Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting

[marc71178]

I still think that U19 results count for little. Can you really see the Nepal team competeing with NZ and SA on a senior level in the next 5-6 years. No, so I can't see how continually harping back to "Bangladesh is one of the best U19 teams" (as some have) is relevant. Saying that, however, even there U19 team used to be rubbish, so they too have shown improvement.

And that is why it would be wrong to kick them out now.

The senior side is slowly getting better, but the number of youngsters coming into the game are getting significantly better.

 

[marc71178]

In the past every other test team, Zimbabwe included, were capable of winning a test against at least one of the other test teams when granted test status.

I would question that of every side since the first 2 actually.

I would definitely question that of both Zimbabawe and the side before them (Sri Lanka)

 

[silentstriker]

I would question that of every side since the first 2 actually.

I would definitely question that of both Zimbabawe and the side before them (Sri Lanka)

Especially in those days, where the draws were so common...I really don't think India or Pakistan were really able to force wins.

 

[swede]

It's a legacy of sport within the old British Empire. It proves which country plays the better Cricket. It's intended in the purest spirit of competition, and the 5 or 3 full-scheduled games is a good way of gauging which country is in better shape at the time.

Cricket isn't the only sport which featured test series. Until ten years ago it was the form of international competition in Rugby Union (and its decision to abandon it for one-off's was a collossal mistake in my opinion). I believe it was also the accepted format of competition in Hockey untill the schedule got too crowded.

I think youre missing my point. Test series are obviously great. Thats not the point.

The "status" part is the rubbish.
As someone said, this thing where you are shut out forever and then suddenly let in and expected to perform, while your obvious opponents arent led in, so you cant play them.

Its bizarre that Bangladesh travels around being humiliated everywhere, while Kenya, to my knowledge, barely plays any cricket because they cant gain test status.

Why cant Bangladesh play "tests" against Kenya without this leading to a chaotic discussion about status.
We should get rid of this iron curtain where you are either in or out. Its ridiculous and no other sport has it.

 

[Langeveldt]

We should get rid of this iron curtain where you are either in or out. Its ridiculous and no other sport has it.

Sounds more like an irony curtain to me.


sorry..

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't agree, that under 19 form means anything at all. I can remember some great under 19 teams for Aust and only one or two ended up playing Test cricket, and maybe one world beater.

Let them play the best at the lower levels, but they have shown no improvment at all in the Test game.

There's something to be said for U-19 World Cup teams not being the best indicator of a country's subsequent prospects. I looked at our XI when we won it in 1998 & only two players (Rob Key & Chris Schofield) have since gone on to play tests & it'll be a long time before Chris adds to his brace of caps! 3 others (Swann, Franks & Shah) have played ODIs, but (IIRC) Swann & Franks are one-cap wonders.

The NZ team we beat in the final actually contained more future test stars (the Marshall bros, Franklin, Mills, Vincent), although that might reflect their relatively shallow player base.

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/65/65313.html

 

[archie mac]

There's something to be said for U-19 World Cup teams not being the best indicator of a country's subsequent prospects. I looked at our XI when we won it in 1998 & only two players (Rob Key & Chris Schofield) have since gone on to play tests & it'll be a long time before Chris adds to his brace of caps! 3 others (Swann, Franks & Shah) have played ODIs, but (IIRC) Swann & Franks are one-cap wonders.

The NZ team we beat in the final actually contained more future test stars (the Marshall bros, Franklin, Mills, Vincent), although that might reflect their relatively shallow player base.

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/65/65313.html

I was going to look up some old results of the U19s but could not be bothered, so thanks for that BB Even if a side comes last, in 6-7 years time they may have 2 players of real Test quality, team performance is not a true indicator at that age.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The point being made is that there are no teams from no-mark countries who are worthy of a favourite tag in any sport at any age group.

 

[archie mac]

The point being made is that there are no teams from no-mark countries who are worthy of a favourite tag in any sport at any age group.

Yes, I would agree with that. Although I would back Aust. youth teams to win all youth cups involving Aussie Rules

 

[Richard]

Why not ? West Indies were much more poorer as a nation and am sure were affected by the war , But they became a power house in that same time !!

West Indies had good players right from the very start. So did India and Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

Pakistan were world beaters 10-15 years ago. They won the world cup in 1991/2 and graced the Cricket fields of the world with the Worlds best pace attack and an exciting, high-quality batting lineup. Between 1992 and 1997 they would have seldom been out of the top 3 test teams (ignore those rubbis rankings and look at the talent). Only Australia and occasionally The West Indies and India could topple them. Even South Africa had trouble against them.

Inida won the world cup in 1983, and had one of the best teams between 1975-1990. Perhaps not world beaters, but not a side to be scoffed at. And they have never been bad since.

India have almost always been near-unbeatable at home.
Yes, Pakistan were easily the 2nd-best team for most of the 1970s and 1980s. There was never any point at which you could justifiably refer to them as "the best", though, and that was what I was meaning.

 

[Richard]

And funny how convenient an argument it is to say that Bangladesh's U/19's success is irrelevent yet so many forecast 'The End is Nigh' with Australian cricket based on the lack of quality players coming through the U/19's ranks. One cannot have it both ways.

Anyone who forecasts anything based on u19 cricket is asking one hell of a lot.
U19 cricket is not something to take too seriously.

 

[Richard]

The senior side is slowly getting better, but the number of youngsters coming into the game are getting significantly better.

There is no evidence whatsoever of that.

 

[Richard]

I would question that of every side since the first 2 actually.

I would definitely question that of both Zimbabawe and the side before them (Sri Lanka)

Zimbabwe came damn close to winning their Inaugural Test.

 

[marc71178]

There is no evidence whatsoever of that.

Apart from actually watching them of course?

Or looking at the way they were one of the favourites for the U19 WC?

 

[sirjeremy11]

Zimbabwe came damn close to winning their Inaugural Test.

Zimbabwe were actually a reasonable team until about 2001 (in comparison to Zim since then and Bangladesh). They would have won a lot more games with maybe one more decent bowler and batsman, and a more positive attitude.

 

[Richard]

Apart from actually watching them of course?

You can watch them clearly, and see clearly that they are very poor, almost all the time.

Or looking at the way they were one of the favourites for the U19 WC?

As has been said - u19 cricket means little.

 

[Richard]

Zimbabwe were actually a reasonable team until about 2001 (in comparison to Zim since then and Bangladesh). They would have won a lot more games with maybe one more decent bowler and batsman, and a more positive attitude.

Zimbabwe were a team capable of beating anyone (in ODIs) until 2000, when they lost Neil Johnson (their finest ODI player by a distance) and Murray Goodwin.
After that they started going downhill gradually until by WC2003 they could probably only compete with the lower-down teams.
Since WC2003 when they lost Andy Flower, Campbell, Whittall and several others it's been a joke that they've retained Test and ODI status. The team they brought to England in 2003 was utter nonsense.

 

[Blaze]

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/65/65313.html[/url]

Just looking at some of the score cards.

The West Indies team was quite strong too -
CH Gayle
D Ganga
MN Samuels
*SC Joseph
RR Sarwan
RO Hinds

 

[Blaze]

Everyone in the New Zealand XI from that final has played first class cricket, 5 of them tests.

Whatever happened to David Kelly, he doesn't have great stats but I always thought he looked alright when I saw him play.