It is vital to try to rid the game of corruption. Yet without a comprehensible ranking of nations, will anyone - outside England and Australia - care in 10 years' time? With one-day internationals gobbling up more and more of the airtime, international cricket could become just another exhibition sport to rank alongside boxing and Formula One.
At the moment the Sri Lankans are called 'world champions'. This is ridiculous. You cannot begrudge them their tremendous achievement in winning the 1996 World Cup, but their prowess in a month-long, 50-over tournament does not make them the best cricket team in the world. Who are then? It would be nice to know.
A Test cricket world championship was first mooted in 1994. Half the major countries were experiencing negligible interest in Test matches, an encounter between two heavyweight teams such as Pakistan and Australia drawing barely a four-figure attendance in Lahore, hardly a city replete with rival attractions. During the current series between South Africa and West Indies, grounds have not been overflowing - especially with the hosts leading 4-0.
With a proper league of nations, all Test matches would count. Now I'm not going to drag up that old chestnut and say that teams don't try as hard when they've won a series. They do. Personal and collective pride is always at stake. But championship 'points' add an extra ingredient, a little bit more spice to proceedings. This pleases the supporters and, in turn, lures sponsors. Then everyone except the Luddites would be happy.
But over the weekend delegates of the august body again rejected the proposal, thereby missing out on a perfect launch opportunity (meanwhile accepting the perfect lunch opportunity), namely at this summer's World Cup. The ICC are so good at shelving they should get into DIY.
The stumbling block is whether to have a stand-alone tournament, or ensure everyone plays everyone else at least twice (home and away) during a specified period. The solution is obvious. Start allocating points (two for a win, one for a draw) from Jan 1, 2000, draw up a table on a percentage-points-per-match basis and publish it at the beginning of every year (some cricket magazines already do this).
The ICC would have to monitor fixtures, ensuring everyone plays everyone else on, say, a four-year cycle. There would be no danger of Australia suddenly inviting Zimbabwe to play a six-Test series to steal a march up the table. Financial considerations would quash the idea.
David Richards, chief executive of the ICC, was evidently pleased with the advances made over the weekend in Christchurch. ``The meeting has been historic,'' he said. ``It gives the ICC [formed, incidentally, in 1909] their teeth.'' Now let's see if they have any idea how to use them.