good venues for the first two Test Championships. I was expecting the tournament to be formatted like the Intercontinental Cup, so now I'm still very curious to how it will be staged, and whether or not Ireland will qualify in time to become the 11th team. I suspect not, though.

Every Test playing nation will play a minimum of 16 Tests in each four year cycle
Click to expand...
Courtesy of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper:
article-2335917-1A26395E000005DC-911_634x516.jpg

  • Zimbabwe playing only two Tests in 2013-14 is pittance. It would be better to have minimum Test/ODI/T20 requirements for a calendar year. I'd say six games of each format would be a generous annual minimum.
  • Guidelines for a bilateral series should be:
    • 2-3 Tests, or 3-5 (never more) for a "showcase series" involving any two of the top four (even five) teams,
    • 2-3 ODIs, or up to five -- never more -- prior to a 50-over World Cup, and
    • 2-3 T20s, never more.
    • "Series" with only one format of the game should be discouraged and limited but not banned completely; I understand the need for a Board's and broadcaster's revenue, but I also understand the need for longevity and the pang of needlessness.
  • Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will continue to find it difficult to schedule Tests with higher-ranking nations. India are still free to avoid hosting Bangladesh, and the top eight teams are still free to organise fixtures only amongst themselves.
  • Australia and England play almost two-and-a-half times the amount of Tests than Zimbabwe. Should there be a maximum number of Tests that a nation can play over the four years? I would cap it at 40.
  • There is a 50% increase between Bangladesh's 22 Tests and RSA's and the West Indies' 33 Tests over the four years. That's not right. More has to be done by the ICC to reduce this gap. More must also be done to incentivise bilateral series between Full Members and Associates. I keep saying it, but:
    • Each Test team, or least each full-strength 'A' team, should be incentivised to do a short tour of an Associate nation every two years following the guidelines listed previously. A 2-3-2 tour takes just three weeks. (Funding and player professionalism would mean that Associates would have to host at least 75% of the time, but surely that's feasible.) Ljp86 also suggested Associates touring to play Australian and NZ domestic teams in our summer, which is also a great idea.
    • When a Test team tours England, Scotland and the Netherlands should get first dibs on the warm-up games. Scotland will no longer be playing in the English domestic scene and will be concentrating on their own domestic scene minus the separate players playing County. This is a good thing, as it will allow greater flexibility to schedule these warm-up games to possibly include Scottish and Dutch County players, and I expect the Netherlands to be following suit soon.
    • At all major tournaments, the non-competing Associates should be invited to play one-off games against the teams that get progressively knocked out of the tournament. Nearby Affiliate nations can also benefit by the organisation of training camps and coaching sessions so that FOR ONCE they can mingle with the world's best. (At the next WT20 in [presumably] Bangladesh, for instance, players from teams like Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore can attend ICC-organised camps run by players and coaches from Full Members.)
    • The media, more than the ICC, has to help change the widespread mindset of apathy towards Associates.
    • Live streaming of the WCL games is marvellous, though (I may despise myself for saying it) there is room for advertising revenue. It wouldn't hurt too much -- the ICC could do with better streaming servers and broadcast equipment.
  • The bottom line is that, any level, it's ultimately not ideal for the same teams to be playing each other all the time.
The Champions League* is history
Click to expand...
Champions Trophy*. The format was highly successful, though, and it would be great if future World Cups and/or WT20s are reformatted to something similar.

The World T20 is every four years, not every two
Click to expand...
Fair enough, as this is the standard across all three formats, but it does fatally jeopardise my cricket-in-the-Olympics pipedream, as the World T20s will be played in Olympic years.

The Womens T20 World Cup has been expanded to ten teams
Click to expand...
Nice. Hopefully the Associates will do well and will persuade this decision to be considered for the men's tournament as well. The ICC has maintained that Associates stand the best chance against Full Members in the T20 format, so they should really optimise the tournament to suit that.

Afghanistan has been awarded Associate Status
Click to expand...
Finally! They've faced hardships and setbacks, but they thoroughly deserve this; their cricketing story is inspiring (and if you haven't seen BBC Storyville -- Afghan Cricket Club: Out of the Ashes, you must! I'm still seeding the torrent, and will be for a long time.). Hopefully the women's team and the general security situation will remain stable enough to build a complete platform to push for Test status in the near future.

It's also worth noting that Romania was accepted as the newest Affiliate nation and the 107th member of the ICC.

Players returning to an Associate nation from a full-member will only have to wait two years instead of four
Click to expand...
It won't stop England poaching players, but it's a great start. Imagine Eoin Morgan coming in at number five for Ireland for a few Tests towards the end of his career! Dirk Nannes will be eligible to play for the Netherlands again in the next World T20, as the two year period will be up by then. Boyd Rankin might be able to do a Trent Johnson and, barring injury, can have a prolonged career leading Ireland's bowling attack. Stephan Myburgh could be persuaded to don the orange again. This is exciting news, and much needed for the (European) Associate teams.



So yeah, those are my thoughts. :p I realise I've said a lot of it before, but it's nice to have it all in one big megapost.
 
Love the passion. :D Agree with most of what you said. How are Bangladesh and Zimbabwe supposed to improve their Test cricket on that pittance of cricket? The ICC may as well drop them out of the ten members as they obviously don't give a crap about them. I still think the ICC should do all the board's scheduling otherwise...teams like India will always play the "better" sides and never be forced to actually "help" any of the emerging and developing nations.
 
Very glad that they canned the Champion's Trophy instead of the Test Championship, wish that they would sort out the WC format though, having quarter finals is ridiculous.
 
Kram81 said:
Very glad that they canned the Champion's Trophy instead of the Test Championship, wish that they would sort out the WC format though, having quarter finals is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the quarter finals. No need for them at all. Straight to the semis is the way.
 
I seriously think that they only brought quarters back because of the financial fallout in 2007 when India and Pakistan got knocked out early. I'd have 2 groups of 7, 1st place would go straight through to the semi and 2 v 3 playoff for the other spot. Would make sure that there is interest all through the group stage.
 
Probably best for the semis if you have 1 vs 2 for a spot straight in the final and the loser of that plays the winner of 3 vs 4 for the other spot. Gives the best 2 teams from pool play the best chance of making the final.

Why the ICC doesn't just take it on the chin that India will fail at tournaments from time to time like any other team is beyond me, even if you gave extra points to every team starting with "I" eventually India will have a bad day vs Ireland.

In terms of tours I believe that 3 T20, 3 ODI and 3 tests should be the minimum, if you want to play more of any version then it eats into your schedule and all teams must be willing to play all test teams home and away. No doctoring series for the next WC, does anyone actually enjoy a 2 test series followed by 8 ODIs?
NZ destroyed Zimbabwe in a 2 test series in NZ las year, there was no chance for NZ to blood new players in a 3rd test nor for Zimbabwe to build on any improvements they had made in the 2 that were played, likewise when NZ went to Eng...that's just BS and is contributing to the decline of some sides and the non-development of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top