Do Bangladesh deserve to play ODIs regularly against the top teams?

[tigerPassion]

Just wondering what the members here think about this topic. Do you believe Bangladesh should play regularly against the top teams or they just spoil all the stats and other things.

After exchanging some views with 'Richard', I got really surprised to see that some people even now believe that Bangladesh shouldn't be playiong ODIs against the top teams. So just wanna see is if it's just him or the majority of members here dont like our presence in international cricket.

If you are not sure which way to go, watch the video below and think whether you wanna force 150 million ardent cricket fans not to field their team in international cricket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqTtU_zGY6c

 

[Perm]

Of course I think they should be playing alongside the top teams, their last series against Scotland showed much how of a gap has developed between Bangladesh and the Associate Nations. Bangladesh have been playing Kenya and Zimbabwe far too much for my liking, why couldn't they play against the major countries? I know that the "pulling power" of Bangladesh, regarding crowd numbers, isn't very big but surely with their recent sucess at the World Cup they will have more supporters? I for one would go and watch an ODI or Test if New Zealand took on Bangladesh.

 

[pasag]

I don't think anything should be decided for reasons such as "spoiling the stats". Voted yes btw.

 

[Perm]

I don't think anything should be decided for reasons such as "spoiling the stats". Voted yes btw.

Players will always target games against weak opposition to score runs or take wickets, in this case Bangladesh happens to be one of the weaker teams. I know for a fact that Sir Richard Hadlee was very specific about goal setting and would target certain teams and games against them he wanted to do exceptionally well.

 

[alternative]

Yes certainly deserve it imo. They look much stronger and better than ever before, lots of potential in each and everyone of them. They just need to be more consistent in their cricketing abilities and they would definitely be fine against strong top teams.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't very smart, or know much about the subject.

 

[Perm]

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't very smart, or know much about the subject.

Not necessarily true, I can think of a few people who don't want to have Bangladesh playing against the top level sides and would prefer if they played their A teams and state/county sides.

 

[LA ICE-E]

that doesn't help because BCB doesn't make much from those.

 

[Perm]

that doesn't help because BCB doesn't make much from those.

Exactly, in order for the BCB to make money then they have to continue touring countries and playing against their national sides. Lack of funds would be one reason that playing A teams and state/county teams just isn't feasible, otherwise I'm sure that the BCB would have looked more closely into that sort of thing rather than repeatedly playing against Zimbabwe.

 

[Craig]

Yes.

 

[Matt79]

Can see why some people have a problem, but the reality is that teams only improve through experience and persistance at the top level. India for example took a long long time before they began to win matches, and the same thing has happened to every country that's ascended to international level.

At the moment, they aren't consistently good enough to be real competition for the best teams, but they seem to be improving, but they have shown in Cardiff and the Caribbean that they can deliver results against quality opposition. In another 10 years, I can see them not being an automatic 'last place' on the ICC rankings. Given the potential size of the Bangladesh market and the enthusiasm of their fans, I'd like to see that.

As for the 'distorting the stats' argument - that has happened in every era in international cricket, be it the West Indies, South Africa, India, Pakistan, NZ or Sri Lanka. All of them have struggled, and were, at least initially not up to the level of the established international teams - and players coming up against them capitalised. Don't really see why its a problem that players do so today - if anything it provides some consistency between the eras.

Voted 'yes' btw

 

[LA ICE-E]

They are not in the last place of the icc ranking now anyways.

 

[Perm]

They are not in the last place of the icc ranking now anyways.

Now, but if we are talking Test teams then they are. I know technically that Zimbabwe are at the bottom, but do they even play enough to count? No IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Now, but if we are talking Test teams then they are. I know technically that Zimbabwe are at the bottom, but do they even play enough to count? No IMO.

Technically, Kenya are actually at the bottom, actually. They count now, for some obscure reason. I'd have no problem with it if Kenya regularly played ODIs against top teams but they never do aside from tournaments so it makes little sense.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, what Perm said. I don't think the Zimmees should count at the moment. The Bangladesh team is clearly in a different category from the Zimbabwes, Kenyas, and Canadas of the world.

 

[Perm]

Technically, Kenya are actually at the bottom, actually. They count now, for some obscure reason. I'd have no problem with it if Kenya regularly played ODIs against top teams but they never do aside from tournaments so it makes little sense.

Ah, you're quite correct. Once common sense is applied, Bangladesh are the bottom of both the Test and ODI tables though. Seems ridiculous that Kenya would be ranked on the back of a few games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

 

[andmark]

yes

 

[LA ICE-E]

Technically, Kenya are actually at the bottom, actually. They count now, for some obscure reason. I'd have no problem with it if Kenya regularly played ODIs against top teams but they never do aside from tournaments so it makes little sense.

Ah, you're quite correct. Once common sense is applied, Bangladesh are the bottom of both the Test and ODI tables though. Seems ridiculous that Kenya would be ranked on the back of a few games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

To be on the main ODI table an associate have to beat two test nations, or beat one test nation and win more than 60% of their games against other associates. That's why they are there. But they had ODI status since 97 anyways its just that the big fishes never gave them a game. Which is why they gave odi status to more teams so at least they'll have some games even if the big fishes doesn't help them. I think that teams should play them though even if its like one game. Every team should play an associate when they tour a certain test team, I mean as in, say india's going to play south africa then as a tour warm up/opener they should play kenya and then move on to play the rest of the tour. This was done to the european associates when teams toured england. And so they should do things like this every tour.

 

[Perm]

To be on the main ODI table an associate have to beat two test nations, or beat one test nation and win more than 60% of their games against other associates. That's why they are there. But they had ODI status since 97 anyways its just that the big fishes never gave them a game. Which is why they gave odi status to more teams.

Still, a pretty silly move to do. All it was going to acheive was to emphasis the fact that Kenya are so far behind everyone else, it's not like since they have been added to the bottom of the table that the major nations have been clamouring to play against them.

 

[LA ICE-E]

it's not like major teams are clamouring about playing bangladesh either though. India never invited bangladesh because they wouldn't make lots of money playing them. Its not about cricketing reasons they dont want to play kenya but that they won't make much money. So it would be good to if big teams played the associates as tour openers.