Next Test Nation???

[NUFAN]

I know this thread is for new countries playing test cricket, but shouldn't Zimbabwe come back into Test Cricket first? Especially if we are going on recent ODI wins.

 

[Jezroy]

Quote I just found on wiki...

In 2003, the ICC announced its intention to confer Test status upon Kenya in the near future. Kenyan cricket has been through difficulties since then

Understatement...

But it just goes to show that whoever plays test matches next really needs to have some sort of infrastructure in place and some sort of future to look to. In Bangaladesh, I guess the ICC saw, and still see, the latter. But Athlai is right, whoever gets through can't get there through one off results. Which makes my idea for the likes of Bangladesh to play these teams "below" them more valid. For the argument that teams like Ire, and Zim have these one off results, couldn't you say that Bangladesh do also? And really only in ODI cricket. Have failed in T20 and tests pretty dismally really. Especially thought they may do better in T20 since it is such a lottery.

 

[Saif Ali Khan]

Surely Ireland as they have proved themselves.

 

[SRK]

Zimbabwe back & Ireland the new one that makes it 11.

 

[laksh_01]

Will there ever be another Test Nation?

 

[Mike5181]

Ireland have some decent players. I would back them to occasionally be able to rattle the likes of NZ, WI, BANG and Zimbabwe. If they became a test playing nation they may well be able to retain players and stop England's poaching. If they don't well then someone like George Dockrell won't last long at all. If they were able to utilise all the players with irish blood in them they could field a half decent batting line up. I wouldn't usually condone players like Hamish Marshall but i think a bit of leniency could be thrown Ireland's way as they establish their feet for a couple of years. Obviously Morgan is gone forever but this is what they could have:

Porterfield
Stirling
Marshall
Morgan
Joyce
K O'Brien
N O'Brien+

The absence of a first class domestic structure obviously needs to be addressed though.

 

[jashan83]

It is time for a 2 Tier Test System.

Tier 1:- Aus, NZ, Eng, Ire, Ind, Pak, SL, BD, SA & Jamaica
Tier 2:- Afg, Ken, Can, Neth, Scot, Nam, PNG, Zim, Guyana, Barbados & T&T
IC Cup:- UAE, HK, Ugan, Ber, Oman, Den, USA, Nep

There should be a cycle of 4 years where as part of FTP each nation in Tier plays all other nations. If a country in Tier 1 wants to play a test against Tier 2 that is also allowed and counted as tests (Assuming say Eng goes into Tier 2 but still Ashes will be played)

At end of each cycle
Tier 1:-
Top 4 teams qualify for the Test Championship and winner is declared the Test Champion like World Cup champion
The Bottom 2 are relegated to Tier 2.

This keeps the excitement and teams not performing suffer

Tier 2:-
Top 2 qualify for Tier 1
Bottom 2 relegated to IC Cup Div and loose test status for 4 years

IC Cup
The top 2 get Test Status and are promoted to Tier 2
The bottom 4 are relegated back to WCL and will have to qualify again

 

[salman85]

That's a very good suggestion IMO.But i doubt if ICC would want to lose 2 'regular' test playings nation from Tier 1 every 4 year.Also,there is likely to be a lot of opposition from the Ireland and Bangladesh boards since they would be ones more likely to be relegated after 4 years.

Also,the point about their current ranking would be thrown into the equation too.If the Tier 1 and Tier 2 system is brought into the equation,do they start the points system from scratch,or do they start from the current points as that leaves countries who have performed well before the Tier system at a huge advantage compared to countries who have just been inducted into Tier 1.Also,currently India's the number 1 test team,a position that they've taken after a while,and they won't take take kindly to the points system starting from scratch,neither would England after doing so well as a Test Side for the last few years.

Great suggestion.Not sure if it will get implemented soon.

 

[Migara]

Wel, allow top 4 nations to field rwo teams, and put the in two tiers.

Tier A: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies
Tier B: Bangladhesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanisthan, IND A, SAF A, SL A, AUS A (according to current rankings).

Two sides can be moved up and down (other than A teams), and sides can be added as necessaty. Every two yearly, according to the ranks, A teams will change. Majority of Tier A countries will play with fellow Tier A countries. 70-30 would be a good starting point.

This will allow lesser nations eo play more competitive cricket, and better nations will have better depth with their young teams getting competitive exposure.

 

[Borges]

Do we really expect countries without domestic FC cricket to be able to play test cricket? Batting with an idea of lasting through 100 overs or more, going to field with the aim of taking 10 wickets, are things that they have never done.

I think some kind of domestic FC infrastructure (ideally without a counterproductive bonus points system) must be a mandatory qualifying criterion for playing test cricket. Or else, it will reduce test cricket to a farce; and we already have T20I for comic relief.

To increase the number of test playing nations - IMHO, a laudable aim in itself - resorting to gimmickry like divisions in football will devalue test cricket as a whole. The football that is played at the highest level is the same football that is played everywhere; for cricket this is not so. Test cricket is different from limited overs cricket, just as billiards is different from snooker.

Perhaps start with Wales; they have a tradition of FC cricket and an excellent test venue in Sofia Gardens. Ireland next, after a season or two of FC cricket there. Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados etc would have been possibilities if the West Indies had a decent test team.

What we want is more nations to play test cricket; not more nations to play a grotesque caricature of test cricket. There are no short cuts; difficult problems do not have easy solutions. Start with the every test nation setting aside some time every year for tours to places like Ireland; to play FC cricket.

 

[jashan83]

That's a very good suggestion IMO.But i doubt if ICC would want to lose 2 'regular' test playings nation from Tier 1 every 4 year.Also,there is likely to be a lot of opposition from the Ireland and Bangladesh boards since they would be ones more likely to be relegated after 4 years.

Also,the point about their current ranking would be thrown into the equation too.If the Tier 1 and Tier 2 system is brought into the equation,do they start the points system from scratch,or do they start from the current points as that leaves countries who have performed well before the Tier system at a huge advantage compared to countries who have just been inducted into Tier 1.Also,currently India's the number 1 test team,a position that they've taken after a while,and they won't take take kindly to the points system starting from scratch,neither would England after doing so well as a Test Side for the last few years.

Great suggestion.Not sure if it will get implemented soon.

Salman I would like to go point to point on what I think
1. I don' t think Ireland, Afghanistan etc would oppose it because it is tournament based on meritocracy. The teams which may have issue would be BD, Zim or NZ as they risk the privilege of voting as full members

2. Rather than looking at the 4 year cycle on Ranking, it should be viewed as a large league running over 4 years. Here Each team is supposed to play atleast 3 tests with all 9 other teams in the 4 year cycle.
Now the question may Arise that do the teams have time to play all other 9 teams over 4 years. I tried to calculate the time required.
Lets take India:- Their typical tours against good opposition are 3 Tests, 5 ODI, 2 T20, 1 FC Match, 1 List A (OD) match. Seeing the previous tours the average time for a tour are as follows
Test:- 8 Days
ODI:- 4 Days
T20:- 2 Days
FC:- 6 Days
List A:- 3 Days


So if in 4 year cycle Ind tour Aus (3), SA(2), Eng(3), SL(2), Pak(1), NZ(1), Ire(1), BD(1) & Jam(1) so a total of 16 Tours.
The tour would take :- 3x8+5X4+2X2+1X6+1X3= 57 Days
15 Tours X 57 Days (Assuming Ind goes for such lengthy tours everywhere, which is never the case & they have obligation to fulfill just the Test Matches)= 855 Days
IPL Window=50X4=200 Days (India have IPL window for themselves, Aus have it for Big Bash and so on. This is to give countries opportunities to earn from Domestic tournament)
Allowance for Other T20 Tournaments:- 20X4=80 Days
WC Window=60X1=60 Days
World T20 Window= 20X2= 40 Days
ICC Champion Trophy Window= 20X1= 20 Days
Test Championship Window= 45X1= 45 Days
Rest:- 30X4= 120 Days

Hence a Total of 855+200+40+60+40+20+120=1375 Days, which is 344 days in a year leaving 11 days for any other activities.

In this way, India has played with each and every other team in its Tier and also plays more against the teams which are profitable to it (Aus, Eng 3 times, SL, SA 2 times). Also they are mandated to play Test Matches, and hence can shorten their tours say against BD or Ire by Playing 3 Tests, 3ODI and 1 FC and finish the Tour in around 42 days instead of 57 and saving 15 days. Such savings can be used to accommodate Asia Cup etc. Aus can use such savings for Ashes and the length ODI series.

Also I have given a window for the longest of the tournament IPL plus times for another 20 days for some other T20 tournament. The teams have their stars for local tournament and can earn money through them.

Also Window is there for all the ICC tournament:- 1 WC, 2 WT20, 1 CT, 1 Test Ch. Hence ICC has its way of funding continued. Also ICC can have a say 12 nation WC with Tier 1 countries directly into the tournament (Same for T20) and hence no country can ignore the test

Lastly the promotion and relegation gives value to every Test Series. Think England have been playing badly. They are on a tour to Jamaica and need to win the Test Series 3-0 to qualify, while Jamaica just need a draw to save themselves from relegation. There would be excitement on both sides. Even a 2-0 Lost series will have excitement and not merely a tour where they play just for heck of it.



Having said that there are also issues of limited Windows available for playing in each countries and tours fitting that Window. For that I can simply say, use a computer program and draw series timing in it as per the times available in each country

 

[jashan83]

Do we really expect countries without domestic FC cricket to be able to play test cricket? Batting with an idea of lasting through 100 overs or more, going to field with the aim of taking 10 wickets, are things that they have never done.

I think some kind of domestic FC infrastructure (ideally without a counterproductive bonus points system) must be a mandatory qualifying criterion for playing test cricket. Or else, it will reduce test cricket to a farce; and we already have T20I for comic relief.

To increase the number of test playing nations - IMHO, a laudable aim in itself - resorting to gimmickry like divisions in football will devalue test cricket as a whole. The football that is played at the highest level is the same football that is played everywhere; for cricket this is not so. Test cricket is different from limited overs cricket, just as billiards is different from snooker.

Perhaps start with Wales; they have a tradition of FC cricket and an excellent test venue in Sofia Gardens. Ireland next, after a season or two of FC cricket there. Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados etc would have been possibilities if the West Indies had a decent test team.

What we want is more nations to play test cricket; not more nations to play a grotesque caricature of test cricket. There are no short cuts; difficult problems do not have easy solutions. Start with the every test nation setting aside some time every year for tours to places like Ireland; to play FC cricket.

Hi totally agree with you. Without a domestic structure this is not sustainable. I believe besides the 10 Test Nations there are quire serious efforts in Kenya, Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands,Nepal, Namibia to go for such a structure. Over time with continued funding support by ICC and cricket getting ready for Olympics, the support system through the Olympic Committees that becomes possible. A focused approach by ICC on these lines would really help
Hopefully some efforts like Day & Night Tests and other innovations can add some excitements to Tests

On question of West Indies, and going through WI forums, what really came out was previously in Old Times West Indies had a binding factor. It was supposed to be Black Team challenging the White. This really united the people in Caribbean and gave them hope. However as time progressed and other games made inroads the Nation started to become important like Jamaica and T&T reaching Soccer WC or Athletics in T&T and so on. Also in WICB every selector has a tendency to push player of his region rather than think of the benefit of WI. There is load of talk that all 6 FC teams should go their own way and the passion would be higher and level improving (Debatable but together as WI I don't see them improving). This is very strongly propagated in West Indies circle.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Do we really expect countries without domestic FC cricket to be able to play test cricket? Batting with an idea of lasting through 100 overs or more, going to field with the aim of taking 10 wickets, are things that they have never done.

I think some kind of domestic FC infrastructure (ideally without a counterproductive bonus points system) must be a mandatory qualifying criterion for playing test cricket. Or else, it will reduce test cricket to a farce; and we already have T20I for comic relief.

To increase the number of test playing nations - IMHO, a laudable aim in itself - resorting to gimmickry like divisions in football will devalue test cricket as a whole. The football that is played at the highest level is the same football that is played everywhere; for cricket this is not so. Test cricket is different from limited overs cricket, just as billiards is different from snooker.

Perhaps start with Wales; they have a tradition of FC cricket and an excellent test venue in Sofia Gardens. Ireland next, after a season or two of FC cricket there. Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados etc would have been possibilities if the West Indies had a decent test team.

What we want is more nations to play test cricket; not more nations to play a grotesque caricature of test cricket. There are no short cuts; difficult problems do not have easy solutions. Start with the every test nation setting aside some time every year for tours to places like Ireland; to play FC cricket.

I'd like to see anyone getting CA to agree to that. They hardly ever play teams like Bangladesh in test matches as it is.

 

[Cracket]

Will there ever be another Test Nation?

Nope. I voted Denmark and Oman.