Competent ICC is a pipe dream

The West Indies, once the kings of cricket, have earned the right to financial assistance with their capacity to draw crowds and it’s criminal that they have been allowed to languish

There should have been a two-tier Test system in place years ago.

In reality, there’s only a limited number of teams capable of competing long-term in the five-day game. The West Indies earned the right to financial assistance with their capacity to draw crowds and it’s criminal they’ve been allowed to languish.

A system that includes promotion and relegation is feasible, but there needs to be certain criteria attached before a team attains Test status. The criteria should include: Do they have a viable first-class competition? Do they have legitimate grounds for holding five-day games? Do the grounds have adequate facilities? Are they financially stable?

If a team meets those criteria— and maintains a high standard of play over a number of years—then promotion to Test status would be legitimate.

However, most of the recent Test-appointed nations don’t come close to meeting any reasonable criteria. For instance, could Afghanistan hold a Test series in their strife torn country? Does Ireland have a realistic number of Test standard grounds?

Even apart from the Taliban’s reprehensible treatment of women, the answer to those questions is absolutely not. Then why do they have Test status?

Because in return for Test status, they provide valuable ICC votes on important issues. The ICC is widely regarded as an event management company. They should add, “and not a very good one.”

On the subject of a two-tier Test system, former West Indies pace bowling champion Michael Holding noted, “For all its faults, at least FIFA [the international body] actually runs soccer. The ICC must run cricket.”

Therein lies a perplexing problem. The ICC doesn’t run cricket and unless there’s a major change of heart the financially desirable nations will continue to have a huge say in producing a self-serving schedule.

Then there’s the major issue of the financial split. The big three—India, Australia and England—despite being the wealthiest cricket nations claim a large slice of the money divided among cricket bodies and yet they agitate for an even larger share.

India’s powerful presence on the ICC is in direct proportion to their contribution of around 70 per cent of cricket’s income. It’s a complex issue to which cricket hasn’t found a workable solution.

Producing a player who performs well in Test cricket requires having a strong four-day competition. It’s extremely expensive to run a four-day competition and therefore not many beyond the big three can really afford the burden.

It’s one reason why T20 cricket flourishes; running a successful T20 competition improves the financial capacity of a cricket body. This, along with running a successful T20 competition being vastly more acceptable than losing money on a first-class schedule, dominates the thinking of most cricket administrators.

Cricket being run by a competent ICC is a pipe dream. Hence, the growing T20 calendar and the current scheduling schemozzle that plagues the game.

The proliferation and financial rewards of T20 leagues have also impacted the motivation of many players. The number of batsmen playing audacious shots has increased while bowlers and captains desperately seek ways to contain fast scoring. 

It’s reaching the point where fans attending Test matches expect to see more T20-style shots played. Despite the uncertain viability of these shots in a Test, the enthusiastic reaction to Sam Konstas daring debut at the Melbourne Cricket Ground suggests this is already happening. 

There’s been a large increase in Test match results and more acceptable pitches highlighting the importance bowlers play in producing a good spectacle. There’s also greater emphasis on playing entertaining cricket. Despite facing various challenges, Test cricket does a creditable job of keeping the format relevant. 

Nevertheless, some issues, including a reasonable schedule, the criminally slow speed of play [which creates notoriously poor over-rates] are critically addressed, Test cricket will struggle to attract younger audiences.

Cricket administration is difficult. However, in addition to producing a viable two-tier system, there are other pressing matters that need urgent attention if Test cricket is to improve its relevance in the wider sporting world.

Sydney-based Ian Chappell is an influential voice in world cricket.
Clayton Murzello’s Pavilion End column will be back next week.
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!