Zimbabwe Withdrawal from Tests: A perfect chance for ICC to make good on expansion promise

At first glance, Zimbabwe's withdrawal from Test cricket leaves the West Indies, Pakistan and the ICC in an unfortunate position of having to sort out how they will recoup the financial losses from the cancellation of the tours. In cricketing terms, the withdrawal makes perfect sense. There is no way Zimbabwe could field a competetive side for the upcoming tour, and the games would only result in them being embarrassed and people being turned off from cricket.

Leaving aside for a moment the cricketing reasons for the withdrawal, the financial aspect does at first seem like a blow. However, consider the pros and cons of a one sided test match involving the host nation and Zimbabwe or a more competetive match involving the host nation and a "Best of the Rest" team. It has been said that Zimbabwe would be lucky to last 2 days of a Test match at their current level - not exactly a great money spinner. A composite team bringing together the cream of the World's non-Test playing nations would almost certainly put up a better fight. They may not neccessarily win (that is possibly a debate for another day), but would probably take the match into at least three or four days, possibly even five. In terms of the gate receipts, this would almost certainly bring in more revenue, especially if marketed properly. Television rights however would also be a great opportunity to make extra revenue than would have been generated by a failing Zimbabwe side. First there is the lure of novelty. In established Test nations, there would be an interest in the series simply to see how much of a fight a composite team could manage, plus the intrigue of something new. Then there are those who just love cricket, and will watch any match that is a contest. So your established markets are kept interested, especially if, as one would expect, the composite team perform better than Zimbabwe would. Then there is the lure for TV producers of the untapped market. Say the team is made up of players from the top 6 Associate members plus Zimbabwe. Suddenly instead of having a disinterested population (I can't see many in Zimbabwe able to stay interested in seeing their side flogged) in one country, you have seven interested populations. I know which option I would prefer if it was me with the TV rights.

In cricketing terms the Test series scheduled to involve Zimbabwe need not be a loss either. Instead of Zimbabwe, the ICC should send a "Best Of the Rest of the Word" side picked from Zimbabwe and the best Associate members. As a rough squad, I would suggest 2 players each from Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ireland, Bermuda, Scotland, Canada and Holland - each picked by their respective board, plus the balance made up of players chosen by the ICC from any non-test playing nation. This would be a great way to expand the knowlege of the long version of the game, give the 'minnows' exposure and promote the game outside it's traditional boundaries. Teams such as Ireland and Kenya have no shortage of players who would thrive on this sort of a challenge. It would mean that players such as Steve Tikolo, who could easily make it into many of the current Test teams, would finally have a chance to prove themselves on this great stage. I doubt they would fail to perform.

Zimbabwe have only withdrawn for a year, so for 2006, this could purely be implemented on a trial basis. Come 2007, if Zimbabwe are ready to be re-admitted, then the ICC can address that, but if what many believe will happen does, and Zimbabwe are still not ready, then the ICC could either continue with the ROTW idea, or put some other measure in place. The fall of the game in Zimbabwe is sad, but it need not neccessarily be bad for cricket, in fact if addressed correctly, it could prove to be a hidden blessing.