Which Country Will Be The Next Test Nation?

[steds]

You'll see, steds, you'll see...

Counting on the local authorities to round them up quickly?

 

[pasag]

Just saw a BBC report on cricket in Cuba. Not happening there any time soon, especially seeing as baseball is their national sport.

I think for the addition of any country into Test status, they need to really deserve it, they must be forcefully knocking on the door. The ICC should not include them on the hope that in 10 years they will be competitive. No, they must be good first and then and only then they should be considored for inclusion. Anything else is wishful thinking and dilutes the game.

 

[33/3from3.3]

Norway of course
Even though i put Holland

 

[andyc]

http://www.asiancricket.org/h_china0206.cfm

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/...nacricket.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/h...191849511.html

He does have a point. They may have trained umpires, but they've not got many locals playing, and it definitely is just an expat thing at the moment. Though I do agree with SP in saying it'll be China, cause when they want to do something, they do it.

 

[adharcric]

Of all the non-test playing nations, I'd say the US has the largest and most rapidly growing ex-pat cricket-loving population. Not only that, we actually have youth academies, high school teams and phenoms playing league cricket at 14, 15, 16.

 

[JASON]

Kenya should realistically be the next Test Nation given they have been waiting at the door for a few years. But the ICC is cautious in not wanting to rush them thru like they did to Bangladesh.

The Asian bias was very evident to me when I learnt that SL was repeatedly knocked out of Test status from 1975 to 1982 despite our performances then being far better than what the Kiwis did to get Test status. There was no one helping our case not even India or Pakistan . And there were people at the MCC (then) who repeatedly sat high and mighty on committees (some of them being Lords and belonging Peerage) and rubbed their nose at the thought of another Asian Test nation.

Zimbabwe got it pretty quickly compared to us and that further convinced me of this Asian bias, but the only thing that flummoxed me with this theory was when Bangladesh got Test status quickly . But that was only because South Africa's Graham Barlow was pretty helpful as their coach and he had some input along with Pakistan using lot of wire pulling to get them in.

 

[JASON]

Wales could be a Test nation tomorrow if the England and Wales Cricket Board split up and let Wales form a Welsh Cricket Board.

This would also allow several Welsh born players to play Test Cricket as well as the numerous Glamorgan Cricketers who have occasionally harboured anger at a perceived step motherly treatment by ECB with regard to selection for England . (despite the Team actually being England and Wales and not having a single Welshman - bar the occasional Simon Jones, Steve Watkin, Mathew Maynard in ODIs or a Robert Croft few years back.)

 

[Swervy]

Just saw a BBC report on cricket in Cuba. Not happening there any time soon, especially seeing as baseball is their national sport.

I think for the addition of any country into Test status, they need to really deserve it, they must be forcefully knocking on the door. The ICC should not include them on the hope that in 10 years they will be competitive. No, they must be good first and then and only then they should be considored for inclusion. Anything else is wishful thinking and dilutes the game.

Ideally yes..but it really isnt a realistic thing, the only way a developing team can improve to a level which can be considered good at test standard is by playing test standard teams...and the only way that will happen is by playing test cricket....bit of a catch 22 thing really

 

[Swervy]

Wales could be a Test nation tomorrow if the England and Wales Cricket Board split up and let Wales form a Welsh Cricket Board.

This would also allow several Welsh born players to play Test Cricket as well as the numerous Glamorgan Cricketers who have occasionally harboured anger at a perceived step motherly treatment by ECB with regard to selection for England . (despite the Team actually being England and Wales and not having a single Welshman - bar the occasional Simon Jones, Steve Watkin, Mathew Maynard in ODIs or a Robert Croft few years back.)

Matty Maynard is a Lancastrian

 

[JASON]

Matty Maynard is a Lancastrian

Apologies to Maynard and Lancashire .

 

[Swervy]

The Asian bias was very evident to me when I learnt that SL was repeatedly knocked out of Test status from 1975 to 1982 despite our performances then being far better than what the Kiwis did to get Test status. There was no one helping our case not even India or Pakistan . And there were people at the MCC (then) who repeatedly sat high and mighty on committees (some of them being Lords and belonging Peerage) and rubbed their nose at the thought of another Asian Test nation.

Zimbabwe got it pretty quickly compared to us and that further convinced me of this Asian bias, but the only thing that flummoxed me with this theory was when Bangladesh got Test status quickly . But that was only because South Africa's Graham Barlow was pretty helpful as their coach and he had some input along with Pakistan using lot of wire pulling to get them in.

SL were knocked back for test status because they still needed developing..you cant really compare SL to how NZ got into the international scene, it was in a completely different era.

Also if SL were pushing for test status from say 1975 , well they got to play their first test at the start of 1982, thats actually a pretty short period of time, I would think the desicion would have been made maybe in 1980.

Zimbabwe in fact had been playing international standard cricket for about twice as long as SL had (first in world cup in 1983,got into tests 10 years later!!!), and in fact were far better place team wise to compete at test level at the start than Sri Lanka were in the early 80s

 

[JASON]

Zimbabwe in fact had been playing international standard cricket for about twice as long as SL had (first in world cup in 1983,got into tests 10 years later!!!), and in fact were far better place team wise to compete at test level at the start than Sri Lanka were in the early 80s

SL were playing International Cricket from 60's . In fact Bradman's Team and England teams on Ashes tours stopped in Colombo and played Ceylon Teams during their stop. (Just that they couldn't be bothered to consider the poor Colony important to give any value to those games !!)

So when you include that you will find SL has played International Cricket longer before Test status than Zimbabwe whose first International appearance was in 1983.

Besides SL had a well developed FC Cricket system in place from 60s and this progressed over the 70s .

Zimbabwe had nothing in terms of Depth !! Shocking when you consider they had only 2 FC teams Matabeland and Mashonaland and just enough White FC cricketers to make 2 or 3 FC teams only to be given Test status !!

If you go by appearance in World Cup, then Kenya who made it to the very First World Cup with SL in 1975 under the "East Africa" Team should have got Test Status before Zimbabwe.

ICCs folly of giving Test status to Zim without looking at their lack of depth is now showing quite clearly and recently when the White Zimbabwean cricketers got into strife with Racist Mugabe and his corrupt regime and then lo and behold there was no one else to come into replace them in the Team !!

 

[luckyeddie]

Apologies to Maynard and Lancashire .

Apologies to the Welsh

/runs

 

[Swervy]

SL were playing International Cricket from 60's . In fact Bradman's Team and England teams on Ashes tours stopped in Colombo and played Ceylon Teams during their stop. (Just that they couldn't be bothered to consider the poor Colony important to give any value to those games !!)

Well Fiji played against England in 1983 I seem to remember. Playing intermitent cricket vs touring teams isnt international cricket in my eyes

So when you include that you will find SL has played International Cricket longer before Test status than Zimbabwe whose first International appearance was in 1983.

Besides SL had a well developed FC Cricket system in place from 60s and this progressed over the 70s

I thought the domestic game in Sri lanka was only considered first class from the 80's.

Zimbabwe had nothing in terms of Depth !! Shocking when you consider they had only 2 FC teams Matabeland and Mashonaland and just enough White FC cricketers to make 2 or 3 FC teams only to be given Test status !!

I would consider Zimbabwe 1993 to be stronger than 1981 Sri lanka in terms of ability at TEST level

 

[Chubb]

Zim really should have got Test status in the mid-80s. Hick, Curran, Penney and the others wouldn't have left, the nucleus of the 1992 side would have been seven years younger, and the young players like the Flowers and especially Campbell (who should have achieved so much more) would have grown up in a test culture. Zimbabwe were more than good enough in the 80s to play Test cricket, and by 1992 most of the players thought they would have been better off to try to develop cricket in the country, specifically amongst the black population, as part of the South African domestic system, which was newly reopened to them. Ask Houghton, the Flowers, anyone in the 1992 team and they'd tell you they shouldn't have got Test status then. They knew they didn't have the player depth, without widespread black participation, to compete long-term. The only reason they went it alone in the 80s was because the Apartheid regime in SA wouldn't let Zimbabwe into the domestic competition, where once, of course, Rhodesia had been.

 

[albo97056]

the odis in usa and canada over the coming months should do them a lot of good.
Could anyone from any of these places enlighten us on how the game is progressing?

 

[JASON]

Well Fiji played against England in 1983 I seem to remember. Playing intermitent cricket vs touring teams isnt international cricket in my eyes

I think you are deliberately trying to compare SL to Fiji in an attempt to belittle SL's cricket history . Sri Lankans have played quality touring Teams from 1940s and played well and these were not expatriates (as in the case of Fiji) but Sri Lankans born and bread. Sri Lanka's school and club cricket history is very rich and strong with native Sri Lankans playing well even at the turn of the Century with their white Colonial masters.

I thought the domestic game in Sri lanka was only considered first class from the 80's.

You are correct about the Term FC Cricket . Until your country is playing Test Cricket your domestic Cricket will not be given the official FC status (because it will not meet the criteria in terms of aspiring Test quality players and other such criteria). But that does not in any way detract from the fact SL's cricket was of very high quality .(But for the fact it could not have FC status because of lack of Test status and ICC not giving FC status to other countries then)

I would consider Zimbabwe 1993 to be stronger than 1981 Sri lanka in terms of ability at TEST level

Zimbabwe's cricketers were playing in England in Clubs and leagues and in Currie Cup teams in SA (even though SA was under apartheid ban) . Not surprising they had reasonable standard . Zimbabwe lost by huge margins when it got Test status, SL was competing well with most countries even away on tour although occasionally losing by big margins.( May I refer you to Cricinfo's Archives of SL cricket match score cards. )http://www.cricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/SL/SERIES/ALL.html

So your opinion as to Zim were stronger at Test status is subjective and definitely not supported by the score cards that you may see. (In fact SL were in a position to win the very First Test against England on Day 3 or 4 until they blew it completely on the last day)

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Besides SL had a well developed FC Cricket system in place from 60s and this progressed over the 70s .

The Logan Cup in Zimbabwe has been in place since 1904.

A brief history of Zimbabwean cricket

 

[Chubb]

The Logy wasn't a first-class competition until 1992, and before that it was a feeding system for the Rhodesia first-class side. So I think Sri Lanka have the edge there.

Rhodesian cricket was structured something like schools-club-province-Rhodesia B- Rhodesia. When the country became Zimbabwe, they had to go it alone and the Logy became the feeder for the national side, which of course was now competing at international level.

The thing was that there were only ever 200,000 white people in Rhodesia. Now, there are about 20,000 in Zim. The cricket authorities knew the moment the country became Zim they'd need to spread the game to cope with the emigration that was bound to occur, and increase the player base so Zim could compete on the international stage.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The Logy wasn't a first-class competition until 1992, and before that it was a feeding system for the Rhodesia first-class side. So I think Sri Lanka have the edge there.

Well, that was for the reasons JASON explained. In fact, the Sri Lankan domestic competition wasn't given first class status until 1988-89 - at least according to cricketarchive.