Primary and second divisions in cricket. Review on Cricket

Should there be primary and secondary divisions in cricket?

There are 10 test playing nations today: Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, England, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, up from 7 during the 70s. However, it would be the odd man who would not agree that these 10 nations differ widely in their cricketing skills. An Australia - Bangladesh encounter is likely to end in 2 days and even England found it difficult to stretch the game beyond 3 days in a recent series with Bangladesh.

This is not cricket but a travesty of the game. We want to see at least 4 days of exciting cricket where the final victor or the direction of the game is not decided at the end of the first day. The recent India-Australia series is a good example of a close fought series between evenly matched teams. The India-Pak series underway will also be a close fought one though the first test was dominated by India. It is easy to see with these teams that talent wise they are on par and on their day either side has a fighting chance of winning the game.

2 and 3 day games are satisfactory to nobody. Not the players who are hardly stretched, not the spectators nor the sponsors. Result, empty stands, no sponsors, no broadcasts and no interest in such games.

If we wish to avoid such scenarios then it might be necessary to change the way the cricketing world is organised.

The changes in the footballing world might be a good model. Due to the gulf between the top and bottom teams even in the top league, football teams were organised into 2 divisions which would enable close contests thus attracting crowds. All teams get points based on their games with other teams. Every year, the bottom 3 teams in the first division get demoted and the top 3 teams in the second get promoted (with playoffs to decide the third team to be promoted). This ensures that each team has something to win or lose based upon their annual performance.

At present in cricket, while the 10 teams are ranked, there's no penalty for consistent failure or good performance. Bangladesh have rarely even stretched another team, perhaps the closest being Pakistan in a recent series. Zimbabwe too is going thru a rough patch due to political problems and not producing good cricket except for Heath Streak, Sean Ervine and a few others.

I think a similar primary and second division approach will inject some excitement back into the game. Each team knows that if they dont perform they might get demoted and likewise, a team in the second division knows that if they do well they'll get promoted. Apart from this angle, we can also expect close fought games as teams roughly comparable in capability are more likely to have good encounters. For example, West Indies and England is a fight between two underachieving teams but because they underachieve similarly, these games are going to the fourth day. Zimbabwe - Bangladesh series was another which was close.

Roughly, based upon recent performance, the following are my choices for first and second divisions.

Primary division: Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, England / New Zealand

Second division: Sri Lanka, England / NZ, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh

Something needs to be done and done soon to rescue us from dead matches. Unfortunately, the bosses of cricket seem more bothered about personal agendas than the good of the game. If Jagmohan Dalmiya is to be believed, China might become the 11th test playing team. God help us. Test matches might then become one day affairs. Australia play one session and score 200. They then bowl out China twice, within the day. Not an impossibility. Dalmiya's concern is not the game but in getting votes at the ICC. One can also expect political considerations to reject such divisions. Imagine, England, the country that created the game being in the second division which is very likely given their generally luke warm performances. I doubt the ECB would welcome this idea.

Still, an idea worth considering.