Test cricket does not need the extra context proposed by shake-up plans - Chris Waters

But the only context Test cricket really needs are the individual Test series themselves, which provide a winner, a loser, and sometimes a draw.

This concept has worked pretty well for the best part of the near-150 years in which Test cricket has been in existence (coincidentally, the format celebrates its sesquicentenary in 2027).

However, according to reports, a plan for two divisions, or two tiers, is set to be discussed by (you’ve guessed it again) the “Big Three”.

Jay Shah, the new chair of the International Cricket Council, and still a key player in Indian cricket, is said to be planning a meeting this month with Richard Thompson, chair of the England and Wales Cricket Board, and Mike Baird, chair of Cricket Australia, to discuss a transformation that would lead, among other things, to the Ashes being played twice every three years instead of twice every four, the golden goose (as with T20) being steadily throttled.

Confusion surrounds whether there would be promotion and relegation in the revamped system (what would happen, Ashes-wise, were England in one division and Australia another?), or whether it would effectively lead to a closed shop in which second tier sides were permanently marooned.

West Indies’ likely participation in that second section – along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland and Zimbabwe, it has been said – has sparked concern from their former captain Sir Clive Lloyd, who insisted that the idea “must be stopped now” and that “a better system would be to give teams the same amount of money so they can get the tools to improve”.

Why, Sir Clive, what an eminently sensible point you make there.

But even if a two-divisional system with promotion and relegation was introduced, effectively affording a chance for all, with the top division reportedly comprising Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka, the question remains as to what this would really achieve in practice?

With every Test match lasting up to five days, and the biggest series for several weeks, Test cricket is almost uniquely unsuited to any effort to put it into such football-style context, which rather explains, does it not, why no attempt to do so has yet been successful.

The present system of the World Test Championship – perhaps the most useless invention since the shoe umbrella – sees sides play unequal amounts of games over a two-year cycle, culminating in a grand final if there is still anyone awake.

Cricket may be traditionally slow in the public perception, but a league in which it takes two whole years to determine a winner – in an era in which attention spans have never been shorter – is the sort of thing that baffles brains.

The ICC rankings system is surely just as good in this regard anyway, affording a general guide to respective strength.

But such is the obsession these days with being world No 1, and the desire to put everything into context, these half-witted efforts continue apace.

Two divisions, or two tiers, would be little improvement on the current system – it would also take years to determine a winner.

And the idea that Test cricket in some of the less well-off, less fashionable nations would somehow be sustained by the move, or the format itself protected from the creeping threat of franchise cricket and its grab on the best players, is pie-in-the-sky.

It’s like applying a bandage to the wrong body part; it would also increase the existing divides.

The question as to what would happen if England or Australia were in different divisions might seem flippant but is actually pertinent.

No two-section structure could possibly be fair without promotion and relegation, and on what basis could that structure be deemed successful, cricketing or financially, were the Ashes lost, however briefly?

It would be absurd to still hold the Ashes outside a new system – not to mention impractical owing to the schedule. Where no problem currently exists, therefore, one could easily be created.

The Ashes is a good, if maybe the most extreme example of why Test cricket thrives within its own context.

Fans care about performance during each series; they are highly unlikely to give a fig whether England beating Australia 3-2, for example, pushed the Poms three places up Division One and sent the “convicts” crashing down the table by an equal margin.

At the end of their careers, what do English and Australian players really care about – how many World Test Championships they’ve won, or how many Ashes series?

Granted, it might be a feather in the cap of a lesser country if it won Division One, but, again, who has the attention span to follow competitions over such a long time period?

Who thinks this will really save Test cricket?

The problem, as Sir Clive Lloyd said, is better answered by other means - i.e., a fairer distribution system financially.

It must also be acknowledged that cricket has changed so much in recent times that schemes like this are papering over cracks that can no longer be sealed; the clock, alas, cannot be turned back.

When Lloyd’s West Indies beat England in 1984, the first series that made an impact on this schoolboy’s mind, the only context were the games themselves and the players involved – Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, et al.

It was enough, wasn’t it, or did we need more to spark or sustain our love for the sport?