Round robin over two years played by the top 9 sides, hmmm. How is that going to work?!?!? Even if England only play say AUS BAN PAK and WIN at home, SRL, NZL, SAF and IND away that's a pretty tight schedule.
And to allow sides to decide if they want to play a one-off Test or series seems rather wishy washy and will devalue any league.
Sounds a little six nations to me, except that's five days and matches per side in a shortish period, not eight series of five day Tests needing travel outside of the continent and rests between with weather making play in some countries at certain times of year impossible.
Also I find it laughable they talk of scheduling bilateral series outside the league structure, if you have to play EIGHT teams/series when exactly are they going to fit any more in?!?!?!?
Be better in my book to ditch Bangladesh along with Zimbabwe from the "championship", play it over three years and standardise the series ie 3 matches. OR play tiers so they can play at their level, Bangladesh are improved in ODIs, Afghanistan holding their own in what series they play against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and indeed against Ireland who are far from up to much at the moment.
Ireland haven't beaten a Test nation other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe since February 2015 (West Indies) and won only 5 out of 19 since then despite NINE of those being against Afghanistan (WLWL), Zimbabwe (WLLW) and UAE (W). Their previous win over a decent Test nation was over England in the 2011 World Cup, hardly suggests they are on the brink of a breakthrough. And they can't complain when they have plenty of their team plying their trade in England.
Forfeiture of points
Nice idea, depends how many points or could we face tactical refusals ie figure England will lose in India so why not just forfeit and save time and effort..? (kind of thing) Or simply along the lines of the World Cup (2003?) where teams wouldn't play in Zimbabwe and just "took a hit".
World Cup/ODI cricket
Personally I think they should expand the World Cup to 16 teams not shrink it, but then if they expanded Test cricket to be played in tiers maybe other sides would be improving and make the quality greater.
I loved the 1992 World Cup format, but hate the fact there were no minnows - the only time. I think we've seen in Kenya that countries need more to improve their cricket long term than some success in World Cups, but since there is little else taking it away from them seems wrong. Besides, there's so much dour cricket around seeing a giantkilling or one sided slaughter can make a World Cup better, just not too much of the latter so format is key.
16 teams, 4 groups of 4 playing each other twice, with winners playing group runners-up from another group. Ought to be just enough quality in ENG IND WIN PAK SRL SAF AUS and NZL plus ZIM BAN IRE and AFG that you'd have your likely top two per group plus a "wildcard" in the other four meaning the big eight can't get complacent.
Even if it were considered too many nothing games against the other four sides you could revamp that format to 4 groups of 3 playing each other twice and make ZIM BAN IRE and AFG say play to reach the finals, or preliminary groups like we've seen before
Frankly with lots of countries jumping on the T20 bandwagon and copying their own IPL with some pretty cheesy names I'd stick to triangulars, quadrangulars and World Cups for this format. Bilateral is perhaps not the best way to sell it, not unless you intend making 3+ match series a norm.
Last edited by Rebelstar : 5th February 2017 at 13:00.