Two tiers, or two divisions? When The Age in Melbourne broke a story on Monday suggesting that the ICC’s new chairman, Jay Shah, was set to have discussions with the boards of India, Australia and England about reforming the way Test cricket is structured, many outlets that followed up used the phrases “two division” and “two tier” interchangeably. Yet they imply worlds as different as night and day.
Divisional sport, as is generally understood, suggests a competitive world of promotion and relegation. It offers opportunity for the organised, the ambitious and the lower-ranked, while simultaneously creating jeopardy for those of higher-rank, who may be badly run and complacent, or simply in a cyclical decline, no matter their status or wealth. You can move up or down over time according to merit.
Two-tiered sport implies something else entirely. It suggests a closed shop of entrenched advantage for the top tier, and disadvantage for the bottom, based on little more than present status. It is a system where never the twain shall meet; a cosy, anti-competitive world, beloved of franchise and private-equity owners and American sports.
But if Test cricket is to be reformed among the dozen nations who already play it, which is it to be? Divisional or tiered? A good argument can be made for divisional cricket, with some provisos about how the two divisions are arrived at in the first place and how it would then be structured, but no good argument (except a financial one for the beneficiaries — India, England and Australia) can be made for tiered cricket that does not involve the carrot and stick of promotion or relegation.
Tiered cricket without promotion or relegation must be resisted. With no chance of gaining tier one status, Test cricket in the second-tier countries would simply wither and die. That may be happening by stealth in certain territories anyway, but forced strangulation, based on little more than status in the present cycle, would be grossly unfair.
Advertisement
It was no surprise to hear Clive Lloyd, the former West Indies captain, criticise the plans immediately. He will recognise, from a perspective of 50 years, how things change. West Indies were the best and most charismatic side for the best part of three decades from the 1970s, and they were in demand, especially from England and Australia, to whom they willingly toured with great frequency. How times change: England are not scheduled to play Test cricket in the Caribbean in the latest cycle.
A rigid, two-tiered structure would be likely to lead to broader ramifications, too. Most countries where Test cricket is not financially viable rely on competition against India for broadcast revenue. That is an unsustainable situation, for sure, but if countries are starved further, then inequality is exacerbated and so, eventually, will be the quality of cricket. International cricket will shrink more quickly in the face of the franchise advance.
Once there is a route up and down, though, there is a case to be made for divisional cricket. A smaller top division may allow for a fairer distribution of games, unlike the uneven World Test Championship at present, and within the divisions there is a better chance that the standard between teams would be equal or at least competitive. The chance to rise and fall should keep everyone on their toes, and may even motivate those countries who are ailing.
But how would it be proposed the divisions are established? Clearly, any two-divisional structure could not be based retrospectively on this cycle of the World Test Championship (WTC), which is almost finished, and rather would have to be based on the final standings in the next edition of the WTC from 2025-27.
Once there is a fair chance for teams to be in either division, few could argue against that — but it risks an outcome, albeit remote, that Shah, India, England and Australia might not want to countenance, if they don’t make the top table. Such a possibility might sharpen up England’s over rate, and their attitude to the WTC, at least.
Advertisement
Even so, divisional cricket has questions that will need answering. What would be the length of the cycle? Two years, as the WTC is now, or four? Either way, broadcasters would want to know exactly what they were getting into before entering a deal with any governing body. Which broadcaster would pay a whacking sum, if the threat of relegation and some less than glitzy matches for a period was a possibility?
Broadcast revenue would clearly vary sharply according to which division a team was in. But governing bodies, with their broad remit for the entire game, like certainty as much as broadcasters. Would India, England and Australia be prepared to face a cycle in the second division? No Ashes cricket for a cycle? One imagines they would never countenance that, but what else would relegation mean?
Reports suggested that one of the reasons for a potential change would be to allow India, England and Australia to play each other with even greater frequency, but don’t assume that more means better. It’s a fine balance between anticipating an event because of its (relative) rarity, and getting sated by a repetition. A smaller top division shouldn’t be a charter to allow India, Australia and England to carve up the calendar even more than they do now.
Give the fans what they want, they say, after the most recent Border-Gavaskar Trophy when more than 830,000 spectators paid to watch Australia and India over five Tests. But that was the cry when Australia’s Big Bash League was a roaring initial success. So the league expanded, more games were played, and it was diluted, losing its sparkle. Back-to-back Ashes in 2013, 2013-14 and then 2015 was overkill and the biennial rhythm was quickly re-established.
The irony of the timing of this story is two-fold. First, an effective top and bottom tier has been happening by stealth anyway. England, India and Australia book each other in for lengthy Test series and white-ball bilateral series with increasing frequency. Joe Root has played 64 Tests against Australia and India; he has played two against Bangladesh.
Advertisement
In Hamilton, towards the end of England’s tour to New Zealand, the ECB chief executive, Richard Gould, said this to travelling journalists: “The first things that go in the diary, bar none, are the Tests between England, India and Australia. Once these are in, the ICC will then start to look at populating with ICC tournaments. And then it all filters down from there.” Sounds like they have what they want anyway.
The second irony is that this story comes after a year of intense rivalry in Test cricket, with the form book turned upside down. India beat England at the start of the year, who beat New Zealand at the end of it. In between, New Zealand beat India, who beat Bangladesh, who beat Pakistan, who beat England. It has been a wildly unpredictable ride with more away wins than for many years.
So what will it be? Two divisions, with a fair and equitable schedule in each, and a chance for promotion and relegation for everyone? If so, let’s have the conversation. Two-tiered cricket, entrenching present status, with an even greater frequency of matches between England, Australia and India, so they can enrich themselves further? No thanks.
