\u201cThe ICC is widely regarded as an event management company. They should add \"and not a very good one\". On the subject of a two-tier Test system, former West Indies pace-bowling champion Michael Holding noted: \"For all its faults, at least FIFA actually runs soccer. The ICC must run cricket.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cTherein lies a perplexing problem. The ICC doesn't run cricket, and unless there's a major change of heart, the financially desirable nations will continue to have a huge say in producing a self-serving schedule,\u201d wrote Chappell in his column for ESPNCricinfo on Sunday.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Further talking about the two-tier Test system, Chappell remarked, \u201cThere should have been a two-tier Test system in place years ago. In reality only a limited number of teams are capable of competing long-term in the five-day game.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cWest Indies earned the right to financial assistance with their capacity to draw crowds, and it's criminal they've been allowed to languish. A system that includes promotion and relegation is feasible but there need to be certain criteria attached before a team attains Test status.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cThose should include: Do they have a viable first-class competition? Do they have legitimate grounds for holding five-day games? Do the grounds have adequate facilities? Are they financially stable?\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Keeping all of this in mind, Chappell felt Ireland and Afghanistan shouldn\u2019t be given Test status. \u201cIf a team meets those criteria - and maintains a high standard of play over a number of years - then promotion to Test status would be legitimate. However, most of the recent Test-appointed nations don't come close to meeting any reasonable criteria.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cFor instance, could Afghanistan hold a Test series in their strife-torn country? Does Ireland have a realistic number of Test-standard grounds? Even setting aside the Taliban's reprehensible treatment of women, the answer to those questions is: absolutely not. Then why do they have Test status? Because in return for Test status they provide valuable ICC votes on important issues.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
He also noted that the financial share of nations is also an issue whose solution hasn\u2019t been found yet. \u201cThen there's the major issue of the financial split. The big three - India, Australia and England - despite being the wealthiest cricket nations claim a large slice of the money divided among cricket bodies, and yet they agitate for an even larger share.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cIndia's powerful presence in the ICC is in direct proportion to their contribution of around 70 per cent of cricket's income. It's a complex issue to which cricket hasn't found a workable solution. Producing a player who performs well in Test cricket requires having a strong four-day competition.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cIt's extremely expensive to run a four-day competition, and therefore not many beyond the big three can really afford the burden. It's one reason why T20 cricket flourishes. Running a successful T20 competition improves the financial capacity of a cricket body.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cIndia's powerful presence in the ICC is in direct proportion to their contribution of around 70 per cent of cricket's income. It's a complex issue to which cricket hasn't found a workable solution. Producing a player who performs well in Test cricket requires having a strong four-day competition.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Also Read: <\/b> Highest tax paying cricketers<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n