Do Bangladesh deserve to play ODIs regularly against the top teams?

[Prince EWS]

How do you propose making a game between Australia and Bangladesh different from a game between Australia and South Africa? As far as I can see, it has to be all or nothing in relation to Bangladesh having ODI status and playing ODI matches. I realise that Bangladesh haven't proven that they are indeed ODI class but I don't see a fair way of seperating the ODI's they play against top teams, other than in people's opinions.

Well, there is the option of just discluding the stats from those games from the records. And given the fact that people like me have spent countless hours doing such when trying to prove a point about something, it may well be a good idea.

I'm still against it though really - if we are to give Bangladesh ODI status, then they quite obviously have to be playing ODIs - and you can't really disclude ODIs from official ODI records. The answer, really, is just to have cricinfo have a "remove teams outside the top 8" button on the StatsGuru so we don't have to do it manually for players that have played against more than one lower-ranked side.

 

[Prince EWS]

What is ODI class to you? I think ODI class should be lower than Test class, the top 8 are test class which is better than odi class.

Well, to me, its a standard which can regularly compete with all the other sides, and is clearly superior to domestic class. Given that though, it is a debatable that teams like West Indies are ODI class at the moment, as I don't think they're much better (if at all better) than Queensland or Victoria.

 

[Perm]

What is ODI class to you? I think ODI class should be lower than Test class, the top 8 are test class which is better than odi class.

Like Prince said, I think ODI class is a team that is able to compete consistently with the major nations. At the moment Bangladesh aren't there, and even though nations like England and West Indies can be pretty poor in ODI's they do still have potential to be good and win more than just one game- unlike Bangladesh at the moment.

Well, there is the option of just discluding the stats from those games from the records. And given the fact that people like me have spent countless hours doing such when trying to prove a point about something, it may well be a good idea.

I'm still against it though really - if we are to give Bangladesh ODI status, then they quite obviously have to be playing ODIs - and you can't really disclude ODIs from official ODI records. The answer, really, is just to have cricinfo have a "remove teams outside the top 8" button on the StatsGuru so we don't have to do it manually for players that have played against more than one lower-ranked side.

I've spent a lot of time doing the same thing as you mate, but I don't see the ICC removing Bangladesh's ODI status and thus removing all their stats from the records. Even if Bangladesh have ODI status, like they do at the moment, their stats should still count in the official websites like cricinfo and the likes. It's up to us if we want to remove them in order to prove a point about "minnow bashing" and things like that.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've spent a lot of time doing the same thing as you mate, but I don't see the ICC removing Bangladesh's ODI status and thus removing all their stats from the records. Even if Bangladesh have ODI status, like they do at the moment, their stats should still count in the official websites like cricinfo and the likes. It's up to us if we want to remove them in order to prove a point about "minnow bashing" and things like that.

Yeah, agree with that, really. What I'd like to see is cricinfo introduce a function of the StatsGuru which removes all matches against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe/Kenya/Ireland/UAE/Holland etc etc from the filter. At the moment you can only remove one team at a time which becomes quite tedious for players who have played against more than one substandard side (which is a very high proportion of players, mind you.) That's purely a website thing though and has significantly less importance than whether Bangladesh should have ODI status in the first place, which IMO they should.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well, to me, its a standard which can regularly compete with all the other sides, and is clearly superior to domestic class. Given that though, it is a debatable that teams like West Indies are ODI class at the moment, as I don't think they're much better (if at all better) than Queensland or Victoria.

but i'm saying the top 8 are not ODI class they are test class so they will definitely be better than the odi class. There's a difference between odi and test class.

 

[Prince EWS]

but i'm saying the top 8 are not ODI class they are test class so they will definitely be better than the odi class. There's a difference between odi and test class.

No... all the teams' ODI sides and test sides are seperate from each other in terms of standard.

Theoretically, it would be possible for say, England, to have a test class team but not an ODI class team. Bangladesh at the moment have neither.

 

[Perm]

Yeah, agree with that, really. What I'd like to see is cricinfo introduce a function of the StatsGuru which removes all matches against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe/Kenya/Ireland/UAE/Holland etc etc from the filter. At the moment you can only remove one team at a time which becomes quite tedious for players who have played against more than one substandard side (which is a very high proportion of players, mind you.) That's purely a website thing though and has significantly less importance than whether Bangladesh should have ODI status in the first place, which IMO they should.

I've often wondered why they don't have that function, it does get very annoying trying to remove stats against the minor teams using my own brain.

but i'm saying the top 8 are not ODI class they are test class so they will definitely they are better than the odi class. There's a difference between odi and test class.

The Top 8 ODI nations are obviously ODI class, look at who they are. Bangladesh are not ODI class because they aren't competitive in the majority of the ODI's they play. Simple.

 

[LA ICE-E]

well then i see it a bit differently, as in like i grade them as a nation not a team. Like i see the top 8's as very good cricketing nations as so i grade them 8-10 out of ten. And that's a test class nation. Where as i grade the minnows from 5-8 out of ten and i see that as odi class nation. then the rest i class them of 0-5 who are starters.

 

[marc71178]

With all the talk of stats, whilst stupid and meaningless games like the Super Series and the Afro-Asian thingy get given ODI status, it doesn't matter to me that Bangladesh are.

I'd say Bangladesh are far far more deserving of it then those Cash Cows...

 

[Richard]

How do you propose making a game between Australia and Bangladesh different from a game between Australia and South Africa? As far as I can see, it has to be all or nothing in relation to Bangladesh having ODI status and playing ODI matches. I realise that Bangladesh haven't proven that they are indeed ODI class but I don't see a fair way of seperating the ODI's they play against top teams, other than in people's opinions.

If I$C$C insist on having all the top 16 nations as ODI-playing, I'd split the thing - have "Junior ODIs" and "Senior ODIs". It doesn't really take too much opinion - most people eventually came around to the reality that certain teams were\are not ODI-class.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, agree with that, really. What I'd like to see is cricinfo introduce a function of the StatsGuru which removes all matches against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe/Kenya/Ireland/UAE/Holland etc etc from the filter. At the moment you can only remove one team at a time which becomes quite tedious for players who have played against more than one substandard side (which is a very high proportion of players, mind you.) That's purely a website thing though and has significantly less importance than whether Bangladesh should have ODI status in the first place, which IMO they should.

Have thought it many, many times - but have never been bothered to email Travis and ask why.

 

[Richard]

With all the talk of stats, whilst stupid and meaningless games like the Super Series and the Afro-Asian thingy get given ODI status, it doesn't matter to me that Bangladesh are.

I'd say Bangladesh are far far more deserving of it then those Cash Cows...

What's wrong with the reality that both cases fail to deserve it?

 

[marc71178]

Because one of them quite clearly does deserve it, as they seem to keep on showing but you keep refusing to acknowledge...

 

[Richard]

They don't keep on showing it - they've suggested, in the last couple of weeks (and NEVER, ONCE before), that they might do. If they continue after this Cup the way they've been going here maybe in hindsight I'll consider every ODI from this Cup onwards worthy of the status - but as I'd long suspected, there'll be those who claim that because they eventually did become ODI-class, that can't possibly mean they never were.

 

[James90]

They don't keep on showing it - they've suggested, in the last couple of weeks (and NEVER, ONCE before)

They haven't shown anything in this World Cup that they have shown before IMO.

 

[Kriketer]

Not just Bangladesh, but Ireland, Kenya should play regularly against top teams, and to some extanct other minnows too.

 

[LA ICE-E]

All teams except bermuda and canada are ODI class teams why? because they all are competive in ODI's involving ODI class teams(not test class,top 8).

 

[pasag]

TBH, I think stats are so phenomenally important to cricket and I do think they should be preserved. Also, I do think that ODI stats don't really matter, so I don't mind putting whoever as ODI status as a precursor to Test status.

But ICC should always do their best to make sure all Tests are competitive, and that format (and the stats it has) should be protected at all costs.

Totally disagree on this point. Cricket is a sport, not a science. If people want to to turn it into some sort of mathematical equation, then by all means go ahead. I even enjoy the statistics myself. But statistics should never have that sort of impact and if it did it would be a shame and missing the point really. To say a certain team shouldn't be given a certain status because it dilutes statistics is quite silly in my books.

 

[leepayne]

I haven't read through all of this thread, but my answer to the question in the title is yes, Bangladesh do deserve to play regular one day internationals against the best teams. I have seen them beat India and South Africa in this current World Cup and those matches were not flukes, Bangladesh won them reasonably comfortably. To continue to improve, they need to regularly play against the best teams like Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and the like.

 

[cricman]

TBH, Bangladesh really needed a year like 2006 just playing Zimbabwe, Kenya, Scotland, while sprinkling in Australia and Sri Lanka. I think it helped there confidence alot and they learned losing 3-2 to zimbabwe that they needed to play with energy and passion and it showed beating them 5-0 and then 3-1