Test match nations.

[cover drive man]

How come the ICC dont allow teams like Ireland, Scotland, Kenya play tests. I understand that they would have big losses against Australia but why caant they have test matches between the less cricketing developed nations. I'd quite enjoy a Scotland V Ireland test series it would be bound to get a few pulses racing. Furthermore why do the ICC give millions of pounds to fund cricket in countries such as England. Australia who already have a powerful cricketing ecoonomy but hardly fund less important cricketing nations. Could this be because there is more money to be made in the Australian side than there is in the Kenyan side. I feel that the first step to developing cricket in the smaller interational teams is to fund them and allow them to play test cricket. And if there was more cricket between smaller nations on the television it would be bound to inspire young Irish/Scotish/American children. Once these teams have developed we could start on bringing nations who dont even play cricket into the game.

 

[andruid]

One could even argue that the restriction of the right to play officially sanctioned 5 day matches to group of core nations with special executive rights in the ICC over all others in global cricket is a form of discrimination

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

in b4 ****storm

 

[pup11]

If these associate nations play test cricket among themselves that won't bring a huge difference in the standard of their games so they need to play "A" teams of test nations and tour various test nations and as far as the fundings go ICC provides funds to the boards of these associate nations but how the money is utilised is completly upto the boards.
Kenyan cricket board recieved huge funds in 03 after Kenya made it to the semi-final of the 03 WC, but that money went into the wrong hands and was never utilised for the betterment of the game in the country.
So ICC themselves would have to do something to raise the standard of the game in the associate countries and monitor their progress.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Never heard of the Intercontinental Cup, I assume.

 

[cover drive man]

Never heard of the Intercontinental Cup, I assume.

I have but I dont think it's enough TBH you could get knocked out in the first round and not play tests until the next one.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The 2007-2008 Intercontinental Cup is being played as a round robin with each of the eight nations playing the other seven once.

 

[Manee]

The 2007-2008 Intercontinental Cup is being played as a round robin with each of the eight nations playing the other seven once.

The ICC does something good and nobody hears about it...interesting:

 

[andruid]

If it won't make much of a difference why is it so hard to add that one extra day to to the scheduled length of the match?

And why does Test status weigh so much when it comes to the overall administration of the ICC?

 

[stumpski]

Never heard of the Intercontinental Cup, I assume.

There are some on here - myself not included - who don't think that the IC should even have f-c status. Rather mean-spirited imo as it's clearly the carrot offered to encourage teams to put out their strongest side, and players to make themselves available.

 

[silentstriker]

They certainly should play each other in a 4-5 day matches. But they should be classified as FC, not Tests. Other than that, it definitely is a good idea for them to play as much as possible.

 

[andruid]

I think that Test status is such a 'holy grail/sacred cow' thing and too much in cricket hinges on it and it should either be reformed or scrapped all together. It determines how much funding teams get from the ICC , which means test teams can give themselves the lion share and leave everyone else to spoil over the scraps. The importatnce in terms of TV coverage and ticket prices that teams get for matches also hinges on Test statusfurther increasing the divide between the test and none test teams. Its gives certain teams special priviledge in arranging of fixtures through the future tours programme which means they have freedom to optimise their own schedulesat the expense of others . It gives teams special qualificatipon to Tournaments which don't even involve test matches. It concentrates the making of executive decisions and general running of the game in the hands a a few nations which means their own agenda gets precedence over anybody else's. In short Not only is test status in its current form the biggset yoke on the ICC's efforts to globalise the game it is the primary reason why while certain teams continue to grow and dominate the scene others starve and generally wilt away

 

[silentstriker]

I think that Test status is such a 'holy grail/sacred cow' thing

Because it really is about as sacred as things can get in cricket.

and too much in cricket hinges on it and it should either be reformed or scrapped all together. I

And replaced with what?

it determines how much funding teams get from the ICC , which means test teams can give themselves the lion share and leave everyone else to spoil over the scraps.

Um, the teams that generate the income recieve it to fund their own FC and Test structure. If anything, ICC gives too much money to associates.

The importatnce in terms of TV coverage and ticket prices that teams get for matches also hinges on Test statusfurther increasing the divide between the test and none test teams. Its gives certain teams special priviledge in arranging of fixtures through the future tours programme which means they have freedom to optimise their own schedulesat the expense of others

.


Again, why is this a bad thing? People want to see England vs India or Australia vs South Africa. Not as many people want to see Ireland taking Australia on in a Test match at Sydney. And it would make a farce of the sport for people to see that.


If there is one thing in cricket that should be absolutely sacred and should not be meddled with, it's Test cricket. Do what you want with ODIs, T20s, FC, whatever. I don't care. But leave Test cricket be. If anything, decrease the number of teams with the status, not increase.

 

[andruid]

Again, why is this a bad thing? People want to see England vs India or Australia vs South Africa. Not as many people want to see Ireland taking Australia on in a Test match at Sydney. And it would make a farce of the sport for people to see that.

Sure not many people wnat to see Ireland v Australia but lots of people in Ireland I am sure would like to see the Irish cricket teams on TV playing competitively against their peers eg Scotland or Kenya, but that's not going to happen as they don't have Test status and thus there matches aren't nearly as important as say Australia handing a beating to whoever happens to be on the wrong end of the stick even though stric.

Because it really is about as sacred as things can get in cricket.

And just why is it so 'sacred'? Really and dont just say because it is. Cricket isn't going to die because a certain clique of nations no longer have have special executive rights in the ICC based in their having permission to stage officially sanctioned 5 day matches and that needs to be changed.

And on Associates getting too much money? Really is this enough. Or this. Thers individuals in cricket whose earnings make the sums listed there look like peanuts and yet the ICC somehow expects these two teams ranked 10th and 12th in the world to somehow become more competitive?

 

[silentstriker]

Sure not many people wnat to see Ireland v Australia but lots of people in Ireland I am sure would like to see the Irish cricket teams on TV playing competitively against their peers eg Scotland or Kenya, but that's not going to happen as they don't have Test status

That has nothing to do with Test status. There is a reason you don't see those games on TV - it's because no TV company wants to pay for that because they know there is no audience for it.

And just why is it so 'sacred'? Really and dont just say because it is. Cricket isn't going to die because a certain clique of nations no longer have have special executive rights in the ICC based in their having permission to stage officially sanctioned 5 day matches and that needs to be changed.

It has nothing to do with having special executive rights. It's sacred because Tests represent the highest pinnacle of our sport. The best thing for the long term health of cricket sport is for that product to remain compelling. You can do whatever you want with fluff games like ODI and T20.

It's not about being exclusive, it's about maintaining excellence.

 

[Perm]

They certainly should play each other in a 4-5 day matches. But they should be classified as FC, not Tests. Other than that, it definitely is a good idea for them to play as much as possible.

Agreed totally.

 

[Richard]

I think that Test status is such a 'holy grail/sacred cow' thing and too much in cricket hinges on it

Because it really is about as sacred as things can get in cricket.

Agree completely with ss. Cricket is what it is because of its elitism.

Test (and ODI, FTM) status should be hugely discriminative. Neither are anywhere near enough so as it is at the current time.

 

[andruid]

Agree completely with ss. Cricket is what it is because of its elitism.

and what is that? a game masquarading as a global sport when in reality it is a minority sport drowning in the self centered, self glorification of a select few teams nay individuals sat smugly on the reins of a governing body so introverted and subject to the whims of a minority membership that in truth the rest of the organisation (The Affiliates and Associates) might as well not exist.

 

[Richard]

and what is that? a game masquarading as a global sport

The masquarading as a global sport has already greatly damaged cricket. If we can get more countries into cricket, great; if we can't, it's perfectly OK as it is.

 

[andruid]

I think you'll find its best if cricket had a few future 'great' nations in the oven as they is no guarantee the current crop will always be there. The West Indies and Zimbabwe being case points