Should Bangladesh And Zimbabwe Be Stripped Of Their Test Status?

[Swervy]

If Bangladesh or Zimbabwe are banished for lack of quality, for the sake of consistency, one must erase the first 20 years of South African cricketing records and all records of opposition players made against South Africa and do the same for the first 15-20 years of Kiwi cricket, first 20-25 years of Indian cricket and first 10-20 years of west indies cricket and the first 10 years of sri lankan cricket.

I agree...it takes time for a nation to develop in test cricket..and when I say time I mean real time in years as opposed to the number of tests....I am sure that in the next 10, 15, 20 years B'desh will develop into a useful test playing team

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Is there any other sports that doesn't let rubbish teams play with the big countries?

I mean in Football, England have to go to San Marino or Azerbijan, why shoudn't South Africa have to go and play Cricket in Dijibouti?

Actually, tiered systems are the norm. Rugby have it, tennis have it, ice hockey have it, handball, volleyball and women's football have varieties of it.

To have promotion and relegation between the tiers something arbitrary decided by a council, however, is AFAIK unique to cricket. And also that international statistics are only collected in the one tier.

 

[mofo123]

how can u expect a team to become test standard without playing tests? u gotta let the teams play...so wot if its an easy win for other teams...is it hurting any1 that they play test matches?

 

[Langeveldt]

how can u expect a team to become test standard without playing tests? u gotta let the teams play...so wot if its an easy win for other teams...is it hurting any1 that they play test matches?

Absolute rubbish, If I went and played test cricket, I wouldn't be test standard by the time I was 35... Its not something that happens just because you are there..

It takes massive amounts of money, infrastructure, training, talent scouting, everything really.. Bangladesh are a laughing stock who should have never been allowed anywhere near test cricket, and Zimbabwe are not worthy now of it either.. Drop them both, test cricket is not helping either of them, and they are not helping test cricket by being there..

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think there are good reasons to remove Zimbabwe's test status, but they're only secondarily cricketing issues. I think any country that had lost the amount of talent they've lost over the last half-dozen years would have their competitiveness compromised, let alone one with their shallow player base.

If we leave the political situation to one side, I think the real villain here is the ICC's 5-year test championship. I don't doubt it was set up with noble intentions, but it's meant that Bangladesh & the now weakened Zimbas have been forced to play the top nations consistently before they were realistically equipped to do so. Happily moves to seem to be afoot to rectify this with the proposed plan to limit them to home tests (in light of last week's test it's easy to forget that the first test in Bangladesh in 2003 went to 5 days & Bangladesh started that 5th day 153 runs ahead with 4 2nd innings wickets left) & non-test series against the better non-test nations.

I think this associate-test status (if one also factors in tours playing first-class teams in other countries) will do more to assist their development than 2-and-a-bit day wallopings ever can.

 

[Langeveldt]

But why is that fair?
Can't any side just say "Oh we could do with only playing home games" if they go down the tubes? Isn't the whole point of a world championship is the same conditions for everyone? Who gives a monkeys about "development", development doesn't take place at the top..

 

[tooextracool]

No.

Make tiers instead. Let Bangladesh and Zimbabwe play Kenya, Namibia, Canada, Scotland, Ireland and The Netherlands in a second tier. Once every while, the best of the second tier gets to play the Windies...urr, I meant the worst of the first tier..for the right to play Group A Test cricket.

and we'll probably have the same 8 teams playing test cricket for the next century.
seriously what are the odds of a team playing cricket against kenya, namibia, canada etc, improving to such heights that they will be able to beat the WI?
it wont happen, what would perhaps be better is
a) have them play county/A sides and when they start beating them regularly grant them test status.
b) have 9 teams playing at the test match level, with the 9th team being relegated every 2 years or so. so we have 1 rubbish team at the test match level all the time, but at least they get a chance at the test match level and we see a new cricketing nation ever 2 years.

 

[Swervy]

Absolute rubbish, If I went and played test cricket, I wouldn't be test standard by the time I was 35... Its not something that happens just because you are there..

erm..I think if you played often against top class players , your game would without a doubt improve, maybe not to that standard but it would still improve.

I can almost guarantee that if B'desh contine to play test cricket, they will produce a genuinely world class batsman within 5 years. A player of that calibre should then open the flood gates....its exactly what happened with Sri lanka...its gonna take a bit longer for B'desh to progress than Sri lanka, but it will happen.

The last thing that should be done is withdrawing them from test cricket....the bigger picture is more important..it would appear that people only seem concerned that peoples averages are inflated etc coz of B'desh..when in fact that is the least important aspect of it all

 

[Swervy]

and we'll probably have the same 8 teams playing test cricket for the next century.
seriously what are the odds of a team playing cricket against kenya, namibia, canada etc, improving to such heights that they will be able to beat the WI?
it wont happen, what would perhaps be better is
a) have them play county/A sides and when they start beating them regularly grant them test status.
b) have 9 teams playing at the test match level, with the 9th team being relegated every 2 years or so. so we have 1 rubbish team at the test match level all the time, but at least they get a chance at the test match level and we see a new cricketing nation ever 2 years.

yeah that seems like a pretty good idea..however, I really dont think the ICC can go back on the desicision to let B'desh into test scene

 

[BoyBrumby]

But why is that fair?
Can't any side just say "Oh we could do with only playing home games" if they go down the tubes? Isn't the whole point of a world championship is the same conditions for everyone? Who gives a monkeys about "development", development doesn't take place at the top..

As I understand it Zimbabwe & Bangladesh won't be part of the official test championship during the next tranche of matches, if the ICC adopts the proposal, of course.

As for development, well I think the ICC has some sort of duty to spread the gospel of cricket. Having new teams get their ar$ses whupped at Lord's, The SCG or Eden Gardens serves no purpose to victor or vanquished.

 

[Jamee999]

TEC:
And If they're any good(make some kind of rule up) They get to stay up for another 2 years, and if they get better(double the old rule) they stay up and a new nation is promoted.

I think that the best method would be to also put the countries into the domestic systems , FC and OD of nations near by.

Using teams mentioned in the thread:
Scotland:England, Kenya:South Africa, Holland:England, Nambia:South Africa, Canada:West Indies, Zimbabwe:South Africa, Bangladesh:India.

 

[marc71178]

The key thing IMO is that although they've played 30-odd games, it's still only been 4 or 5 years, and it takes longer than that for the improvements to show (as evidenced by all other new entrants to the Test arena)

 

[Kweek]

question: why doesnt the ICC do anything with the two tier system, i mean what are the cons ? as i havnt heard any.

 

[marc71178]

Cons are that the sides that are now in Test Cricket but would be "relegated" wouldn't learn a thing.

 

[chaminda_00]

Cons are that the sides that are now in Test Cricket but would be "relegated" wouldn't learn a thing.

I think they would learn and improve more by playing teams like Scotland and Namibia and being competitive then they would playing England and losing in 2 and bit days. You don't learn anything from being smashed by an innnings every Test. Im sure the Bangladesh players learn't more about playing cricket at the highest level aganist Scotland and Ireland prior to the Champions' Throphy, then during the actually Champions' Trophy, aganist the top teams.

 

[aussie]

i think Bangladesh should remain they have got some good young players and under Whatmore they could be headed somewhere.

not so sure about zimbabwe though

 

[Top_Cat]

You don't learn anything from being smashed by an innnings every Test. Im sure the Bangladesh players learn't more about playing cricket at the highest level aganist Scotland and Ireland prior to the Champions' Throphy, then during the actually Champions' Trophy, aganist the top teams.

I'm sure they learnt more about playing Test cricket when they played two Tests against Australia in Australia than they would playing Scotland, Ireland and the like in 100 games. Yes they got hammered but they showed some good signs and were a far better team of players for the experience. The improvement wasn't sustained but that's what it's all about; if they keep playing the lower teams, they'll just get very good at playing the lower teams. People are just being far too impatient. Bangladesh is still a very new team. Money and resources are gradually being put into it and they will get better.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, has more problems than not being competitive............ There's less money around for development of the sport so they don't appear to be moving forward and this is on top of the moral objections to Mugabe and tacit support of his regime by touring there.

 

[cricket player]

I think they would learn and improve more by playing teams like Scotland and Namibia and being competitive then they would playing England and losing in 2 and bit days. You don't learn anything from being smashed by an innnings every Test. Im sure the Bangladesh players learn't more about playing cricket at the highest level aganist Scotland and Ireland prior to the Champions' Throphy, then during the actually Champions' Trophy, aganist the top teams.

How can They improve by playing againts teams such as scotland&Namibia?
Bangladesh has improved very well over the years because They played teams such as India & pakistan etc.
It doesnt make sense for me by making them play againts teams like scotland.You improve and learn by playing the best teams in the world.

 

[marc71178]

I think they would learn and improve more by playing teams like Scotland and Namibia and being competitive then they would playing England and losing in 2 and bit days. You don't learn anything from being smashed by an innnings every Test. Im sure the Bangladesh players learn't more about playing cricket at the highest level aganist Scotland and Ireland prior to the Champions' Throphy, then during the actually Champions' Trophy, aganist the top teams.

Well, there's an interview with Mashud in the current issue of Wisden Cricketer where he says they've learnt a lot from playing Test sides - for a start just being able to watch someone like Lara bat at close quarters is teaching them, as well as the chance to mix with these players and get help and tips just from talking to them.

 

[Craig]

I am not the first to say it... and I certainly won't be the last!
DEMOTE BANGLADESH AND ZIMBABWE FROM TEST STATUS!
They should both be playing first class matches against 'A' teams, County sides (and other respectable first class sides in the remaining 8 test playing countries) in order to prove their worth! At the moment Test players averages are being unjustly boosted which, in turn, is making a mockery of our great game!

What are your thoughts on the matter?

And what is that going to prove eventully when Bangladesh keep beating 'A' teams, county lots etc. yet the debate comes up maybe giving them another go, yet comeback up and get thrashed again? It is the same when they keep beating Ireland (and Northern Ireland), Canada , Holland and so forth?