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

[Richard]

Getting through the repetoire today.

I reckon though.

 

[andruid]

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.

I suspect its bcoz New Zealand for example didn't hav as many established cricketing nations to deal with in comparison to Bangl;adesh and those 50 tests were probably played over a longer timescale than Bangladesh. In any case its not like SA, India or Pakistan were the powerhouses they are today

 

[Richard]

West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe may not have been instant powerhouses (Pakistan were) but they all quite patently belonged at the level at the time they were elevated. There were class players aplenty on all 4 sides, and they were not routinely outplayed and brushed aside the way Bangladesh have been on all but a tiny number of occasions.

New Zealand were different - they did not deserve Test status in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, but played just 52 "Tests" in those 3 decades. Bangladesh have already "played" 49 in less than 7 years. So while NZ did demean the standards, they didn't do it to anywhere near the disastrous extent Bangladesh have.

 

[stumpski]

In an ideal world I would like to see 20 Test teams - the same 8 or 9 endlessly playing each other can lead to a sense of deja vu - but realistically you have to maintain some sort of a standard. Players in the associate nations are amateurs and part-timers. If one team were to win the ICC Intercontinental Cup say, three years running there might be a case for giving them probationary Test status but I wouldn't go further than that. I wouldn't take it away from Bangladesh though. Zimbabwe are another matter. Its a tricky question of trying to encourage the players while having nothing to do with the administrators.

 

[Richard]

There were times when cricket had far fewer than 8 nations - deja vu wasn't a problem then.

8 nations is fine - if we can get some more, great, and if somewhere shows some promise, invest in them, but there's no point trying ridiculous ideas like Bermuda playing cricket which is classed as the same as Pakistan vs Sri Lanka. FFS, the entire population of the isle of Bermuda is smaller than a Toronto suberb. How on Earth does anyone get the idea they're ever going to amount to anything?

And if Bermuda genuinely are the 14th-best cricket-playing territory going around at present (which they are when you take account that in cricketing terms Scotland and Ireland, who are classed by I$C$C as separate, are actually part of the Test-playing team known as "England" due to historical misnomer) it doesn't say much for the state of cricket elsewhere at present, does it?

Holland and Canada are the only teams outside the top-11 currently worth investing anything in IMO. Not sure what's happened to Namibia, if they've fallen below Bermuda things don't look good.

 

[Sanz]

there is no need of more test playing nations,8 would be enough I think.

Really ?? If England and Ausrtalia thought along those lines, there would be only two countries playing test cricket.

 

[Goughy]

There were times when cricket had far fewer than 8 nations - deja vu wasn't a problem then.

Oh there was. In the 70s and early 80s (When Sri Lankan cricket was still not playing much) there were 6 teams and there was certainly a feeling of just seeing the same old faces over and over and there was a level of same old same old series after series.

The re-introduction of SA, Zims introduction and Sri Lanka becoming decent all in the early 90s really blew the cobwebs out of Test cricket and broke the monotony of just playing the same few sides.

Of course large numbers and diversity are preferable but also of course the standard also has to be maintained.

 

[stumpski]

Eight teams would be fine if they weren't constantly playing each other, the people who organise international fixtures should realise that lovers of the game can go a few weeks without international cricket, but unfortunately $$$ always rules. Which is why you have Sri Lanka touring New Zealand every three years. I would be happy to see The Ashes move to a five year schedule (two and a half years between series) if it helped to ease the congestion, but it's not likely to happen.

 

[Richard]

Really ?? If England and Ausrtalia thought along those lines, there would be only two countries playing test cricket.

And if they had, no-one would have known any better.

They didn't think along these lines, however, because other places battered down the door and demanded to be elevated. Currently, we do not have a remotely comparable situation.

 

[Richard]

Oh there was. In the 70s and early 80s (When Sri Lankan cricket was still not playing much) there were 6 teams and there was certainly a feeling of just seeing the same old faces over and over and there was a level of same old same old series after series.

Not helped, I daresay, by the fact that one West Indian thrashing was almost always the same as another.

 

[Sanz]

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.

That's incorrect way of looking at stats, It took Srilanka 13 years to play 49 tests, took 29 years for NZ to play 49 tests. Bangladesh has played 49 tests in 7 years. It took NZ 26 years to win a test match, 4 years for SL to win one. Test matches used to be a lot defensive in the past hence a lot of them used to end up as draw.

That said SriLanka were obviously more ready to play test cricket in 1981 than NZ, BD, Zim were when they started playing tests. More on this later.

 

[Richard]

That's incorrect way of looking at stats, It took Srilanka 13 years to play 49 tests, took 29 years for NZ to play 49 tests. Bangladesh has played 49 tests in 7 years. It took NZ 26 years to win a test match, 4 years for SL to win one. Test matches used to be a lot defensive in the past hence a lot of them used to end up as draw.

Kev's way is absolutely the right way of looking at things. Times have changed and so therefore so must the way teams are elevated to Test status

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Kev's way is absolutely the right way of looking at things. Times have changed and so therefore so must the way teams are elevated to Test status

Agreed.

 

[Chubby Rain]

8-10 test teams is an ideal number. Any more than that and the ICC should seriously consider a second tier of First Class International matches. I'd rather see 10 test nations with (for example) an India-Australia series every two years rather than 20 test nations and the more prominent series' just once every 4 years or so.

 

[Richard]

If 20 places can make Test-standard, great, let's have 20 Test teams. It would mean series came around pretty irregularly, but I think we'd get used to that.

However, having 20 Test teams just for the sake of it, rather than because 20 places demanded it, would be stupid beyond belief.

 

[Prince EWS]

If 20 places can make Test-standard, great, let's have 20 Test teams. It would mean series came around pretty irregularly, but I think we'd get used to that.

However, having 20 Test teams just for the sake of it, rather than because 20 places demanded it, would be stupid beyond belief.

20 teams would see the end of tours as we know them IMO. We'd probably get quadrangular tournaments in one country regularly, for example. "Australia, India and Uganda in England" or the likes, all playing simultaneous tests there. I don't really like the idea of that tbh, but it's probably what we'd see.

Ten is a pretty perfect number IMO, but as has been said, picking number X and then admitting the X best best teams isn't the best way to go about it. Countries which posess signficant interest in the game and have basic national domestic competitions should be persisted with financially in order to help professionalise the game and get the required infrastructure and competitions in place. During this phase, they should play regularly as a national side against A teams and against other teams at similar levels. If they show consistent signs of significant improvement to compete regularly with the other test nations, they should be given test status. That's the level Bangladesh should be at IMO, along with Holland, Namibia and Kenya. Zimbabwe are a totally different case - whether they should be persisted with financially and helped to get competitions in place is highly debatable. Scotland and Ireland are different again as they have strong ties with the English domestic structure.

 

[Goughy]

That's incorrect way of looking at stats, It took Srilanka 13 years to play 49 tests, took 29 years for NZ to play 49 tests. Bangladesh has played 49 tests in 7 years. It took NZ 26 years to win a test match, 4 years for SL to win one. Test matches used to be a lot defensive in the past hence a lot of them used to end up as draw.

That said SriLanka were obviously more ready to play test cricket in 1981 than NZ, BD, Zim were when they started playing tests. More on this later.

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.

 

[stumpski]

20 teams would see the end of tours as we know them IMO. We'd probably get quadrangular tournaments in one country regularly, for example. "Australia, India and Uganda in England" or the likes, all playing simultaneous tests there. I don't really like the idea of that tbh, but it's probably what we'd see.

Ten is a pretty perfect number IMO, but as has been said, picking number X and then admitting the X best best teams isn't the best way to go about it. Countries which posess signficant interest in the game and have basic national domestic competitions should be persisted with financially in order to help professionalise the game and get the required infrastructure and competitions in place. During this phase, they should play regularly as a national side against A teams and against other teams at similar levels. If they show consistent signs of significant improvement to compete regularly with the other test nations, they should be given test status. That's the level Bangladesh should be at IMO, along with Holland, Namibia and Kenya. Zimbabwe are a totally different case - whether they should be persisted with financially and helped to get competitions in place is highly debatable. Scotland and Ireland are different again as they have strong ties with the English domestic structure.

And that's just the problem with a side like Canada, who have tbh put in some decent performances at Associate level in the last few years but seem to be entirely dependent on imported players. How many of their 2007 World Cup side even learned their cricket in the country they were representing, never mind being born there?

 

[SJS]

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

What a ludicrous idea.

You cant get 128 countries playing international level cricket in five years just because ICC decides to make a target to do that.

You might as wel just ask all the clubs in each country to join hands and call them a national team and offer them membership and start playing alll of them.

It might do one thing though. Domestic cricket in the existing test playing countries will start drawing massive crowds since that willl be the only cricket left worth watching.

 

[Richard]

20 teams would see the end of tours as we know them IMO. We'd probably get quadrangular tournaments in one country regularly, for example. "Australia, India and Uganda in England" or the likes, all playing simultaneous tests there. I don't really like the idea of that tbh, but it's probably what we'd see.

Ten is a pretty perfect number IMO, but as has been said, picking number X and then admitting the X best best teams isn't the best way to go about it. Countries which posess signficant interest in the game and have basic national domestic competitions should be persisted with financially in order to help professionalise the game and get the required infrastructure and competitions in place. During this phase, they should play regularly as a national side against A teams and against other teams at similar levels. If they show consistent signs of significant improvement to compete regularly with the other test nations, they should be given test status. That's the level Bangladesh should be at IMO, along with Holland, Namibia and Kenya. Zimbabwe are a totally different case - whether they should be persisted with financially and helped to get competitions in place is highly debatable. Scotland and Ireland are different again as they have strong ties with the English domestic structure.

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).