One of the more surprising proposals to emerge from ICC's executive board meeting in Kuala Lumpur is the decision to allow Test series to switch venue (see news story). As a reaction to events in Afghanistan this is an untypically swift piece of semi-legislation from a body whose post mortems usually take place well after the corpse has stopped twitching. It means, for example, that if England's players can convince ICC that their concerns about touring India are legitimate, India v England could suddenly take place in, say, Australia. Or Sharjah. Maybe even Toronto. That's certainly better than nothing. But in trying to salvage a potential dog's dinner, ICC is opening a can of worms. It's called the ICC Test Championship. Consider this: India v England on a Bangalore dustbowl is a world away -- not just a continent -- from India v England on a Brisbane greentop. For India, home advantage means everything -- almost literally in the case of the Championship, where they have secured all but one of their nine points at home (the away point came courtesy of a keep-this-quiet 1-1 draw in Zimbabwe). If they were forced to play all their matches away from the rough, dry grass of home, they might even drop below Zimbabwe, who at least have an away win in Pakistan to brag about.

West Indies would suffer too if they were dragged kicking and screaming out of the Caribbean stronghold in which they have recorded five series wins out of seven on the table. Away from home they have scored just two points out of a possible 12.

The scope for skulduggery is limitless: according to ICC, all a side would have to do to get a venue changed is prove that "the safety of players and officials" is at risk. Where do you draw the line? Going to the Caribbean? Not likely, Jamaica's a dangerous place at this time of year. A tour to England? Nah, the IRA could blow up Lord's. South Africa? Sorry, everyone gets car-jacked at the traffic lights.

One of the beauties of the Test Championship is that different teams thrive in different conditions. India can lose 3-0 in Australia one year and beat them 2-1 at home the next. Take away the home-and-away factor, and things get messy. "Oh look," young new cricket fans would be saying five years down the line, "England won in India in 2001-02." "Er, not quite," they would be told. "That series took place in Canada, and when India toured England the following year, they actually played the series on matting wickets in Holland." Only Pakistan, with a measly one home win on the table compared to two away, and Australia, who win wherever they are, wouldn't object to being ordered to play their home matches away.

It wouldn't be the first time an ICC decision has threatened the simplicity of the table. When they adopted it from Wisden they decided to remove all one-off Tests from our table, arguing that they weren't proper series. (We didn't agree, but, hey, our baby was out of our hands now.) But they also pulled off a less-than-cunning sleight of hand: they turned back-to-back one-off Tests between Zimbabwe and South Africa (one in each country) into a two-Test home series for South Africa. When I asked them why South Africa and not Zimbabwe, their answer amounted to "Cos we say so." So instead of getting no points, South Africa collected two, and artificially closed the gap on Australia.

The table was adopted because ICC agreed that the disparate Test series throughout the world needed some context: cricket needed to be clearer. But in trying to clear the waters, they have muddied them -- again. ICC would be better off trying to persuade England that it's safe to go to India, or, failing that, rearranging the series for another time, not another place. Only then would the Test Championship continue to represent what it set out to.

Lawrence Booth is assistant editor of Wisden.com

More Lawrence Booth
The players must decide
County cricket isn't that bad

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd