• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Should Bangladesh And Zimbabwe Be Stripped Of Their Test Status?

Swervy

International Captain
from cricinfo:

On November 10, 2000, Test cricket's latest team took their first strides on the international stage. A nation rejoiced as the first-timers made the Indians sweat and struggle before finally succumbing. The start was much more than any debut side could have bargained for, the future was promising, and a country-crazy country could not have been blamed for expecting more success very soon.

Four-and-a-half years and 36 Tests later, fans in Bangladesh and critics the world over are still waiting for the team to realise the potential that was on display at Dhaka in 2000. Their only Test win was a pyrrhic one, against a Zimbabwe side shattered by the exodus of several top stars. Innings defeats have been par for course, and the latest one, at Lord's against England, has set forth a new stream of questions regarding their status as a Test team. Have Bangladesh improved at all over the last four years?

A general idea of their progress - or the lack of it - can be gleaned by comparing the results in their last few matches against those in their early days. Do their batsmen score more runs and bat longer than they used to? Are their bowlers more effective in terms of taking more wickets and keeping the runs in check? At first impression, it might not seem like they've made any progress, but the stats reveal an improvement, albeit a marginal one.

Even excluding Bangladesh's two-Test home series against Zimbabwe earlier this year, the numbers reveal a slight change for the better. Since the away series against Australia in 2003, Bangladesh have reduced the deficit between runs scored per wicket and runs conceded per wicket by ten - that's a 25% improvement. They have also managed to take the first-innings lead three times in those 16 Tests - twice against Pakistan and once against West Indies, and the average deficit conceded has reduced considerably to 165. They've shown better staying power as well, lasting 19 overs more per innings than they did in their first two-and-a-half years.

First 19 Tests Last 16 Tests
(excl Zim series)
Runs/ wkt scored 18.55 21.38
Runs/ wkt conceded 58.27 51.35
Ave no. of overs batted
in 1st innings 67.3 86.3
Ave 1st-inn. lead conceded 271 165
Runs/ over scored 2.78 2.89
Runs/ over conceded 3.68 3.35

showing signs of improvement!!!!
 

Swervy

International Captain
shaka said:
It is, even though the improvement is very slow
if that level of improvement continues this team might be pretty competitive by 2010 or so.

These days, people are so impatient its silly :p
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Swervy said:
if that level of improvement continues this team might be pretty competitive by 2010 or so.

These days, people are so impatient its silly :p
Yup. If the improvement comes at this rate, the runs-scored and runs-conceded will equal each other in 2015. And that won't only mean they'll be competitive, they'll win half their matches. :happy:
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
People only seem to be thinking about whats good for Bangladesh, not whats good for cricket as a whole. Im confident like most of you guys that Bangladesh may be competitive by around 2010 or 2015, but whats better for cricket as a whole having 2 more competitives sides or have 4 or 5.

The way i look at it their no point in stoping them play the top sides, but make them play more matches aganist sides of their same abilty.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Swervy said:
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.
Doubt it, I'd be worse because I would only be spending minutes at the crease, not hours.. Just like all these Bangladeshi batsmen..
 

Swervy

International Captain
Langeveldt said:
Doubt it, I'd be worse because I would only be spending minutes at the crease, not hours.. Just like all these Bangladeshi batsmen..
the fact is though that B'deshs performances have improved over time thanks to playing test cricket
 

Stefano

School Boy/Girl Captain
I would like to give my opinion about this topic, although I have just begun to follow cricket.

I find lots of similarities between rugby and cricket. I can give an example from rugby: for a long time, Italy didn't play any test match. Sometimes Italy played against the five nations, but those matches were not considered test matches: it was something like England XV or England A vs. Italy. Italy had a long way to go before being accepted by the other nations (and then invited to the Six Nations Tournament).

My idea is that it is good that the great nations (England, Australia) play against weaker teams (Bangladesh or Kenya). Maybe without the TEST MATCH label. England A vs Bangladesh would be OK.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
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
10...15...20....40...50 whatever.... :)
 

Swervy

International Captain
Anil said:
10...15...20....40...50 whatever.... :)
well how ever long it takes, if the ICC, orwhatever want to see this game continue to spread, then it has to start somewhere...it took Sri lanka over ten years to develop into a serious test playing nation from when it first played test cricket...slowly the world class players started coming along, like De Silva (who looked nothing special at first by the way),and then finally Murali, who tipped them over the edge as it were.

Thats all that needs to happen with B'desh, sometime in the next 5 years, they will get a genuinely good player who will help shove them into a competitive frame of play, then I think you will see them gradually getting more and more really good players
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Someone has already noted that, at most times in cricket's short history, a new country is constantly being introduced. Naturally, it takes these countries time to develop.

So long as the resources required are provided to these countries for their development, I do not have a problem with their retention of test-playing status as they shall inevitably improve.

Most of those taking a contrary view are more concerned with statistics than the long-term development of the game in emerging countries. Whilst they cloak their opinions with statements such as "it does them no good to be beaten in 2 days", in reality they are concerned that the value of a century or 5-wicket haul is being diluted.

Although there is truth in the latter sentiment, the former is by no means an absolute. After all, it defies belief that the Bangladeshis cannot benefitted from playing at Lords. Visions of them playing at cricket's most famous ground will have inspired a mulitude of players to work hard so that they might one day enjoy the same opportunity.

We can only hope that improvement comes sooner rather than later.
 

BARMY_LAD

Cricket Spectator
Stefano said:
I would like to give my opinion about this topic, although I have just begun to follow cricket.

I find lots of similarities between rugby and cricket. I can give an example from rugby: for a long time, Italy didn't play any test match. Sometimes Italy played against the five nations, but those matches were not considered test matches: it was something like England XV or England A vs. Italy. Italy had a long way to go before being accepted by the other nations (and then invited to the Six Nations Tournament).

My idea is that it is good that the great nations (England, Australia) play against weaker teams (Bangladesh or Kenya). Maybe without the TEST MATCH label. England A vs Bangladesh would be OK.
You hit the nail on the head there Stephano!
Having read all statements for and against I still believe that both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be stripped of 'Test' status.

Firstly on Zimbabwe (who have a pool of around 60 first class cricketers)... I seem to remember South Africa being thrown into sporting exile during apartheid, why are Zimbabwe any different? Because they are discriminating against white people?
The country is unstable and the people are being ruled by a fear regime.
I am of the firm view that the ICC should encourage all member countries to boycott matches against Zimbabwe (until they depose of the current regime).

Bangladesh, on the other hand, are much more stable, both in politics and cricket (although marginally) and so we must give them some lehway. Yes, they may have shown signs of improvement down the track (however marginal)... but should we let the game suffer for 5-10 years while we sit back and wait for them to be competitive?
Having them play matches involving the top Test playing nations (although not classifying them as 'Test' Matches) suits both sides of the fence... Statistics wouldn't suffer, the game is still being promoted, Bangladesh still get to play at the top venues and against top opponents thus gaining experience before being re-installed as an ICC Test Playing nation.

In closing... if Kenya get their cricket administration sorted out and stop the bickering then why not give Zimbabwe's place to a country that craves the game and is much more stable?
 

deeps

International 12th Man
Scaly piscine said:
Here we go, again, past era players DID have new teams to beat up on. You think Test cricket started in the 19th century with England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies all playing each other?
http://content.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/210399.html

And as for Bangladesh's loss percentage, it's easily the worst of all teams: their 32 defeats after 37 Tests is by far the poorest - South Africa, with the second-worst record, had only lost 23 at the same stage in their Test career.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
But the problem that makes that figure look so bad is because of the lack of draws nowadays.

A lot of those SA games were 3 dayers.
 

mofo123

U19 12th Man
Langeveldt said:
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..
no u see u missed the point, im not saying if they play test cricket their countries players will become good just like that, test cricket brings soponserships, TV ads/rights, money to the country from touring teams, copetitions etc etc.. but if u make them play down where there is no money they arent gonna get any dort of a infrastructure set up are they, if u wanna b a big team u gotta play in the big competitions, they might not the that good yet, but oncethey get some money from tours etc, they can set up academies for the talented get international standard coaching...thats wot i mean by saying to be a better team they have to play.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
well how ever long it takes, if the ICC, orwhatever want to see this game continue to spread, then it has to start somewhere...it took Sri lanka over ten years to develop into a serious test playing nation from when it first played test cricket...slowly the world class players started coming along, like De Silva (who looked nothing special at first by the way),and then finally Murali, who tipped them over the edge as it were.

Thats all that needs to happen with B'desh, sometime in the next 5 years, they will get a genuinely good player who will help shove them into a competitive frame of play, then I think you will see them gradually getting more and more really good players
sure....whatever you say... :)
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Will people continue to buy into Bangladesh cricket?? I know I wouldnt pay money to watch them, I guess people do though..

When will proper cricketing nations get sick and tired of two/three day test matches?
 

Top