Should Kenya be given test status

[tigerPassion]

Here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against the Big 8.

ODI vs Ind - Won
ODI vs Ind - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Won
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Won
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs WI - Lost
WC PM vs NZL - Won

Played - 20
Won - 4
Lost - 16
Win % - 20

On the other hand, here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against Zimbabwe, Kenya and the associates.

ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
T20 Int. vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Lost
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ber - Won
ODI vs Can - Won
WC PM vs Sco - Won

Played - 20
Won - 19
Lost - 1
Win % - 95

Clearly shows where Bangladesh belongs now. May be they didn't deserve the test status 6 years back but without test status Bangladesh cricket would never have reached this standard within such a short span of time. With cricket getting 150 million passionate supporters and an economy which is bigger than the economies of New Zealand, Sri lanka, West Indies(Jam, Tri, Bar, Guy, etc) and Zimbabwe combined, it can only be beneficial for the game of cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bangladesh and Kenya played 2 ODI series in 2006 and Bangladesh whitewashed them in both series.

Played - 7
Win - 7
Lost - 0
Win % - 100

Clearly shows the gulf of difference between these two natoons. But well things were completely the other way round about 5 years back. But why did ICC promote the Bangladeshis. It was because of the presence of 150 million supporters, sponsors/gov't willing to spend on cricket, having a cricketing culture (from being a part of pakistan), kids interested in taking on the game etc. For third world countries to succeed in sports you need the people/gov't/sponsors supporting the game. So if you just consider cricketing standards, Kenya deserved test status 5 years back. But with no support from the gov't, sponsors, people Kenya can never be a Sri lanka but Bangladesh can. So until kids start to play cricket and sponsors start to give money and the gov't interested in developing the cricketing infrastructure, Kenya shouldn't get test status.

 

[FRAZ]

Here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against the Big 8.

ODI vs Ind - Won
ODI vs Ind - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Won
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Won
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs WI - Lost
WC PM vs NZL - Won

Played - 20
Won - 4
Lost - 16
Win % - 20

On the other hand, here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against Zimbabwe, Kenya and the associates.

ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
T20 Int. vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Lost
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ber - Won
ODI vs Can - Won
WC PM vs Sco - Won

Played - 20
Won - 19
Lost - 1
Win % - 95

Clearly shows where Bangladesh belongs now. May be they didn't deserve the test status 6 years back but without test status Bangladesh cricket would never have reached this standard within such a short span of time. With cricket getting 150 million passionate supporters and an economy which is bigger than the economies of New Zealand, Sri lanka, West Indies(Jam, Tri, Bar, Guy, etc) and Zimbabwe combined, it can only be beneficial for the game of cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bangladesh and Kenya played 2 ODI series in 2006 and Bangladesh whitewashed them in both series.

Played - 7
Win - 7
Lost - 0
Win % - 100

Clearly shows the gulf of difference between these two natoons. But well things were completely the other way round about 5 years back. But why did ICC promote the Bangladeshis. It was because of the presence of 150 million supporters, sponsors/gov't willing to spend on cricket, having a cricketing culture (from being a part of pakistan), kids interested in taking on the game etc. For third world countries to succeed in sports you need the people/gov't/sponsors supporting the game. So if you just consider cricketing standards, Kenya deserved test status 5 years back. But with no support from the gov't, sponsors, people Kenya can never be a Sri lanka but Bangladesh can. So until kids start to play cricket and sponsors start to give money and the gov't interested in developing the cricketing infrastructure, Kenya shouldn't get test status.

Bangladesh is the best minnow ! That's all I can say tbh !!!

 

[Richard]

Here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against the Big 8.

ODI vs Ind - Won
ODI vs Ind - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Won
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Eng - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Won
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs WI - Lost
WC PM vs NZL - Won

Played - 20
Won - 4
Lost - 16
Win % - 20

On the other hand, here is Bangladesh's record in the last 20 limited overs matches against Zimbabwe, Kenya and the associates.

ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Ken - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
T20 Int. vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Sco - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Lost
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Zim - Won
ODI vs Ber - Won
ODI vs Can - Won
WC PM vs Sco - Won

Played - 20
Won - 19
Lost - 1
Win % - 95

Clearly shows where Bangladesh belongs now. May be they didn't deserve the test status 6 years back but without test status Bangladesh cricket would never have reached this standard within such a short span of time. With cricket getting 150 million passionate supporters and an economy which is bigger than the economies of New Zealand, Sri lanka, West Indies(Jam, Tri, Bar, Guy, etc) and Zimbabwe combined, it can only be beneficial for the game of cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bangladesh and Kenya played 2 ODI series in 2006 and Bangladesh whitewashed them in both series.

Played - 7
Win - 7
Lost - 0
Win % - 100

Clearly shows the gulf of difference between these two natoons. But well things were completely the other way round about 5 years back. But why did ICC promote the Bangladeshis. It was because of the presence of 150 million supporters, sponsors/gov't willing to spend on cricket, having a cricketing culture (from being a part of pakistan), kids interested in taking on the game etc. For third world countries to succeed in sports you need the people/gov't/sponsors supporting the game. So if you just consider cricketing standards, Kenya deserved test status 5 years back. But with no support from the gov't, sponsors, people Kenya can never be a Sri lanka but Bangladesh can. So until kids start to play cricket and sponsors start to give money and the gov't interested in developing the cricketing infrastructure, Kenya shouldn't get test status.

Being better than the Associates doesn't make you Test or ODI material. And to compare the WC practice match against NZ to ODIs seriously undermines credibility.

 

[tigerPassion]

Being better than the Associates doesn't make you Test or ODI material. And to compare the WC practice match against NZ to ODIs seriously undermines credibility.

Bnagladesh lost 80% of their last 20 limited overs matches against the Top 8 and won 95% of their 20 limited overs matches against Zimbabwe, Kenya and the associates. So the difference between Bangladesh and the Top 8 seems less than the difference between Bangladesh and the associates (including Kenya and Zimbabwe). So which opponents should Bangladesh be playing according to you ???

 

[Richard]

Someone in the middle?

IE, domestic teams from the Full Members.

 

[tigerPassion]

Someone in the middle?

IE, domestic teams from the Full Members.

So winning about 20% of their matches against the top teams don't make them eligible to play the stromger nations. Do you have any idea of the win percentage of Sri
Lanka and Zimbabwe in ODIs in the first 10 years they got test status.

 

[Richard]

The loss percentage was massively lower.

And Bangladesh haven't won 20% of their last Tests - they're yet to beat a Test-class team.

Bangladesh have won 3 ODIs - which is not something which can say they are unequivocally ODI-standard. Until they can start competing regularly they don't deserve ODI-status.

 

[Mister Wright]

The loss percentage was massively lower.

And Bangladesh haven't won 20% of their last Tests - they're yet to beat a Test-class team.

Bangladesh have won 3 ODIs - which is not something which can say they are unequivocally ODI-standard. Until they can start competing regularly they don't deserve ODI-status.

Fair enough they don't deserve Test Match status, but they do deserve ODI status.

 

[Richard]

Maybe if you took those games against India, Australia and Sri Lanka in isolation, but by-and-large they've tended to be even worse in ODIs than Tests.

 

[Mister Wright]

Maybe if you took those games against India, Australia and Sri Lanka in isolation, but by-and-large they've tended to be even worse in ODIs than Tests.

I'd rather have a team like Bangladesh who are clearly better than the other minnow sides given full ODI status and continually losing against the stronger teams. It's only good for their development at all levels playing against the stronger sides. It makes no sense if they are that much better than the other minnows to just be playing them, they won't get any better.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, it doesn't, so they need to be playing teams of approximately equal strength. It works both ways - they'll get nothing from constant thrashings of weaker teams, they'll get nothing from being thrashed constantly by stronger ones. They therefore need to play neither other substandard international sides nor the better international sides.

If a team is not strong enough to compete, it does not deserve Test or ODI status. As far as I'm concerned.

 

[rodzilla1010]

I think 20% is a pretty decent effort..and The way they played against Aus last year in the first test..making them trail in the 2nd innings was exceptional...no reason to question thier status

actually i think they will spring a few surprises in the WC and then against India.

Secondly now taking the status back will be a big blow fo rthe developing cricket nation

 

[Richard]

I think 20% is a pretty decent effort..

Apart from the fact that it's not as straightforward as win\loss, it's about the margins and competetiveness shown, it's not 20%!!!!!!!!!!!! It's 3 out of 19.

 

[rodzilla1010]

it's not 20%[/b]!!!!!!!!!!!! It's 3 out of 19.

not bad either..they have to start wining from somewhere

 

[Chemosit]

I doubt that there is anyone who is a stronger supporter of Kenyan cricket out there, but we are not ready for Test status. Yet.

IMHO there is a clear way to solve several issues.

If the ICC introduced a tier system with each tier consisting of 8 teams playing each other over the same cycle as the 10 Test teams do now and then the top team from the lower tier playing off in a series against the bottom team from the higher tier (hosted by the higher ranked team) to determine if they should change places, it would do the following:

a) Decrease the number of games played, something players seem to be more and more worried about.
b) Maintain the standard at the top level (Full Test Status - 5 day) - crucial.
c) Give an opportunity for teams from the second level (Intercontinental Cup - 5 day, currently 4) an opportunity to break into the top tier providing they are good enough.
d) Ditto teams from the next level down - they are already being groomed for a second tier of the Intercontinental Cup anyway.
e) Keeps all matches interesting - anyone who follows football knows relegation battles can often be more exciting than those for the top spots. Important in terms of keeping and distributing revenue.

This may mean in the future a team like, say England, being relegated, but if they cannot beat an upcoming nation at home, should they be there anyway? I think not.

In terms of the ODI situation the existing structure could be retained, but tweaked a bit to make it actually work: Full members need to gain points from the matches they play against the Associates with ODI status otherwise it:
a) Gives no incentive to play them.
b) Makes a mockery of them having 'ODI status' anyway.

Including Associates in tours - a visit to Kenya on the way to SA or Zim for example the perfect time to encourage Test teams to play the Associates in ODIs and even First Class warm up games before Test series. It is vital to improving standards of lower teams that they get to play the better ones as often as possible.

Long term, the game must expand if it is to compete against other sports, but it is paramount that the standards are maintained.

To the people making comments regarding the age of the Kenyan team/current domestic situation, your comments are mostly out of date by a year or so and don't really warrant replies. Do some research.

 

[Richard]

not bad either..they have to start wining from somewhere

It's still poor, just because it's slightly better than their previous 200 games or whatever doesn't make it ODI-class.

 

[Richard]

Long term, the game must expand if it is to compete against other sports

Why?

Sure, expansion would be good if we can get it (and the evidence we can is not overwhelming) but I see no reason to presume without it the game will die, it's survived with no expansion for the last 80 years.

 

[rodzilla1010]

It's still poor, just because it's slightly better than their previous 200 games or whatever doesn't make it ODI-class.

I am not looking at the results..i am looking at the progress and there is certainly some progress there..

 

[tigerPassion]

It's still poor, just because it's slightly better than their previous 200 games or whatever doesn't make it ODI-class.

Not all teams are equal. Otherwise Rodger Federer and Vincent Spadea wont be playing in the same tour and Man U and Man City won't be playing in the same league. For the last 2 years Bangladesh have been winning enough matches in limited overs matches.

As for test matches I agree that Bangladesh have still did not get to that level to compete regularly with the top countries.

 

[tigerPassion]

Lets compare England's record in its last 20 limited overs match against the top countries with Bangladesh.

ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Sri - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Ind - Lost
ODI vs WI - Won
T20 Int. vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs NZL - Won
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs NZL - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Lost
ODI vs NZL - Lost
ODI vs Aus - Won
ODI vs NZL - Won
ODI vs Aus - Won
ODI vs Aus - Won
WC PM vs Aus - Lost

Played - 20
Won - 6
Lost - 14
Win % - 30

Compare this with Bangladesh's last 20 matches against the top teams in limited overs matches.

Played - 20
Won - 4
Lost - 16
Win % - 20

England a well established team isn't performing that much better than Bangladesh a side which is improving every passing day. If you still cannot get why Bangladesh should continue playing ODIs with the top teams then there is no point arguing with you.