regarding introduction of new nations to test cricket

[sir middle stump]

i really think that the top 9 test nations should be placed in a top tier of nations playing test cricket amongst themselves .....and the next 10 best nations should be placed in a second tier of nations playing the 5 day game( ICC sanctioned official second class test matches)...maybe allow the top team from the second tier to be promoted to the first tier every 4-5 years or when it is felt that they have raised their standard sufficiently high enough to play the real stuff...this way the 10 to 20 ranked teams would atleast get proper exposure to the international game......a sort of parallel league to the current group of test playing nations.....

 

[Top_Cat]

What will this achieve that the current 10-year system won't? No sarcasm intended I'm interested in your reasoning.

 

[Very Faa-Kin Farkney]

A test match is the highest level of cricket attainable. To have a second tier test match is effectively a contradiction. How would those statistics be recorded? They couldn't be first class fixtures because they were being played over five days.

The solution is to keep things as they are. The emergence of Bangladesh as a test playing country is no more than a joke and an excuse for everyone else to improve their batting and bowling averages.

Zimbabwe are still struggling to consistantly win matches and they've been playing test cricket for 10 years! It's the structure of cricket in a specific country that has to be looked at first, before looking at their international aspirations. Zimbabwe's first class structure is terrible

 

[sir middle stump]

the ten year system would still be operational within the first tier...what i intend to say is that teams like bangladesh could play in the second tier so that they do not keep getting thrashed by the other 9 test playing nations....what teams like kenya need is more iternational cricket....i mean ,if you do not get to play any 5 day games, how are you expected to do well when you finally get test status?( knya may receive test status next year , so i hear )....if they regulerly played 5 daygames against newer teams like scotland, uae,singapore , hong kong, etc...it may atleast give them a feel of what it takes to be involved in a match of that duration at the international level,besides providing match experience to their players ...( agreed that the level of play with nations like uae ,singapore etc may not be good...but some experience is better than none.....these nations can also improve themselves by playing against ban and ken )
this is nothing but a sort of preparatory league for their leap into the big league

 

[Top_Cat]

A test match is the highest level of cricket attainable. To have a second tier test match is effectively a contradiction. How would those statistics be recorded? They couldn't be first class fixtures because they were being played over five days.

I agree. I don't think stratification of the Test arena will work either.

Zimbabwe are still struggling to consistantly win matches and they've been playing test cricket for 10 years! It's the structure of cricket in a specific country that has to be looked at first, before looking at their international aspirations. Zimbabwe's first class structure is terrible

Just remember the troubles they've had with white players leaving after the troubles with Robert Mugabe. They lost a couple of Test players (Murray Goodwin and Neil Johnston) as well as a raft of FC cricketers too. The years under Robert Mugabe will set them back in more ways than one for years.

 

[Very Faa-Kin Farkney]

I have also heard that Kenya may get test status which is a concern.

Cricket didn't allow Sri Lanka to become a test playing nation for a long time but history suggests that new test playing nations always struggle when they enter the test arena. NZ didn't win their first test for 26 years. Sri Lanka took forever to be competitive. Historically, Zimbabwe are okay

 

[Top_Cat]

the ten year system would still be operational within the first tier...what i intend to say is that teams like bangladesh could play in the second tier so that they do not keep getting thrashed by the other 9 test playing nations....what teams like kenya need is more iternational cricket....i mean ,if you do not get to play any 5 day games, how are you expected to do well when you finally get test status?( knya may receive test status next year , so i hear )....if they regulerly played 5 daygames against newer teams like scotland, uae,singapore , hong kong, etc...it may atleast give them a feel of what it takes to be involved in a match of that duration at the international level,besides providing match experience to their players ...( agreed that the level of play with nations like uae ,singapore etc may not be good...but some experience is better than none.....these nations can also improve themselves by playing against ban and ken )
this is nothing but a sort of preparatory league for their leap into the big league

You're making a few assumptions. One is that whilst the teams are getting thrashed, they're not learning and improving. It's been said you learn more from a loss than a win so I think that while they get pummelled by the big boys, they still improve. It's almost impossible not to.

The other advantage is that with the bigger opposition teams going to Bangladesh to play, you invite more sponsorship money because it's a big event. The money generated filters down into the lower levels of the game in Bangladesh and eventually, the leagues and stadards improve with improved coaching and facilities.

What you're proposing is effectively a competition which serves exactly the same purpose as the ICC competitions serve now and I fail to see how this can result in a raising of their standard. You get better by playing better opposition. the length of the game is a factor but you still need decent opposition. Although they're easybeats now, who's to say where they'll be in 10 years? It's only really unfair if not every team plays against them.

 

[sir middle stump]

as i see it the system of stratification works pretty well in the english county structure.In the english context, this stratification was made necessary due to the high number of teams on the league...the huge number of teams meant that there were bound to be some weaker teams who were just steamrolled over by the top ranked teams....this sort of situation causes the weaker teams to become discouraged and also leads to complacency in the play of the stronger teams...

.....the test teams now are already complaining about the number of matches they have to play....introduction of newer teams will only lead to an increase in the number of matches....especially if the ICC insists on the stronger teams playing the weaker/newer teams within the fixed schedules it draws up( referring to the 10yr schedule)....we may end up watching aus play eng maybe once in 6 years .....the cramped schedule and weaker oppositions will only lead to a deterioration in the quality of players playing the game.

as for the status of the matches played in the second league,it is only a minor issue .....

 

[Very Faa-Kin Farkney]

What you're proposing is effectively a competition which serves exactly the same purpose as the ICC competitions serve now and I fail to see how this can result in a raising of their standard. You get better by playing better opposition. the length of the game is a factor but you still need decent opposition. Although they're easybeats now, who's to say where they'll be in 10 years? It's only really unfair if not every team plays against them.

100 percent agree

 

[Top_Cat]

sir middle stump: I certainly see your point but I think a few other factors mean the situations aren't analogous. For one, the money issue. The 'event' of having Australia or South Africa touring Bangladesh would generate a lot of money in cricket-mad Bangladesh. As I said, that money ends up developing the game more. Without that money, the game cannot survive in a particular country.

I under stand the crowded schedule argument but really, that's the life of a pro sportsman. Pro baseballers play 161 games in a season and ice hockey players play 82. That's the life of a pro sportsman who is generally pretty well compensated for it monetarily speaking.

Now, if there were no ICC trophy, I could see where your idea would work well but since there's already a system in place which does effectively the same thing, any additional level of competition just seems redundant.

 

[sir middle stump]

i put forward the cramped-schedule-and-player-fatigue argument again....
Test matches last 5 days compard to the other games mentioned which last for 90 minutes a game.

The ICC trophy you refer to ,i believe is the one where the ICC associate members participate in....(1)..It is held once every 4 years--barely qualifies as experience for the associate countries...(2),,is held in the one day format, not the 5 day format... 8D

[Edited on 7/25/02 by sir middle stump]

 

[Paid The Umpire]

I like the idea of two leagues...

It would allow the poorer team a chance to play against other in their region of skill. What kind of person would go and see Australia or India defeat Kenya within 3 days, with them scoring 4-1094.

What a boring game that would be.

 

[Kimbo]

other nations that gained test status weren't burdened by being in a lower grade- why should they suddenly do this now?
will they ever improve if they are in this second tier.

 

[Neil Pickup]

This will not happen in the immediate future, as the vast majority of the "second tier" are amateur/semi-pro players. Even Canada, in the WC, have mostly part-timers. They wouldn't get the time off the play "Tests" and wouldn't earn enough playing "Tests".

 

[sir middle stump]

it really frightens me....in 20-25 years time ,if there are 16 or so test nations playing( a distinct possility considering the way test status is being handed out to one and all..ban and next year,kenya)...will the test game survive?

according to the Icc's all play all principle,aus would play india like in what-every 8 years?

 

[The Argonaut]

Bangladesh were ready to be introduced into test cricket. Sure they'll get thrashed for a while but so did Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka when they started playing test cricket. They will improve with experience. Their board is in good shape and financially they're doing all right.

Kenya on the other hand is not ready. The board is not recognised by its own government so until they get that in order they won't have the stability to improve the game there.

I also have worries about the state of cricket in Zimbabwe. If things keep going the way they are, they might not have a team in 2 or 3 years time. The country is in a poor financial state and that can't be good for their game at a local level.

Teams from non-test playing nations should be encouraged by the ICC to tour other non-test countries to gain the experience needed for promotion to test status and more frequent tournaments should be run. Maybe this upcoming ICC tournament should be expanded to make it a bigger knock out tournament.

The administrators just need to make sure that teams are really ready to make the step up and that seems to be happening well enough at the moment.