Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting

[tassy]

The ICC also see's the potential to make a load of money from Bangladesh, they do have a population of well over 150 miliion

[Richard]

I don't see what everyone's problem with Bangladesh is. Look at how poor NZ was when we first started out. The best way for them to improve is for them to keep playing the best.

When people say 'they aren't ready yet' what do they mean? How can you tell when they are ready, and how is not letting them play test cricket going to help them become competitive (which they will do in time).

Because being thrashed all the time is not the way to learn.
It's not directly comparable to New Zealand's case, anyway, because New Zealand rarely played Tests in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, but still - I don't feel New Zealand merited Test status at those times, either.
Bangladesh would be better playing at their own level and improving gradually. I doubt they'll improve much playing the best and being thrashed. So far their improvement has been negligable. As soon as they've taken the smallest of steps forward they've immidiately gone back again.

[Richard]

If people have this sort of attitude in real life, only Einstiens are supposed to live, rest should be eliminated.

Except people don't have that attitude in real life.

[Richard]

Let them play ODI cricket but not Test cricket they are not good enough. NZ were not that bad they managed a lot of draws early on. What did Aust. do they sent their 2nd 11 to NZ not their best team.

Why let them play ODIs?
Even if you don't place much importance on them, some people do.
Fact is, sides like UAE, USA, Hong Kong, Scotland, Namibia, East Africa, Holland, Canada, Bangladesh, Kenya and the current Zimbabwe are not good enough to have games classed on the same level as the top 8.
And it damages the integrity of cricket for them to be so.

[Richard]

Ponting a great batsmen, but he should learn to shut his mouth sometimes, he continues to come out with crap. Bangladesh just beat Australia six months and nearly beat Pakistan in a Test a couple years ago, if it wasn't a for a good innings from Inzi. And will probably win a Test against the Sri Lanka (A) side going over soon.

You can't play a Test against an "A" side.

[Richard]

I don't reckon he should have said it. And I really don't agree with his view that minnows shouldn't play the World Cup. Test cricket I can see, and would like Zimbabwe to go, but minnows in the WC is a must.

Indeed, but the matches shouldn't be classed as ODIs, and the format should be like the next one will be, not the ludicrous formats used in 1996 and 2003.

[Richard]

They could play in the pura cup, but I think they would come last, so would be even worse for their confidence. Maybe county cricket?

no, they'd come last..

Franchise cricket? No, they'd come last...

They probably would to start with, but they'd sure as have a much better chance of improving than they have by playing Test-standard teams.

[Richard]

Well india didn't win a test for nearly 10 years and the only reason the lost column doesn't look bad is because there was far less test cricket played back then, the same goes for New Zealand.

It takes a while for a new country to get up to speed with other etablished test-playing nations, to suddenly decide to stop them playing test cricket because people don't think they are good enough would be very short-sighted and stupid.

And to be honest Bangladesh won't get better playing Franchise or grade cricket they need to play the best in order to mold themselves into a competitive unit.

No, they don't, playing the best can do you harm but little good.
It doesn't take a while if the team is introduced properly, as most teams were.
The only teams who were clearly not up to standard upon being introduced were South Africa and New Zealand, even if it took a while for them to win.
Hardly anyone has been constantly and non-stop outclassed and hammered the way Bangladesh have been.

[Richard]

True but a lot of the Tests NZ played in their early days were of 3 days duration and caused a lot of draws, some times they were even in a wining posi.

The Bangas have only won one Test, and that was the only one where they should have won.

Bangladesh have not won a game against a Test-class team.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You can't play a Test against an "A" side.

....you can't be serious. He obviously meant that Sri Lanka will send a sub-standard team.

[Richard]

....you can't be serious. He obviously meant that Sri Lanka will send a sub-standard team.

They'll send a side minus Atapattu, Murali, Vaas et al, but an "A" team is usually sorta selected as roughly the 2nd-best side in the country - ie containing no top players.
I'll be surprised if we don't see Sangakkara, Jayawardene, etc. on there, mind we all know that Sri Lanka can hammer them with an effective second-XI anyway.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I know what an "A" team is, but it's obvious what he actually meant. You don't have to be so literal all the time.

[Loony BoB]

Arguing with Richard is a lost cause, I find Don't lose any sleep over it.

And anyone who thinks that Cricket should hide test status should think of how things really work in the real world. It's not about...

"Oh, if they are quality, give them test status."

It's about...

"If they have test status, then there is a huge economical impact in the game within the nation which directly results in a higher proportion of professional players, not to mention more teenagers that actually will continue playing cricket after they complete their education instead of getting a job that will actually have a high paying position should they succeed."

Test status is the be-all and end-all when it comes to a lot of Zimbabwean players, as the recent debacle over yonder has proven. A lot of the players who at one point were able to live off the income provided by cricket were no longer able to do so after test status was removed and they prompty stopped playing the game. Sure, some players didn't, but the professionals of the world do want to make money, and if a country doesn't have test status then they will look to other careers in order to get a decent house with food on the table for their families. That's the way life is.

Neil said it best. Bangladesh have a strong youth side as a result of having test status, and I firmly believe that they will eventually become worldbeaters.

[silentstriker]

It's just plain stupid to say that, "Give them test status when they are ready." Define 'ready': If you mean 'when they have a realistic chance of winning a test', then thats not a good definition.

Right now, only England and Australia would be playing test cricket if that criteria was used. If you dont throw them in the deep end, they will not get better. Ever.

The way to build a test team is to give them publicity, and to get the next generation excited about cricket. Sending them to play the Pura or County cricket is not going gather much excitement from the youngers. They want to see their side playing Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, etc. Thats how you improve. It takes a decade to do so.

If you are unwilling to suffer through for that decade for a test team to evolve, then we should just forget about cricket ever becoming popular around the world and go back to Aus vs. Eng and Eng vs. Aus.

[Top_Cat]

I concur pretty much word-for-word with Neil. The genie is out of the bottle, you'd send Bangladeshi cricket back year if they were suddenly stripped of Test status. They *are* showing signs of improvement and as pointed out, their youth sides are brimming with talent. It's only a matter of time before they start seriously challenging other sides. Comparing them to ICC minnows is disingenuous and stupid because none of those teams have a formal FC structure in place whereas Bangladesh does. The amount of money which has been sunk into the cricket over there is phenomenal and it's a matter of time before those trees start bearing fruit,