Icc Should Target 128 Test Nations In 5 Years - Atleast 25 Each Year

[Richard]

Icc Should Target 128 Test Nations In 5 Years - Atleast 25 Each Year

What a ludicrous idea.

Of course it is.

The usual laconic SJS method of dismissal > anything else so far this thread tho.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thing is, though, even if tours as we know them were to be ended because of this (and yes, it's certainly a possibility) could we possibly justify refusing teams who patently had the resources and the players entry just because "we only want 10 teams"? That'd be utterly unfair.

As I've said before - that we will get more places which can one day produce Test-class teams is not a given (the way some seem to think it is), but it'd be silly to actively hope it won't happen. It'd be great if we can one day have 20 teams at Test level - but equally, if we can't I'm fine with what we have at the moment (and what we will hopefully have if Bangladesh ever become Test-class).

Completely agree with all of that.

 

[Sanz]

But you are completely missing the point. The timeframes you mention are irrelevant.

My post was in response to the statement that a number of teams have been regularly comprehensively beaten like Bangladesh are now.

The stats point out that they didnt. Whether it took them 30 years to play 50 tests or cricket was more defensive, it doesnt change the fact that no team has ever been close to losing as regularly and been dominated to the level Bang are now.

Okay, may be we are arguing two different things. What I was trying to suggest that even after getting the test status it takes a while before the new entrant becomes competitive. Hence the comparain of No. of tests wasn't a very fair one(to Bangladesh) and IMO the comparison should be made on the basis of no. of years rather than no. of tests . IMO NZ were not whole lot competitive than BD have in their first 6-7 years of getting their test status. SL was obviously a lot more competitive because a lot of SL cricketers used to play in England and also SL were lucky to have unofficial cricket tours regularly before actually getting the test status.

Giving test status to them was probably a mistake, but they have shown tremendous improvement in last 3 years or so.

 

[Sanz]

Times have changed and so therefore so must the way teams are elevated to Test status

Ofcourse and I totally agree with that for ny future test status. As far as BD is concerned, they have already gotten their test status and shown pretty good improvement in last couple of years.

 

[Jamee999]

One thing that can be argued for test inclusion (not 25 a year though, which is just silly) is that it's improved Bangladesh a hell of a lot. Over the years since their first test, they have got so much better, especially in the ODI arena.

 

[Richard]

Ofcourse and I totally agree with that for ny future test status. As far as BD is concerned, they have already gotten their test status and shown pretty good improvement in last couple of years.

Bangladesh have been showing improvement (really and in people's imagination) since they made their first appearances in 1985. Despite all this, they're still nowhere near good enough to merit Test or ODI status.

 

[Chemosit]

Test standards need to be maintained and too many more Test teams would put even more strain on an already crowded Test calendar.

Far better would be for the ICC to set up a series of tiers with the top 8 nations playing Tests, the next 8 playing 5 Day First class matches (Int.cont. Cup), the next 8 playing 4 day games with a promotional/relegational playoff between the bottom placed side in the Test League against the top IC team and so on at the end of each 4 year cycle. Extra teams and leagues can be added at the bottom of this structure where standards and growth of the minnows demands.

Every team should have the opportunity to play the game at the highest level, but they need to prove they can cut it at that level and not dilute standards.

 

[nightprowler10]

Okay, may be we are arguing two different things. What I was trying to suggest that even after getting the test status it takes a while before the new entrant becomes competitive. Hence the comparain of No. of tests wasn't a very fair one(to Bangladesh) and IMO the comparison should be made on the basis of no. of years rather than no. of tests . IMO NZ were not whole lot competitive than BD have in their first 6-7 years of getting their test status. SL was obviously a lot more competitive because a lot of SL cricketers used to play in England and also SL were lucky to have unofficial cricket tours regularly before actually getting the test status.

Completely agree with that. Bangladesh may have played a lot of Tests in the past seven years, and their loss percentage may have been terrible, but as Sanz points out in the above post, it takes time for a nation's cricket to evolve. Just last year they came much closer to beating Australia than Pakistan did in a long time, so they've obviously shown improvement.

 

[Richard]

Just last year they came much closer to beating Australia than Pakistan did in a long time

You're kidding right?

 

[nightprowler10]

You're kidding right?

5 years isn't a long time I suppose, but still.

 

[Richard]

Well that was the last series they played against Australia that wasn't in Australia.

And, like Bangladesh, they almost won a game.

I don't think the timeframe matters - you can't win games if you don't play 'em.

 

[nightprowler10]

I don't think the timeframe matters - you can't win games if you don't play 'em.

The time-frame matters as newer and more improved players come through the system in a long enough time line.

 

[Richard]

All the same, I don't think the Pakistan analogy counts there, because for all we know the same might have happened with Pakistan had they played Aus a couple of years ago.

All that can be said is that Pakistan and Bangladesh both came close to beating Australia once in their most recent "home" series.

 

[steds]

Can't believe people have ruined this thread with serious discussion.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But does cricket need more Test nations anyway? Rugby is another sport where probably only eight teams are up to much (Argentina v France notwithstanding) and it doesn't seem to do that sport any harm. There is nothing to stop minnows playing FC matches againat each other (as they do) but calling them Tests would be as big a joke as calling say Canada v Bermuda an ODI (which they do but its still wrong)

To use Rugby's example, whilst it's largely true that the foundation nations (home nations, France & the tri-nations teams) are still the strongest test sides, other countries can and do beat them in test matches. Argentina are obviously the strongest other side (& have recently beaten England at Twickenham for he first time as well as upsetting the French in the WC), but Italy beat Wales and Scotland in this year's 6 Nations, Samoa have twice beaten Wales in the WC &, as far back as 1973 Tonga upset the Australians.

The comparison is slightly invidious though, as a Rugby test takes just over 90 minutes to complete and test series are largely a thing of the past (with the exception of a Lions tour every four years) in the professional era. However, that notwithstanding, the problem for me isn't so much the according of test status as the IRB's schedule. Bangladesh have played an awful lot more test cricket since their elevation than any other new test nation because of it & a large proportion of it has been fairly uncompetitive stuff. If the IRB did not require each of the test nations to play series against each other home-and-away every 5 years (or however long it is) they wouldn't have played anywhere near as much as there isn't a commercial or cricketing demand for it.

To return once again to Rugby, yesterday we saw a second string All Blacks thrash Portugal 108-13 in a test match. In cricketing terms this was (say) Australia resting 8 or 9 first choice players and beating Bermuda by an innings and 300. It was patently not competitive & served little purpose in the grand scheme of things, except to move the ABs one step closer to the quarter-finals & give the Portuguese who scored something to tell his grandkids. Outside of the world cup though it wouldn't happen, as there's no reason for it to happen. Were it not for the IRB's schedule Bangladesh wouldn't be facing Australia except in the ODI arena where they're more of a match for them.

 

[nightprowler10]

All the same, I don't think the Pakistan analogy counts there, because for all we know the same might have happened with Pakistan had they played Aus a couple of years ago.

All that can be said is that Pakistan and Bangladesh both came close to beating Australia once in their most recent "home" series.

The Pakistan analogy was purely for the 'beating Australia' part. The point I was making was that the Bangladesh team as a whole will get better as time goes on and better players come through the system.

 

[Swervy]

Whilst NZ and Sri Lanka were undoubtably poor when they entered Test cricket they were not 'consistently thrashed' anywhere close to the same level Bangladesh have been.

So far Bangladesh have played 49 Tests.

Played 49, lost 43. Thats a losing %age of 88%

In NZ first 49 games they lost 26. Thats a losing %age of 53%

In Sri Lanka first 49 games they lost 22. Thats a losing %age of 45%

Also Sri Lanka and NZ didnt have the benefit of playing nearly 20% of their Tests against another weak team like Zimbabwe as Bangladesh have done.

Just one thing though, NZ tended to play just 3 day test cricket I think in the early days, which made it easier to draw games

 

[SJS]

One way to test a side's readiness to move to the next step is for them to be good enough to cmpete favourably with the first class sides of the major test playing nations.

Most countries used to tour England for a full summer and play against county sides besides a game or two against an MCC side. This gave them exposure and allowed them to be seen in professional level competitions.

Most sides have done this more than once and when they were found to be at least a first class side they were considered for the next step.

There is no reason why this cant continue.

 

[chaminda_00]

It actually not possible now with the increased schedule of matches for Associate sides and the increase number of players playing professionally. Scotland basically do this, but they play their A side against 2nd XI teams, as the national player either play too many international matches or are playing for county sides.

EDIT: Also there is reluctance for FC sides to let there top players to play in these meaningless matches, due to their own player burn out issues. So if Kenya did go on a Tour of England they would basically be playing 2nd XI sides anyway and we wont get a true reflection of their improvements or ability to play FC cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

128 Test Nations in 5 years, LMAO!!!

Bradman would suddenly be seen as an ordinary batsmen..