• 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.

Time to stop insulting Zim, Bang & the associates. There have always been "minnows"

Triple Crown

Cricket Spectator
Time to stop insulting Zim, Bang & the associates. There have always been "minnows"

Hi I'm a new member but have been reading posts for a while before registering.

A lot of cricket fans, and some members here, spend a lot of time running Bangladesh & Zimbabwe down, in addition to the associate countries.

Test cricket has always had minnows. For example, New Zealand were granted test status in 1930 but didn't win a match until 1956, 26 years after!

In addition, they didn't win a series until 1969, that's a wait of 39 years.

Makes Zimbabwe & Bangladesh look good, doesn't it?

South Africa were also the whipping boys of Tests for the first few years, and India, Pakistan & The West Indies also copped their fair share of thrashings for the first few years, not to mention Sri Lanka.

If anything we need to grow the game, and every new team will have its share of problems adjusting.

What's really sad is that if you go through the archives, there are records of 1st class matches with countries like Ireland, Holland & Scotland, dating back to the 1950's & 1960's, yet nothing was done all that time, 40-50 years, to develop them by the ICC. The same thing could be said about Fiji, who regularly toured New Zealand & Australia at 1st class level in the 1960's, but were never developed.

Sure Bangladesh may have "only" beaten Zimbabwe but give them a few years & this country will improve the same way Sri Lanka did.
 

Duncan

U19 Debutant
I don't see it happening in a "few" years... maybe ten. It wasn't even against a strong Zimbabwe team. But yeah, BD will eventually become a decent team. Can't say that for Zimbabwe though. They are in complete disarray and losing to BD in both ODIs and tests must have destroyed their confidence completly.
 

amokk1

U19 12th Man
Agreed. Zimbabwe to compete man, they need to drop their differences and work as a team. The Rebel Players need to be brought back into the team. That is Zimbabwe's first step into gaining respect.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
ICC were never anything more than a pawn before the early 1990s (good thing, some might say) so they can't really be blamed for the failure to develop the game before then.
The point is, the game has changed since all three of the 1880s (SA), the 1920s and 30s (West Indies, New Zealand and India), and even the 1980s. Test-cricket is played far, far, far more regularly nowadays and there is (quite rightly) the expectation that all play all. The weaker sides can't play sporadically any more, it doesn't work that way now.
Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are damaging the integrity of Test-cricket by playing it - the way sides didn't used to.
They'd be far better served - for themselves and the integrity of Test-cricket - to be playing in domestic competitions of neighbouring stronger countries.
Cricket has changed. There are more professional ways of introducing new teams nowadays.
I'd not be astonished if Bangladesh have already lost more Test-matches and gifted more good batting and bowling figures than any of New Zealand, West Indies or South Africa did in their early years - because so much more cricket is played nowadays.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Duncan said:
I don't see it happening in a "few" years... maybe ten. It wasn't even against a strong Zimbabwe team. But yeah, BD will eventually become a decent team. Can't say that for Zimbabwe though. They are in complete disarray and losing to BD in both ODIs and tests must have destroyed their confidence completly.
Everything in Zimbabwe has been destroyed and while humans will always repair things from the seemingly most desolate ruins, it's never going to happen while Mugabe's around.
He's destroyed everything in Zimbabwe - cricket is no exception.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The teams like Nzl played a lot less.

Also, with travelling possible much more easily than in the past, the way to go for the minnows is to play A sides of the better teams. Sorry, but international status matches with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are a disgrace to the international cricket fraternity.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
amokk1 said:
Agreed. Zimbabwe to compete man, they need to drop their differences and work as a team. The Rebel Players need to be brought back into the team. That is Zimbabwe's first step into gaining respect.
Even before the rebels they were still nowhere near ODI or Test-class once they lost all those players after WC2003.
 

cricket player

International Debutant
nice to have you here.Why do you care what people say?I know some people act like they know alot but they are just bunch of idiots runing there mouth like they know alot.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
There has been a lot of talk on this forum of how the other teams were equally weak when they got test status as bangladesh are proving to be today. This is totally incorrect and disproved by facts. To look at the win and how many years it took for a win to come is shortsidedness.

1) Much fewer matches were played in those days.
- For example, India played only 24 tests in the twenty years that they took to register their first win.
2) While they may not have won many tests, but they competed very well and had some world class individual performance.
- For example, India had, before their first testvictory, 19 test centurions and 11 five for hauls(in 23 tests !!)
- Three of their batsmen had test averages in the fifties and another 6 in the forties !! I can quote similar performances from other sides like New Zealand and South Africa.
3) While they did not win, they drew many games and put the top sides under pressure many times. Look at their stats before they won the first test...

COUNTRY......TESTS......LOST.......DRAWN.....Loss %
NZLAND...........44..........22............22................50
INDIA..............24...........12............12...............50
SRI LANKA.......13............8..............5........ ......61
ZIMBABWE.......10............4.................6.............40
B DESH..........33...........31...............3.......... 90+
Note: South Africa lost 10 out of their first 11 tests but then went on to win 4 of the next five !!

So clearly Bangla Desh are out of their league and were brought into the test fold much earlier than they deserved if being able to compete with the other test sides was a criteria. as it was for the others.

I remember, we used to have unofficial tests between India and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) before they were granted test status, and they gave us a bloody good fight. I still remember some excelent players like Michael Tissera who would have walked in to the Indian side, Tennakoon and others.

Similar unofficial tests were played , before even I was born !!) before India was granted test status and so good were these England sides and so creditably did the Indians perform that when discussing the great Indian all time cricketers I have often heard people saying that those cricketers must also be included since their performances in these 'unofficial' tests were no lesser.

Where was that caliber and that testing by fire done for Bangla Desh.

Yes, the same is not true for Zimbabwe. I dont thinmk they were granted test status earlier than they deserved. They have become minnows !! Because of their rascist selection policies. If their best teams were selected, they were probably the fastest improving test side in the world and were already giving a very tough fight to the older nations.

In fact, Bangla Desh's win would have taken much longer to come but for the 'dishonourable' Mr Mughabe.
 
Last edited:

Slow Love™

International Captain
SJS certainly covered that argument pretty comprehensively (pity about the new sinister avatar though. What the hell IS that??? :)).

Bangladesh's lack of exposure to four-day (and longer) cricket was as good a reason as any for test status to be withheld, at least for a while. As it happens though, I DO think they're on the improve, even if this Zimbabwe outfit is pathetic. Even though the Indian team they beat late last year was a weakened ODI side, it was still a significant win. And they pushed Pakistan right to the brink in a test earlier last year where had it not been for a real captain's knock from Inzy, they would definitely have won.

Regardless of whether their admission into international test cricket was rushed (and it was), I've enjoyed their wins against Zimbabwe for two reasons: firstly, it's good to see a team start to get some confidence and individual players used to losing learn what it's like to win. But secondly, and most importantly, I believe it's important for international cricket that Zimbabwe be beaten by a minnow like Bangladesh, in order that we once again have a spotlight on the ZCU's selection policies and behaviour towards their players. Sadly, I think this issue had faded a little over the last few months. I see that the ZCU has begun re-negotiating with the "rebel players" in the light of these embarrassing losses, too.

The irony doesn't escape me that a hasty and ill-advised decision made by the ICC (the admission of Bangladesh to full international status) has aided in the exposure of some even worse decision-making where it comes to the way they've failed to deal with the ZCU. Their initial stance on Zimbabwe's recent crisis was to establish that appropriate standards of cricket were being maintained, and they ended up buying the ZCU's line that they were fielding their best available side - I think it's time for the ICC to to be asking themselves (and the ZCU) these questions again, after Zimbabwe's humbling at the hands of Bangladesh.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be put back to the InterContential Cup. If they play the other minnows more regulary then that is good for teams like Scotland, Kenya and themselves. They should be dropped from Test Status and play aganist A Teams and the other minnows. 8 Teams playing Test Cricket is enough.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™ said:
SJS certainly covered that argument pretty comprehensively (pity about the new sinister avatar though. What the hell IS that??? :)).

.
Feedback accepted and action taken :sleep:
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
SJS said:
Feedback accepted and action taken :sleep:
Haha, the lab is far more appealing. :p Out of curiosity, what was the other picture? It looked kinda like a wooden doll wearing specs...
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™ said:
Haha, the lab is far more appealing. :p Out of curiosity, what was the other picture? It looked kinda like a wooden doll wearing specs...
You know in the OT there is a game called "learning to count". For one of the numbers there, I forget which 170 something, I put the number on Google and went for an image search . One of the images it came up with was that one :p

I thought it was ...well....different. :)

By the way, the lab is Chicky. She is one of my two labs the other being Axl (named after AXL ROSE of Guns n Roses).
 

12th Man

U19 12th Man
Bangladesh gave pakistan a good game 18 months back, but chucked it away. Plus the ODI series v India went to a decider. Bang and Zim are a lot stronger in ODI cricket.

Elton Chigumbura the future
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
SJS said:
I remember, we used to have unofficial tests between India and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) before they were granted test status, and they gave us a bloody good fight. I still remember some excelent players like Michael Tissera who would have walked in to the Indian side, Tennakoon and others.

Similar unofficial tests were played , before even I was born !!) before India was granted test status and so good were these England sides and so creditably did the Indians perform that when discussing the great Indian all time cricketers I have often heard people saying that those cricketers must also be included since their performances in these 'unofficial' tests were no lesser.
This is completely off-topic for this thread, but this talk of unofficial tests brings me back to South Africa's status from 1961-70. After SA resigned from The Commonwealth in 1961 they automatically forfeited their test status as the rule the ICC passed in 1909 clearly stated tests could only be played between members of The British Empire (as was). So, logically, all SA's tests between 1961 & their ultimate exclusion were unofficial.

Yet these tests are always unfailingly included in official test records. Why should this be so? Does anyone know the official (ha! pardon pun!) ICC line?
 

Top