Leg and Off: Is the rumored two-tier Test system the right way forward for the format?

The need to mix things up and stay on top of things has been crucial when it comes to Test cricket, given how it can slip away at any given moment. The World Test Championship (WTC) was meant to be the long-term solution, but its inherent and fundamental flaws have made it just a revival at best, and not a resolution.

Recent reports have indicated a growing desire among the Big Three to divide Test cricket into two divisions. While the details as to how they plan to execute it are yet to be known, early reactions to it have been strongly mixed. Several feel that this is the way to go forward, ensuring sustainability. While the rest feel that this is a plan created by the bigshots, for themselves.

On that note, let us look into all the good and the bad that the two-tier or two-division Test cricket has to offer.

---

#1 Something will always be at stake, provided there is promotion and relegation

Midway through the ongoing WTC cycle, it was evident that India, Australia, and South Africa would be embroiled in a three-way race for the two spots in the cycle. It transpired exactly like that. With both finalists already determined, there is not much meaning to the remaining series left in the cycle.

For instance, Pakistan and West Indies are both eliminated from the final race and are placed eighth and ninth in the standings, respectively. There is not much to look forward to as their fates were well sealed a long way back. However, imagine if there is a prospect of the losing side being related down to a division below. That introduces a whole new dynamic, forcing fans to tune in knowing that there will be consequences to the result.

This is exactly what the two-tier model aims to bring in, aside from the blatantly obvious monetary factor. The mere idea that teams in Division One could be relegated makes the standings relevant not only at the top but from the bottom as well.

At the same time, with an opportunity to attain a promotion to Division One, which brings with it - a bigger challenge, and more interest from fans and broadcasters, there will be incentives for the teams in Division Two to rise to the top among their peers.

The lack of relevant matches has been a serious concern in the current model. Yes, pride is always at stake, but that does not bring in viewership and interest. This is what forced the ICC to come up with the WTC in the first place because bilateral affairs with a trophy at the end of each series were losing attraction.

---

#2 Division system a win, if there is no lack of game time in Division Two

Recently, veteran Sri Lanka all-rounder Angelo Mathews was left appalled with the scheduling by the ICC. The island nation are set to play only four Tests the entire year. This has been a common issue for some of the top-ranked sides as well like South Africa, let alone the smaller teams.

The creation of two divisions will ensure enough Test matches for everybody. With their matches against the heavyweights out of the way, the division two teams can play against each other in a drawn-out, elaborate set of series, rather than an unsatisfactory one-off or two-match set of series earlier.

The more game-time the lower ranked teams get (including some against the heavyweights to play against higher quality), the faster they can improve and match the teams in division one, and create a level playing field.

The lack of Test matches and the gap between red-ball tours have been a concern for such teams. By the time they get into the rhythm of the longest format, the series is done with, and they often have to wait for more than six months for their next red-ball affair.

If the current system continues, the smaller team will have to continue playing 12 matches in each cycle, while the heavyweights play upwards of 20. This will lead to a stagnancy, which has already arguably set in inside three cycles of the WTC.

---

#3 Does the WTC need an overhaul or a correction?

No one can argue with the concept of WTC, for how badly it was needed to revive the format, it is the execution that has been left wanting for more. The prospect of a trophy, and a structure has brought meaning compared to the random bilaterals that ran the scene before.

The issue with the current WTC model is the uneven distribution of matches and questionable scheduling. If those issues can be amended, which might include some sacrifices from the Big Three, then there will not be a need for a separate division at all.

If the number of Tests the lower teams are bumped up by making the mandatory number of matches in a series to three, that solves a lot of problems. To the lower teams' credit, they have put in some good performances of late that support their stance. West Indies and Sri Lanka both notched a win in Australia and England, while Bangladesh drew New Zealand 1-1 at home in 2024.

Allotting extra matches is easier said than done with the majority of the cricketing calendar occupied by franchise leagues, and T20Is. Something has to give way, and it is up to the ICC to decide what is the priority.

---

#4 Despite increased relevancy, division two matches might not attract viewers and revenue

The main reason why a separate division is even being deliberated is the fact that the lower teams are unable to generate interest, quality, and revenue on their own on a consistent basis.

If the plans of two separate divisions do come to fruition, then matches among the members of the lower tier will be no more than glorified exhibitions with some stake tagged with it.

“In the two-tier system, they will lose out on a lot, including revenue and the opportunity to play against top teams. We don’t want that to happen. We want to work in the best interests of world cricket and that is why our team plays against all the countries,” then-BCCI president Anurag Thakur had said in 2016 when India voted against a two-tier system.

While the lower-ranked teams suffer on the field whenever they are pitted against the heavyweights, the latter's attraction ensures that there is attendance in the stands, and broadcasters-sponsors are ready with their offers.

Without that money, the lower-ranked teams will find it difficult to recover the costs they have to shell out to organize a game. While the ICC Test fund may come to their rescue in the future, it might not suffice.

---

#5 Relegation system may prove to be a huge deal breaker for Division 1 teams

Firstly, even if the two-division system is entertained, it should only be if there is a promotion-relegation system in place. But, it will not necessarily be appealing to the majority of teams in Division One. It is a lucrative incentive for Division Two, but a matter of abject humiliation for the team in Division One that might have to suffer.

Using the current WTC standings just as a raw reference point, Pakistan is the lowest-ranked team among the 'division one' sides. If they end up with a win percentage of 24.31, they are highly likely to be relegated to division. The threat is the same for the low-end Division One teams since there will be no 'easy; matches since those oppositions are already in Division Two.

Can you imagine the ramifications, chaos, and losses that Pakistan have to incur if they are relegated? The Men in Green will have to play the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan over the span of two years before returning to a state of normalcy.

Would such teams, that are under the threat of relegation, be willing to vote for such a system when it does not benefit them too much in the first place? The biggest winners are still the Big Three, while not much changes for the remaining sides in Division One. They will have a few more matches, and a spike in revenue, but is that worth the prospect of potential humiliation?

---

#6 Too much of good things can also be bad

The ICC has already made a mistake by staging the T20 World Cup every two years, the same problem may arise with the two-division system in Tests.

A significant agenda behind the need for two divisions, from the governing body's perspective, is to remove clutter from the Big Three's calendar and fill it with more matches against each other. The proposed model gives the three sides room to play each other twice every three years, instead of four.

The current schedule already has been modified so that the Big Three can play at least five Tests against each other as often as possible. The implementation of the division system will reduce that gap even further, making it a repetitive affair, leading to a gradual loss in appeal.