Message Board Archives

Link Text

Interesting - there's nothing yet in there that would encourage bilateral (or other series) from non-Big 3 member countries. As far as I can see, a series between say NZ and WI would still require some form of subsidy. Even if that 9-3 model for 'league play' was adopted, smaller nations may still struggle.

Looks like a bone has been thrown to Afghanistan and Ireland, but the remaining Associates are left to flounder. If I ran say Papua New Guinea I'd be disappointed.

India still looks to get the lion's share of any earnings so they shouldn't have any beef with a system that benefits their board ahead of others.

In reply to Tryangle

Haven't a test league structure would mean that everyone plays everyone then it's up to the boards to work out the best way to market these tours.
I do believe that will help, cause now the big boys can't say no they won't play the small boys, they'll have to. So a India playing the Afghans would put some money in their pockets.

In reply to positiveg

Question though, what's to stop a top-tier Full Member from giving the bare minimum to the lesser lights. I mean, one Test is enough to constitute a series. Although I could forsee, once Afghanistan and or Ireland get clearance to play Tests, a scenario where a team touring say Pakistan (in UAE) gets a one-off match against Afghanistan, and that will be a start-of-sorts for the new side. Maybe Zimbabwe piggy-backs off of South Africa tours.

With international cricket under constant squeeze from domestic professional T20 leagues, wonder how long a Test 'cycle' will last when it comes to a Test Championship league.