Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting

[Sir Redman]

Whatever happened to David Kelly, he doesn't have great stats but I always thought he looked alright when I saw him play.

He played for my club 2 seasons ago and made about one fifty all season (apparently he was always complaining about the pitches and blamed them for his failures). Despite that he was still in the ND side but didn't score for them either. I haven't heard anything about him since then, I'd imagine he was dropped from ND and has moved to some other part of the country.

 

[Smudge]

I ran David Kelly out in the Otago Form 2 trial.

Which you might think was a good thing, except I was the other batsman, and made a shocking call.

He still got selected - I didn't.

 

[tooextracool]

Just looking at some of the score cards.

The West Indies team was quite strong too -
CH Gayle
D Ganga
MN Samuels
*SC Joseph
RR Sarwan
RO Hinds

and almost everyone on that list has ended up being an ordinary test match player.....

 

[Autobahn]

Gayle's pretty good still only 26 and averaging nearly 40 in tests and ODI's and with a bowling average of 37 in tests and 30-odd in ODI he's very nearly an all-rounder and has been tipped for the future captaincy.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

I would question that of every side since the first 2 actually.

On what basis?

I would definitely question that of both Zimbabawe and the side before them (Sri Lanka)

I recall Zimbabwe playing competetive cricket, and could have gotten even a win with some luck. Big difference to Bangladesh. I mean they gave Engalnd a good run for their money.
Sri Lanka had some really classy performers like de Mel (or whatever his name was). Where are the classy Bangladeshis?

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Especially in those days, where the draws were so common...I really don't think India or Pakistan were really able to force wins.

Forcing a draw out of the top teams is a real accomplishment. And how were draws ever more common?

 

[Truekiwijoker]

I think youre missing my point. Test series are obviously great. Thats not the point.

The "status" part is the rubbish.
As someone said, this thing where you are shut out forever and then suddenly let in and expected to perform, while your obvious opponents arent led in, so you cant play them.

Its bizarre that Bangladesh travels around being humiliated everywhere, while Kenya, to my knowledge, barely plays any cricket because they cant gain test status.

Why cant Bangladesh play "tests" against Kenya without this leading to a chaotic discussion about status.
We should get rid of this iron curtain where you are either in or out. Its ridiculous and no other sport has it.

You get to play test cricket if you can do what Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe did and establish the infrastructure required to produce a team capable of playing test Cricket.

Staging Test Cricket fixtures involves considerable turnover of money to start with...

And in any case, would a 'second tier' test between Bangladesh and Kenya REALLY benefit Bangadeshi cricket?

And in any case, how any other sport is run is an irrelevancy.

 

[marc71178]

On what basis?

Because when they came in they struggled and took a fair bit of time to make any impact?

 

[Neil Pickup]

You get to play test cricket if you can do what Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe did and establish the infrastructure required to produce a team capable of playing test Cricket.

Staging Test Cricket fixtures involves considerable turnover of money to start with...

And in any case, would a 'second tier' test between Bangladesh and Kenya REALLY benefit Bangadeshi cricket?

And in any case, how any other sport is run is an irrelevancy.

No one's arguing that it was right to give Bangladesh Test Status at the time it was given.

The point is now that the situation's entirely different and now the bed is made, it must be slept in.

 

[silentstriker]

And how were draws ever more common?

You are kidding, right? I thought that this was obvious.

In the 2000's, 77% of matches end in a result, which is the highest percentage of any decade.

In the 1960s, half of England's Tests ended in a draw; in the 1990s, about a third; in the 2000s, less than a quarter.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/134945.html

 

[howardj]

There are two very good opposing arguments, with respect to this issue. However, I come down on the side of Ponting. I think International sport is all about excellence. Bangladesh just don't, at this stage, measure up. However, having excluded them, it then falls to the Test playing nations to support Bangladesh's development by helping to facilitate matches against Provincial/State teams. In short, help them to improve incrementally- don't just throw them into the Cauldron or cut them adrift.

 

[Langeveldt]

Test cricket is about excellence..

International cricket should be an inviting church and always open to whichever nation wants to play it..

Big difference

 

[howardj]

Test cricket is about excellence..

International cricket should be an inviting church and always open to whichever nation wants to play it..

Big difference

Oh sorry, I was only actually speaking in relation to Test matches.

I don't actually have any problem with 'Bangers' in ODI cricket.

It's a good stepping stone for them.

 

[Richard]

Gayle's pretty good still only 26 and averaging nearly 40 in tests and ODI's and with a bowling average of 37 in tests and 30-odd in ODI he's very nearly an all-rounder and has been tipped for the future captaincy.

Yet, as tec will probably point-out to you next time he reads this thread, Gayle's Test-match play is not quite all it's cracked-up to be.

 

[Richard]

Forcing a draw out of the top teams is a real accomplishment. And how were draws ever more common?

Because no lost time was made-up before about 1996 or something... Tests used to be four-day and even three-day before 1950... all sorts of reasons.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I recall Zimbabwe playing competetive cricket, and could have gotten even a win with some luck. Big difference to Bangladesh. I mean they gave Engalnd a good run for their money.
Sri Lanka had some really classy performers like de Mel (or whatever his name was). Where are the classy Bangladeshis?

I would say that Rafique, Mashrafe, and Ashraful are reasonably classy... or at least have the potential to be.

Bashar, the most successful Bangladesh test batsman is less classy. But more effective.

 

[Richard]

Test cricket is about excellence..

International cricket should be an inviting church and always open to whichever nation wants to play it..

Big difference

First international match? USA v Canada.
First Test? Australia v England.
Anyone who wants can play international cricket, and it should be recognised.
It should only be given Test or ODI status once it falls into the required "excellence".

 

[Richard]

I would say that Rafique, Mashrafe, and Ashraful are reasonably classy... or at least have the potential to be.

Bashar, the most successful Bangladesh test batsman is less classy. But more effective.

Rafique and Mashrafe, yes, certainly. Habibul... very debatable. Shahriar Nafees Ahmed, in ODIs, certainly. Looks a class above anyone else I've ever seen come out of Bangladesh.
Mohammad Ashraful? Noooooo!!!!! One of the worst players I've ever seen (if not the worst) get sooooo much admiration).

 

[archie mac]

Because no lost time was made-up before about 1996 or something... Tests used to be four-day and even three-day before 1950... all sorts of reasons.

Yes that is true, but on the other side they never covered pitches, so the occasional sticky would quickly wrap up some Tests.

By the same token it was sometimes hard to restart games because the pitch was to wet.

But then again a lot of matches in Aust and some in Sth Afr and the WI were played to a finish.

Now I am not sure who is right

 

[tooextracool]

Gayle's pretty good still only 26 and averaging nearly 40 in tests and ODI's and with a bowling average of 37 in tests and 30-odd in ODI he's very nearly an all-rounder and has been tipped for the future captaincy.

i clearly stated 'test match player',so the ODIs doesnt matter.
as far as tests are concerned, hes never ever succeeded on a pitch offering even the slightest bit of help for the pace bowlers. his average of 38.79 looks good on paper yes, but as ive shown before if you get rid of his 317( and i hardly see why any innings on an antigua wicket in recent history deserves to be part of a players record), his average falls to 35.74. if you then take away his record against zimbabwe and bangladesh(for obvious reasons) it falls down to 33.14. that is a very ordinary average for any player, let alone one who plays on flat pitches for a large proportion of his career.