Describing the ICC as an “event management company”, former Australia captain Ian Chappell has observed that the financially stronger boards are getting their way in producing self-serving schedule while harming the interest of Test cricket.

Chappell also felt that a viable two-tier system for Test cricket should have been in place by now but added that other pressing matters need urgent attention to keep the game’s traditional format relevant.

“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’,” Chappell wrote in his column for ESPNcricinfo.

“Therein 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.” Chappell though agreed that the game’s financial engine India’s influence is proportional to their contribution.

“Then 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.

“India’s powerful presence in the ICC is in direct proportion to their contribution of around 70% of cricket’s income. It’s a complex issue to which cricket hasn’t found a workable solution.”

A proposal to split Test cricket into two divisions, which will ensure more high-stakes matches featuring bigger teams such as India, Australia and England, is under discussion.

Such a system could, however, also harm smaller teams, resulting in fewer Tests for them and also threatening inclusivity in the sport.

Chappell, one of Australia’s finest captains, believed a system of promotion and relegation should be there with certain criteria.

“There 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. West Indies earned the right to financial assistance with their capacity to draw crowds, and it’s criminal they’ve been allowed to languish,” he said.

Chappell further stated Afghanistan and Ireland should not be laying Test cricket as they don’t fulfil all requirements.

“A system that includes promotion and relegation is feasible but there need to be certain criteria attached before a team attains Test status. Those 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? “If 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.

“For 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?” Chappell added, “Because in return for Test status, they provide valuable ICC votes on important issues. The ICC is widely regarded as an event management company. They should add ‘and not a very good one’.”

Chappell agreed that it’s not easy for smaller cricketing nations to organise first-class matches at home because of the costs involved, which is pushing them more towards the T20 game.

“Producing a player who performs well in Test cricket requires having a strong four-day competition. It’s extremely expensive to run a four-day competition.

“It’s one reason why T20 cricket flourishes. Running a successful T20 competition improves the financial capacity of a cricket body.

“This, along with running a successful T20 competition being vastly more acceptable than losing money on a first-class schedule, dominates the thinking of most cricket administrators.

“Cricket being run by a competent ICC is a pipe dream. Hence the growing T20 calendar and the current scheduling schemozzle that plagues the game.” Chappell cited the exampled of warm reception following Sam Konstas’ daring Test debut against India at the MCG.

“It’s reaching the point where fans attending Tests expect to see more T20-style shots played. Despite the uncertain viability of these shots in a Test, the enthusiastic reaction to Sam Konstas’ daring debut at the MCG suggests this is already happening.

“There’s been a large increase in Test match results and more acceptable pitches, highlighting the importance of bowlers in producing a good spectacle. There’s also greater emphasis on playing entertaining cricket.

“Despite facing various challenges, Test cricket does a creditable job of keeping the format relevant.” He added, “Nevertheless, unless some issues, including a reasonable schedule and the criminally slow speed of play (which creates notoriously poor over rates) are critically addressed, Test cricket will struggle to attract younger audiences.

“Cricket administration is difficult. However, in addition to producing a viable two-tier system, there are other pressing matters that need urgent attention if Test cricket is to improve its relevance in the wider sporting world.”