Should we run test series with minnows differently ?

[readie]

Does anyone else think it would be a good Idea to have the fringe Test Teams to come to Aus, India etc. together and play one test each in a 3 test tour i.e Bangladesh, Kenya, and Zimbabwe all play one game each.

Or the minnows play a comp against each other to earn the right to play the established team ?

thoughts guys?

 

[LA ICE-E]

UH, they already are playing in the intercontinental cup(2nd trier test), well as for bangladesh and zimbabwe they would get tour with test anyways.

 

[Prince EWS]

Zimbabwe shouldn't be playing test cricket, quite clearly. I'm not sold on Bangladesh doing so either really, but it makes more sense than them playing Scotland, Holland and Zimbabwe and they are improving so it seems like the best option.

Other than that, I wouldn't change the way the "minnows" were handled in test cricket. They should be treated as any other test-playing nation really.

As for your second idea - we already have the Intercontinental Cup for that...

 

[LA ICE-E]

the icc seems to have got it right this time with the world cricket league and interncontinental cup so i wouldn't change it

 

[readie]

UH, they already are playing in the intercontinental cup(2nd trier test), well as for bangladesh and zimbabwe they would get tour with test anyways.

I know they already have games but i'm discussing ways to make a test series with these teams ,more competitive or interesting for the fans who are sick of seeing Aus etc. smash underprepared minnows.

 

[Perm]

Bangladesh would slaughter the Intercontinental Cup sides if they played "Tests" against each other. I don't like the fact that Zimbabwe are still playing Test cricket, not that they're playing it much. Still I don't see the point in treating teams differently, double standards aren't needed in cricket IMO. The Intercontinental Cup has been established for a couple of years now and is proving a good breeding ground for the associate nations.

 

[Ash_A55]

The more often Bangladesh and others play the top teams, the better they will get. Simple.

 

[readie]

In the Intercontental cup does the winner get the right to play in a planned upcoming test series. e.g a test series is planned for the 2008/2009 summer and the winner of the cup becomes the opponent to the established team ?

 

[leepayne]

If you ask me the associates shouldn't be blocked out from playing five day cricket at their level in the first place. No wonder they get such a culture shock when they finally achieve full status!

 

[LA ICE-E]

In the Intercontental cup does the winner get the right to play in a planned upcoming test series. e.g a test series is planned for the 2008/2009 summer and the winner of the cup becomes the opponent to the established team ?

no, it just shows the icc how much a teams improving and giving them some experience with 1st class cricket. When a teams keeps winning the intercontinental cup and clearly are dominating it like bangladesh would if they played it now then they get test status(off course, it including that the nation meets the criteria such as cricket being a major sport etc)

 

[LA ICE-E]

I know they already have games but i'm discussing ways to make a test series with these teams ,more competitive or interesting for the fans who are sick of seeing Aus etc. smash underprepared minnows.

aussies doesn't play against the minnows, the only one your talking about is bangladesh if you count them as minnows but they wouldn't benefit from anything else

 

[Craig]

Well Zimbabwe shouldn't be playing anyform of cricket and shouldn't have any status in the ICC.

Well even though it won't happen.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well Zimbabwe shouldn't be playing anyform of cricket and shouldn't have any status in the ICC.

Well even though it won't happen.

you can't take it out on the players for things the government is doing.

 

[readie]

aussies doesn't play against the minnows, the only one your talking about is bangladesh if you count them as minnows but they wouldn't benefit from anything else

Thats what I'm proposing - doesn't have to be aus but I think teams such as Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya should play in a series between themselves prior to the test series to decide who plays the actual tests in the . this would avoid teams like Zimbabwe having test status undeservedly.

e.g the three teams play their series and the winner plays in the next series planned. similar to a promotion system... kinda

 

[LA ICE-E]

Thats what I'm proposing - doesn't have to be aus but I think teams such as Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya should play in a series between themselves prior to the test series to decide who plays the actual tests in the . this would avoid teams like Zimbabwe having test status undeservedly.

e.g the three teams play their series and the winner plays in the next series planned. similar to a promotion system... kinda

so a qualification series before every test series? it wouldn't help either of the teams. If you keep getting test status given to you and then taken away. How does that help?

 

[Prince EWS]

you can't take it out the players for things the government is doing.

The players that are playing aren't good enough though. It's pretty simple, even if you ignore the politics.

 

[LA ICE-E]

yeah your probably right, but the icc are still giving them a chance to solve its problem like they did with the usaca, the problem probably wont be solved like it happened with usaca, and then they would probably be demoted like the usaca

 

[readie]

so a qualification series before every test series? it wouldn't help either of the teams. If you keep getting test status given to you and then taken away. How does that help?

I don't think these teams should have test status so this way they get the chance to show their four-day skill against the stronger teams. If a team is successful over a long period of time (beating or pushing the opponent over more than one series)

They should be then considered forevalavationto permeanant test status rather than basing their elevation on their one-day form against established nations and test form against minnows. This way we can see whether they really can compete in the test form of the game before elevating them.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I don't think these teams should have test status so this way they get the chance to show their four-day skill against the stronger teams. If a team is successful over a long period of time (beating or pushing the opponent over more than one series)

They should be then considered forevalavationto permeanant test status rather than basing their elevation on their one-day form against established nations and test form against minnows. This way we can see whether they really can compete in the test form of the game before elevating them.

What teams are you talking about exactly? If you're talking about bangladesh and zimbabwe than no taking their test status doesn't help(well may be for zimbabwe it doesn't even matter). Bangladesh can't improve without having test status because they wouldn't make money otherwise. For the other associates, as i stated they play in the intercontinental cup and when a teams keep winning that they'll be looked at for test status. But mind that there is much more to getting Test status than playing standards.

 

[morgieb]

Zimbabwe shouldn't be playing test cricket, quite clearly. I'm not sold on Bangladesh doing so either really, but it makes more sense than them playing Scotland, Holland and Zimbabwe and they are improving so it seems like the best option.

Other than that, I wouldn't change the way the "minnows" were handled in test cricket. They should be treated as any other test-playing nation really.

As for your second idea - we already have the Intercontinental Cup for that...

Yeah, to all 3 points