Interesting note

[Shri]

Bangladesh took about 5 years to win its first test match against a weakened Zimbabwean side while Afghanistan have secured their first test win very quickly. Is Bangladesh the worst test side in the history of cricket?

 

[andmark]

New Zealand say hello.

 

[Red]

If it takes you 5 years to win a test, you should have never been given test status to start with.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Jason Gillespie should have bought a house and car for every member of that Bangladesh team after the game.

 

[Flem274*]

we were, tho tbf we lacked anyone around our level to play like bangers had with zim and afghanistan with bangers and ireland.

 

[a massive zebra]

If it takes you 5 years to win a test, you should have never been given test status to start with.

Several Test sides have taken much more than 5 years to record their first victory.

India First Test 1932 / First Win 1952 / Period 20 years
New Zealand 1930 / 1956 / 26 years
South Africa 1889 / 1906 / 17 years

 

[Shri]

this is no fun without any bangladesh supporter base at cw

 

[h_hurricane]

A short answer to OP would be yes.

Afghanistan certainly is a better side right now than Bangladesh in 2000. 20 years from now, they would be expected to progress much more than what BD have progressed until 2019.

Having said that, no. of years may not be the right criteria to judge the progress of teams. BD and AFG would get a lot more exposure in 21st century against top teams than Ind and NZ got back in 1930s and 40s.

 

[Adders]

If it takes you 5 years to win a test, you should have never been given test status to start with.

Total bollocks

 

[Daemon]

A short answer to OP would be yes.

Afghanistan certainly is a better side right now than Bangladesh in 2000. 20 years from now, they would be expected to progress much more than what BD have progressed until 2019.

Having said that, no. of years may not be the right criteria to judge the progress of teams. BD and AFG would get a lot more exposure in 21st century against top teams than Ind and NZ got back in 1930s and 40s.

Yep, and don’t forget the exposure pre-test status.

It’s not like South Africa were playing 20 other countries over a structured tournament to get their Test status. The WCL has played a big part in Afghanistan’s development.

 

[trundler]

Test cricket wasn't really a thing in the 19th century. People gave more of a **** about the Gentleman v Players game. It wasn't really seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Teams weren't truly representative. Tours were privately organized. Selectors were introduced know later. Really tests were only given test status retrospectively. Australia and SA certainly weren't test class either. This extends to early NZ and India too. India had Nawabs playing simply because of the power they had. Pakistan didn't have a phase like that because their players were already established stars in the Ranji Trophy pre partition.

 

[a massive zebra]

A lot of superficial nonsense in this post.

Test cricket wasn't really a thing in the 19th century... Really tests were only given test status retrospectively.

While some of the early South Africa matches were only given Test status retrospectively, England vs Australia matches were considered as representative international matches at the time they were played, and referred to as Test matches in contemporary reports. Here is a quote from the 1889 Wisden, reporting on the First Test between England and Australia in 1888:

"Although of course it was seen that the Australians were by no means equal on their merits with the best team in England, there was a considerable amount of anxiety as to the result of the first of the three great test matches."

People gave more of a **** about the Gentleman v Players game. It wasn't really seen as the pinnacle of cricket.

England vs Australia matches absolutely were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Gentlemen vs Players matches occurred every year while Ashes tours only happened slightly more frequently than currently. In years with no Ashes tour, Gentlemen vs Players matches were among the highlights of the cricketing year, but when Australia toured England, the Test matches definitely overshadowed any domestic fixture, including Gentlemen vs Players.

Selectors were introduced know later.

The first England selection committee was formed in 1899 and chaired by Lord Hawke, with W.G. Grace and H.W. Bainbridge as fellow selectors. Prior to this, English teams for test matches in England were selected by the administrators at the ground they were played.

Teams weren't truly representative.

While England didn't send their best side over to Australia until the mid 1890s, Australian sides in England often were fully representative, or very close to it. England sides for Test matches at home were pretty much always representative. There was no bigger event in the cricket world of the late 19th century than England vs Australia in England.

Australia and SA certainly weren't test class either.

South Africa were nowhere near Test class in the 19th century. However, when Australian sides first toured England in the late 1870s and early 1880s, the English were amazed at the quality of their bowling and recognised they could learn a lot from the colonials, who had clearly taken the art of bowling to the next level. Spofforth, Boyle, Palmer and Garrett were considered as a superior quartet of bowlers to anything England could muster.

In the first decade of Test cricket, England certainly had a much more solid batting lineup and generally held the upper hand, but Australia had some notable successes, including bowling England out for 77 to record a famous victory at The Oval in 1882. By the 1890s, Australian batting had improved and they could compete with England on level terms. The overall Test match head to head record between England in Australia in the 1890s was tied at 10-10, and Australia won the last two series including away in England in 1899.

 

[andmark]

We need a return of the Gentlemen and Players matches. Kit them out in full suits and top hats. Preferably tweed.

 

[trundler]

A lot of superficial nonsense in this post.



While some of the early South Africa matches were only given Test status retrospectively, England vs Australia matches were considered as representative international matches at the time they were played, and referred to as Test matches in contemporary reports. Here is a quote from the 1889 Wisden, reporting on the First Test between England and Australia in 1888:

"Although of course it was seen that the Australians were by no means equal on their merits with the best team in England, there was a considerable amount of anxiety as to the result of the first of the three great test matches."

View attachment 24895



England vs Australia matches absolutely were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Gentlemen vs Players matches occurred every year while Ashes tours only happened slightly more frequently than currently. In years with no Ashes tour, Gentlemen vs Players matches were among the highlights of the cricketing year, but when Australia toured England, the Test matches definitely overshadowed any domestic fixture, including Gentlemen vs Players.



The first England selection committee was formed in 1899 and chaired by Lord Hawke, with W.G. Grace and H.W. Bainbridge as fellow selectors. Prior to this, English teams for test matches in England were selected by the administrators at the ground they were played.



While England didn't send their best side over to Australia until the mid 1890s, Australian sides in England often were fully representative, or very close to it. England sides for Test matches at home were pretty much always representative. There was no bigger event in the cricket world of the late 19th century than England vs Australia in England.



South Africa were nowhere near Test class in the 19th century. However, when Australian sides first toured England in the late 1870s and early 1880s, the English were amazed at the quality of their bowling and recognised they could learn a lot from the colonials, who had clearly taken the art of bowling to the next level. Spofforth, Boyle, Palmer and Garrett were considered as a superior quartet of bowlers to anything England could muster.

In the first decade of Test cricket, England certainly had a much more solid batting lineup and generally held the upper hand, but Australia had some notable successes, including bowling England out for 77 to record a famous victory at The Oval in 1882. By the 1890s, Australian batting had improved and they could compete with England on level terms. The overall Test match head to head record between England in Australia in the 1890s was tied at 10-10, and Australia won the last two series including away in England in 1899.

Yeah, my fault for lumping SA and Australia together. Australia became more competitive much earlier. Are you sure about test cricket always being the pinnacle? I'm pretty sure I've read something to the opposite effect somewhere. I'll try and dig it up. Re selectors: I thought they were a post 1900 thing but eh, close enough. Also, wasn't there an England Vs Australia game in the 1860s that wasn't given test status?

 

[AndrewB]

Yeah, my fault for lumping SA and Australia together. Australia became more competitive much earlier. Are you sure about test cricket always being the pinnacle? I'm pretty sure I've read something to the opposite effect somewhere. I'll try and dig it up. Re selectors: I thought they were a post 1900 thing but eh, close enough. Also, wasn't there an England Vs Australia game in the 1860s that wasn't given test status?

The first official MCC team to tour Australia was PF Warner's side in 1903-4.

You might be thinking of the MCC v Australia match from 1878 which has never had Test status - if it had, it would have set several records which would still stand: the MCC were bowled out for 33 and 19, and lost by 9 wickets...

(The only Australian tour in the 1860s was the Aboriginal team of 1868, which didn't play any first-class matches - I think they played against an MCC XI, but it was in no sense an England side).

 

[Jack1]

Strong troll thread.

 

[a massive zebra]

(The only Australian tour in the 1860s was the Aboriginal team of 1868, which didn't play any first-class matches - I think they played against an MCC XI, but it was in no sense an England side).

There were also three English tours of Australia prior to the first Test - 1861/62, 1863/64 and 1873/74. However, the first two tours only included one first class match each and the final tour had no first class matches, primarily because nearly all the matches were played against odds (i.e. the Australian sides would have more than 11 players in them, all of whom would bat and field). Even the two first class matches were not England against Australia: The teams combined the English tourists and Australian local players on each side.

 

[Red]

Total bollocks

It's not bollocks, in this era even less bollocks.

What is bollocks about it?