Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting

[archie mac]

Why let them play ODIs?
Even if you don't place much importance on them, some people do.
Fact is, sides like UAE, USA, Hong Kong, Scotland, Namibia, East Africa, Holland, Canada, Bangladesh, Kenya and the current Zimbabwe are not good enough to have games classed on the same level as the top 8.
And it damages the integrity of cricket for them to be so.

I think in ODI cricket they can compete, where it only takes one or two decent innings and some tight bowling to show improvement. In Test cricket there is no where to hide, and so they cop flogging after flogging, can't be helping the game. (theirs or ours)

 

[Richard]

The only way you can see it is by watching the games. They haven't put the results on the board yet (aside from beating Australia of course, which was an unusual occurance, but built on good play and not a fluke), but the evidence is there that they are a much better team than they used to be. In the NWS alone there were several players who looked every bit as good as players of a similar age from other countries around the world, scattered among some rubbish players who will never be test class, most of whom were from the older bracket.

Mortaza is easily the best pacer Bangladesh has ever produced, and would be considered a fair talent if he was from any nation in the subcontinent. Shahriar Nafees has a solid technique and if he develops his shotmaking a bit more could be a quality international batsman. Ashraful and Aftab Ahmed showed glimpses of talent along with some poor performances on the tour and could go either way. That is just a few names, and when you add to that the talent coming through at U-19 level you have signs of improvement. Translating that into more results will come with time, and dismissing Bangladesh from tests now would idiotic, as there are signs they are moving forward, and not backwards (unlike Zimbabwe).

If you seriously think Ashraful is ever going to amount to anything in either form of the game you're seriously asking a lot. His shot-selection has to be some of the worst I've ever seen from a supposed top-order batsman.
You seem to be talking a lot about ODIs and pretty much nothing about Tests. Shahriar Nafees Ahmed does indeed look a fair player in the shorter game, easily the best I've ever seen a Bangladeshi bat, but I wouldn't be especially surprised if Aftab Ahmed went the same way as most of their young, not-especially-talented players.
Like I say - you set much stall by u19 cricket at your peril. It doesn't neccessarily mean anything.
Mashrafe bin Mortaza is indeed a decent-looking bowler, but nonetheless he's still yet to put in many really consistent performances. We will see in the next couple of years.
As far as ODIs are concerned, they did indeed play much, much, much better than they have ever remotely looked like doing in ODIs last summer - previously they've never remotely merited ODI status.
However, we saw a similar spell in Tests between the Australia tour and the First Test in West Indies - and that has now spectacularly come to an end (as I mentioned - they've lost their last 9 Tests by an innings-and-plenty). We must wait to see whether the same will happen in ODIs, as 1 tournament where you play a little better than disgracefully (and remember in most of the games they were still utterly hammered) doesn't really mean too much.
As I've said - "feelings" can often be extremely misleading. Most of the time, too, it's been opportunistic optimism. The fact is, results (either individually or as a team) haven't really looked up much. If nothing comes of this u19 World Cup (as often happens) it'll be forgotten soon enough.
Remember - "Bangladesh have talented young players" is NOT something we're only hearing recently. It's been being trotted-out virtually since they started playing regularly.

 

[Richard]

If Bangladesh can consistently do well against the 'A' sides, then they would be ready to play real cricket.

But truthfully, how many sides can consistently beat Australia 'A' anyway?

Most international sides.
Just the opportunity doesn't come around - ever.
Full sides don't play series against "A" sides - only the odd game, where they're usually under-strength and under-motivated.

 

[Richard]

I dont get this "test status" whats the point.
Kenya v Bangladesh could be an interesting fixture in the future but apparently cant be played because of some "status"

It's something which, if we're brutally honest, is utterly ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever.
But given that it's always been there it's something near enough everyone in the cricket fraturnity holds dear.
"Test cricket" (and in the minds of the sane "ODI cricket" too) is something to be treasured, and only those worthy are allowed to play it.
Kenya v Bangladesh could indeed be an interesting fixture, but like Surrey v Yorkshire shouldn't be classed the same as South Africa v New Zealand.

 

[Richard]

I think in ODI cricket they can compete, where it only takes one or two decent innings and some tight bowling to show improvement. In Test cricket there is no where to hide, and so they cop flogging after flogging, can't be helping the game. (theirs or ours)

With the exception of the odd moment in NatWest Series 2005, Bangladesh have never looked remotely like competing in ODIs, except the odd game, all of which had extreme mitigating factors (Pakistan WC being under-motivated and possibly dubious in terms of trying to lose; India being barely half-strength; Australia being largely a freak).

 

[marc71178]

Bangladesh's national side is not showing any signs of improvement.

Oh yes it is, even over the 2 Test series in England they showed improvement.

 

[Langeveldt]

Oh yes it is, even over the 2 Test series in England they showed improvement.

But in fairness they couldn't get any worse..

They've essentially gone from a disgrace to shockingly bad.. Maybe in two years time they will just be awful

 

[Richard]

Oh yes it is, even over the 2 Test series in England they showed improvement.

No, England just didn't maintain the same intensity for the entire series, which is hardly surprising.
Bangladesh's 2 Tests since then show that no improvement was made.

 

[sirjeremy11]

But in fairness they couldn't get any worse..

Yes Bangladesh could get worse, look at Zimbabwe.

I think Bangladesh should play some sort of reduced programme, especially away from home. If they are going to get better slowly (which they are, VERY slowly), then they should be playing less.

And Zim should go. When you get people like the Flowers, Taibu, Streak, Johnson, Goodwin, even Ervine giving up international cricket, you know that that apple is rotten. There is a point where you just have to throw out the rubbish. It is NOT going to improve any time soon, and this may not even have much to do with the players. It is the way the country is.

I still think that U19 results count for little. Can you really see the Nepal team competeing with NZ and SA on a senior level in the next 5-6 years. No, so I can't see how continually harping back to "Bangladesh is one of the best U19 teams" (as some have) is relevant. Saying that, however, even there U19 team used to be rubbish, so they too have shown improvement.

 

[Anil]

I concur pretty much word-for-word with Neil. The genie is out of the bottle, you'd send Bangladeshi cricket back year if they were suddenly stripped of Test status. They *are* showing signs of improvement and as pointed out, their youth sides are brimming with talent. It's only a matter of time before they start seriously challenging other sides. Comparing them to ICC minnows is disingenuous and stupid because none of those teams have a formal FC structure in place whereas Bangladesh does. The amount of money which has been sunk into the cricket over there is phenomenal and it's a matter of time before those trees start bearing fruit,

but how much time is the question? another 5 years of getting thrashed? another 10 years? eternity? comparing with other minnows on time doesn't really make sense given how much cricket was going on in those days and how much the calendar has filled up now.....anyway they should never have been given test status when it happened...or they should have been thrown out in the first 2-3 years after categorically proving that they don't even remotely look like belonging....i suppose there is little point kicking them out now, it will just kill whatever "progress" has been made and whatever interest the country has developed in the game....

 

[Truekiwijoker]

It took us 26 years to win a test.

Look at those stats again. Those first 26 years of NZ test cricket and the development were severely affected by the second world war, and within that period there were long periods where there was no test cricket, which today could be regarded as a 'suspension'.

And look at the results. There were mostly draws, and a few losses, and it is clear that for the most part NZ was competetive against most opponents (except Australia).

Bangladesh and recently Zimbabwe have suffered some absolute thumpings, more losses than draws. Records broken, three-day results it's just not comparable. They clearly aren't competetive against any other team.

Not a fair comparison.

 

[JASON]

Look at those stats again. Those first 26 years of NZ test cricket and the development were severely affected by the second world war, and within that period there were long periods where there was no test cricket, which today could be regarded as a 'suspension'.

And look at the results. There were mostly draws, and a few losses, and it is clear that for the most part NZ was competetive against most opponents (except Australia).

Bangladesh and recently Zimbabwe have suffered some absolute thumpings, more losses than draws. Records broken, three-day results it's just not comparable. They clearly aren't competetive against any other team.

Not a fair comparison.

Why not ? West Indies were much more poorer as a nation and am sure were affected by the war , But they became a power house in that same time !!

 

[Truekiwijoker]

It's just plain stupid to say that, "Give them test status when they are ready." Define 'ready': If you mean 'when they have a realistic chance of winning a test', then thats not a good definition.

Right now, only England and Australia would be playing test cricket if that criteria was used. If you dont throw them in the deep end, they will not get better. Ever.

But the West Indies were highly competetive from day one...

In the past every other test team, Zimbabwe included, were capable of winning a test against at least one of the other test teams when granted test status. The Authorities recognised the quality of the domestic competetion within those countries, and the level the top cricketers could paly at. All (except of course Australia and possibly Sri Lanka, someone can prove me wrong on that) had players which either were current or previous proffessionals playing in England. They were competetive, and took only a few encounters to push the established teams in competition.

The way to build a test team is to give them publicity, and to get the next generation excited about cricket. Sending them to play the Pura or County cricket is not going gather much excitement from the youngers. They want to see their side playing Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, etc. Thats how you improve. It takes a decade to do so.

I disagree. For years Cricket was a minority sport here in New Zealand despite having test status, and even the odd victory. The appearance of the Windies and Australia more regularly in the 70's did little to increase its patronage beyond a few highly keen enthusiests, complete Anglophiles, eccentrics and some social elite.

What changed it was the emergence of the ODI game, and that's what I think would benefit Bangladesh. Televised exciting Cricket, increasing public interest allowing players and the management to imrove their expertise. rather than suffer thrashings.

Although fro what I understand Bngladesh has a long heritage of Cricket, where it has been a major sport for over 100 years.

just forget about cricket ever becoming popular around the world and go back to Aus vs. Eng and Eng vs. Aus.

Cricket was established thorughout the old British Empire and was a major sport in all test countries (bar NZ) before test status was granted.
Is it possible for it to ever become a global sport, and is it really a good thing if it does? not in my opinion.

I'm in favour of Bangladesh becoming a test country one day, but it was granted VERY prematurely.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Why not ? West Indies were much more poorer as a nation and am sure were affected by the war , But they became a power house in that same time !!

The effect wasn't at all economic, believe it or not NZ came out the war financially in better shape (!).

The effect was social. NZ had a large enlistment in the armed forces, which gutted the sporting community. Military service and playing first class cricket were not simultaneously possible for NZ-landers. The Cricket authorities had to start building a legacy again almost from scratch, and now competing against a society conforming to interest in Rugby only.

It remains an unfair comparison to Bangladesh and current Zimbabwe.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

So why have Pakistan and India never become World-beaters?
It's not just about having the population.
Indeed, if we knew what it was about, we'd be able to manufacture any team we wanted into World-beaters.
Fact is, we can only try and see - and Test and ODI cricket is not the place to be trialling.

Pakistan were world beaters 10-15 years ago. They won the world cup in 1991/2 and graced the Cricket fields of the world with the Worlds best pace attack and an exciting, high-quality batting lineup. Between 1992 and 1997 they would have seldom been out of the top 3 test teams (ignore those rubbis rankings and look at the talent). Only Australia and occasionally The West Indies and India could topple them. Even South Africa had trouble against them.

Inida won the world cup in 1983, and had one of the best teams between 1975-1990. Perhaps not world beaters, but not a side to be scoffed at. And they have never been bad since.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Time will tell. It remains my opinion that booting them now will do nothing other than set them back and would be a retrograde move by the ICC.

Top Cat, I'm not meaning to be rude or abrasive when I say this...

...but...

...from previous discussions and this comment, I get the feeling you believethe ICC and the Cricketing world shoulg be charitous to Bangladesh. Why should they be? You cant help anyone who can't help themselves.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

I dont get this "test status" whats the point.

It's a legacy of sport within the old British Empire. It proves which country plays the better Cricket. It's intended in the purest spirit of competition, and the 5 or 3 full-scheduled games is a good way of gauging which country is in better shape at the time.

Cricket isn't the only sport which featured test series. Until ten years ago it was the form of international competition in Rugby Union (and its decision to abandon it for one-off's was a collossal mistake in my opinion). I believe it was also the accepted format of competition in Hockey untill the schedule got too crowded.

 

[Top_Cat]

...from previous discussions and this comment, I get the feeling you believethe ICC and the Cricketing world shoulg be charitous to Bangladesh. Why should they be? You cant help anyone who can't help themselves.

Bangladesh, completely apart from other minnow teams, have a FC structure in place. They have money invested in their game. If their Test status was removed, the game wouldn't just collapse because they are helping themselves. I definitely believed at the time that bringing Bangladesh into Test cricket was a mistake and nothing has changed in that regard. However, now they're there, booting them out wouldn't help them at all.

As I said, I think it's a matter of time and we're already seeing some excellent players coming through to their senior team who are making themselves known in ODI's. The parallels with other teams are there; Sri Lanka, for example. They started in 1982 or thereabouts and took an eternity to win consistently. But even then, like Bangladesh, they were competitive in ODI cricket before being competitive in Tests and did it on the back of a few key players like Aravinda and Ranatunga. The next step in their development was to be tough to beat at home which Sri Lanka were from about the late-90's onwards. Bangladesh have a long way to go, yes, but they are showing signs of improvment, even if their results aren't showing it yet.

And funny how convenient an argument it is to say that Bangladesh's U/19's success is irrelevent yet so many forecast 'The End is Nigh' with Australian cricket based on the lack of quality players coming through the U/19's ranks. One cannot have it both ways.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

One cannot have it both ways.

In theory. Won't stop people from feverishly wanting both pieces of the pie.

 

[archie mac]

Bangladesh, completely apart from other minnow teams, have a FC structure in place. They have money invested in their game. If their Test status was removed, the game wouldn't just collapse because they are helping themselves. I definitely believed at the time that bringing Bangladesh into Test cricket was a mistake and nothing has changed in that regard. However, now they're there, booting them out wouldn't help them at all.

As I said, I think it's a matter of time and we're already seeing some excellent players coming through to their senior team who are making themselves known in ODI's. The parallels with other teams are there; Sri Lanka, for example. They started in 1982 or thereabouts and took an eternity to win consistently. But even then, like Bangladesh, they were competitive in ODI cricket before being competitive in Tests and did it on the back of a few key players like Aravinda and Ranatunga. The next step in their development was to be tough to beat at home which Sri Lanka were from about the late-90's onwards. Bangladesh have a long way to go, yes, but they are showing signs of improvment, even if their results aren't showing it yet.

And funny how convenient an argument it is to say that Bangladesh's U/19's success is irrelevent yet so many forecast 'The End is Nigh' with Australian cricket based on the lack of quality players coming through the U/19's ranks. One cannot have it both ways.

Some good points, in the end though you have just confirmed by opinion that they should only be allowed to play ODI cricket.