Why....

[silentstriker]

Then pray tell, which cricket competitions would you use to make the definitive assessment that a team has made that magical transformation from not "Test class" to "Test class"?

First class. Bangladesh would tour other countries and play their FC and A teams. If they can beat those teams with regularity, then they are Test class.

For example, it is no small feat to beat WA and other Aussie FC sides. In general, you need to win more than lose against FC sides when playing away, and win significantly more than lose against FC sides when playing at home. Obviously, there would be some exceptions, as I think most FC sides could probably have a go at most Test sides, especially if the game were in Australia...but overall a Test side should win more than it loses against FC and 'A' sides.

 

[shortpitched713]

First class. Bangladesh would tour other countries and play their FC and A teams. If they can beat those teams with regularity, then they are Test class.

For example, it is no small feat to beat WA and other Aussie FC sides. In general, you need to win more than lose against FC sides when playing away, and win significantly more than lose against FC sides when playing at home. Obviously, there would be some exceptions, as I think most FC sides could probably have a go at most Test sides, especially if the game were in Australia...but overall a Test side should win more than it loses against FC and 'A' sides.

That would be great, but as of right now no such system exists for associate international sides. International sides for the most part only play other international sides.

 

[shortpitched713]

For example, it is no small feat to beat WA and other Aussie FC sides.

You might as well ask them to beat Test sides, FFS. Every Test side in the world, obviously barring Australia, would have a tough task doing that.

 

[Perm]

You might as well ask them to beat Test sides, FFS. Every Test side in the world, obviously barring Australia, would have a tough task doing that.

Not if Western Australia were without Hogg, Hussey and Gilchrist who are all regularly on international duty.

EDIT: Also Martyn and Langer who have been for the last decade.

 

[NUFAN]

Or better cooked than those who claim Bangladesh vs Pakistan is the equal of Sri Lanka vs New Zealand.

You've obviously forgotten the last time Bangladesh played Pakistan..

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64043.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64044.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

 

[Son Of Coco]

Then pray tell, which cricket competitions would you use to make the definitive assessment that a team has made that magical transformation from not "Test class" to "Test class"?

You're wasting your time with attempts at sensibility around here young man!

Don't you realise that the idea with stats is to introduce as many confounding variables as humanly possible?

 

[Richard]

You've obviously forgotten the last time Bangladesh played Pakistan..

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64043.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64044.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

No, I haven't - it doesn't matter in the slightest. Those games were not worthy of Test-status regardless of their outcome.

 

[Richard]

Don't you realise that the idea with stats is to introduce as many confounding variables as humanly possible?

Like calling Bangladesh Test-class, you mean? Yes, indeed.

 

[Richard]

That would be great, but as of right now no such system exists for associate international sides.

So, um... make one.

 

[silentstriker]

You might as well ask them to beat Test sides, FFS. Every Test side in the world, obviously barring Australia, would have a tough task doing that.

And I mention that. But they should be able to beat most of the other countries FC sides. Or they are not Test class.

 

[silentstriker]

That would be great, but as of right now no such system exists for associate international sides. International sides for the most part only play other international sides.

Make one. If someone is deemed to be a potential test side, start them up on such tours.

 

[shortpitched713]

So, um... make one.

Make one. If someone is deemed to be a potential test side, start them up on such tours.

Okay, thats great. But until we do, if we kick out Bangladesh now, and such a system is not put in place by the ICC or Bangladesh and other cricket boards, how would we know that Bangladesh has made the transformation into a Test standard team?

 

[Richard]

I've never once suggested kicking Bangladesh out and not immediately putting such a situation in place.

I think the thing should have been done that way back in 2000.

 

[Athlai]

I've never once suggested kicking Bangladesh out and not immediately putting such a situation in place.

I think the thing should have been done that way back in 2000.

So what should happen to Bangladesh, remain a test squad or have it revoked?

 

[Richard]

Test-cricket would be that much better should Bangladesh cease to be involved at the current time. And Test history would be that much better should every Bangladesh game be stripped of Test-status. Likewise New Zealand in the 1930s and 1950s.

 

[silentstriker]

So what should happen to Bangladesh, remain a test squad or have it revoked?

Well for me, it should be revoked and there should be lots of tours by A and FC sides and until they can consistently win those - they should remain on 'probationary' Test status. Meaning, they won't play games against other Full Test sides, but they can still have the voting power and other privileges (ideally, they shouldn't have been given this in the beginning).

 

[andruid]

Test-cricket would be that much better should Bangladesh cease to be involved at the current time. And Test history would be that much better should every Bangladesh game be stripped of Test-status. Likewise New Zealand in the 1930s and 1950s.

Well they weren't and the result NZ eventually got the 'hang of it' so to speak but if you look at the system that got Bangladesh Test status you will see that mistakes like that are possible and could happen again I mean they didn't even have a Domestic FC championship at the time it was decided to award them Test status

 

[Richard]

Well they weren't and the result NZ eventually got the 'hang of it' so to speak

Maybe (who knows - would they have got the hang of it quicker had they been introduced the way West Indies and India were?) but it doesn't mean those games deserved Test-status. I'd quite happily revoke it.

 

[andruid]

The point I am trying to make is The actual decision making progress that goes into decicing who get's granted 'Test' staus basically does not hinge on the ability of the team on the field or the structures in place to breed Test quality players but on the goodwill of the other 'Test' teams. In short teams should be able to earn rather than be granted 'test' status

 

[Richard]

Oh, undoubtedly they should. Who knows, let's hope lessons will be learned from the Bangladesh case. Sadly, those lessons were old and had been observed; some for some reason decided to depart from the well-known.

All of West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe acceded to Test-status in the right way (relative to their times of course - with West Indies the key game is generally thought to have been against RG Leveson-Gower's XI after years of touring England and elsewhere; for Zimbabwe it was years and years in the South African Currie Cup). Pakistan were a bit of a special case as they were a new nation and gained almost instant Test-status upon political inception.

Bangladesh, however, like New Zealand before them, were granted Test-status woefully prematurely. Fortunately New Zealand didn't play that much, so their effect on the integrity of Test-cricket wasn't quite so bad as Bangladesh's, while still deplorable for being present at all.