The BCCI has finally relented and will now trial the Decision Review System, but at the same time it should have insisted on the ICC applying the same laws to all Test matches.

It has been bad enough that one country refused to use the DRS - although I agreed with the BCCI's stand on trust - but the fact that the same standard of technology isn't part of the worldwide process is illogical.

The ICC should provide the same high-standard technology for all matches. Having the rich countries utilising the best technology and the poorer nations using minimal equipment means the game is played under different laws in different parts of the world.

The ICC should also control all the umpiring processes rather than relying on television to be part of them. If the ICC wishes to recoup the cost of controlling the decision-making process, it could do so by factoring it into the sale of television rights.

The cricket administrators are currently looking at ways to add "context" to all three forms of the game. Making every match matter by employing a league-style format would go a long way towards de-cluttering a schedule that is currently as haphazard as India's road rules.

A realistic and meaningful schedule combined with a DRS that is fair and technologically proficient would be a big step forward in levelling the international playing field.

However, cleaning up the schedule will not be a straightforward task, as it means obtaining consensus at the ICC. Until the ICC has an independent board rather than one consisting of the heads of each cricket-playing country, it will continue to reflect the thoughts of former Australian prime minister Paul Keating, who stated: "Always back self-interest because you know it's a goer."

The plan to have a league-type structure in all forms of the game is a sensible idea and would be of great benefit to the version most in need - Test cricket.

"If Australia are to fulfil their stated aim of "doing better in India", they will have to field a virtual third-tier T20 side against Sri Lanka."

Nevertheless, it's not feasible to streamline the international schedule if the administrators don't address the elephant in the room, the phenomenon of T20 cricket. The inflationary increase in T20 leagues means it's impossible to not have conflicts of interest. Increasingly players are being forced into a situation where they have to choose between the excellent money on offer from the T20 leagues and representing their country.

The players are the ones who are castigated when they choose the mercenary route but it's the administrators - with their obsession for a strong bottom line - who are forcing them to make the choice.

A detailed review of international scheduling will bring the administrators to a point where they have found decision-making easy in recent times - choosing between money or the best interests of the game. The best interests have always run a distant last. That is summed up perfectly in the upcoming situation where Australia finish their last T20 match at home against Sri Lanka the day before they are due to commence a Test in India.

That means if Australia are to fulfil their stated aim of "doing better in India", they will have to field a virtual third-tier T20 side against Sri Lanka.

The ideal outcome from this scheduling mess would be for the Australian fans to rebel. If they don't turn up in large numbers for the T20 games, it would send a strong message to the administrators and disprove the saying "There's a sucker born every minute."

I would love to see a situation where every Test is a qualifying game for an eventual World Test championship; where each ODI counts for qualification to a prestige tournament every two years, and where T20 leagues have a "window" and the winners then compete in a Champions League-style competition.

And I'd love to see a situation where the DRS, with the very best technology and the ICC officials in complete control of the process, is applied to every Test match. I just don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime.