BYE Bye Afghanistan and Ireland.

[jimmy101]

It's bull ****. They beat Australia in an ODI in 2005. WTF have they done since of any note in that format?

Well, they beat India, famously, in that 2007CWC group match, and then went on to beat South Africa in the Super 8's. They've also beaten England, twice, in the '11 & '15 world cups. Moreover, Bangladesh have recorded ODI series victories against New Zealand (2011, 4-0 whitewash) and South Africa (2015, 2-1).

Maybe it isn't the greatest resume, but the Tigers aren't completely out of their depth. Remember, it took NZ & India approx 20 to 30 years before they became respectable forces on the world stage. It's easy to underline all of Bangladesh's big losses in an age where cricket is played more and more than ever before. Give them time, they have the population, as well as the supporter base, to make it eventually. Especially as Asia becomes a greater economic power over time.

 

[S.Kennedy]

It's not form based. Bangladesh have gone from atrocious to atrocious with an occasional win. They're no further along than they were when they were given test status. You don't say "Oh they won one test, they must be the requisite standard now". It's bull ****. They beat Australia in an ODI in 2005. WTF have they done since of any note in that format? Bugger all, aside from beat up on the ****test other teams around occasionally. Zimbabwe is a basket case. Has been since the early-mid 2000s.

They've both had their shot. Brush them and let them reapply. Get Afghanistan and Ireland in. If they don't do any better, bin them after a decent run at it too.

If you have four minnows (effectively five with the Windies atm, and there's a question as to whether they ought to get binned as well) you end up like boxing, where perennially mismatched opponents get sanctioned to have fights in order to make a buck despite those contests making a mockery of the sport.

I completely disagree. Bangladesh deserve a level playing field as much as anyone else: they are allowed to ''be bad'' (so they can improve). It took the Kiwis fifty odd years to win a test series yet they were not chucked out!! Bangladesh have been a test side sixteen years and won their first series nine years into that status (on tour, West indies, 2009). Since then, they have won one more series and drawn South Africa, England, India and New Zealand (et al.). Despite being on the losing side, they gave Kohli's India a decent fist of it recently - they played much better than England in India. They have produced some impressive cricketers, Al Hasan, Iqbal, Mushfiqur, Mehedi.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Look if you were to make an argument against Bangladesh even 5 years ago I could understand.

ODIs
They are as good an ODI side as anyone after the Top 3 right now...No this does not mean they are number 4 but rather that they are as competitive as anyone from 4 onwards..

In fact among the top 3, they have won their last series against South Africa and India and would have won against Australia if they hadn't chickened out of touring.

Tests

Ok they are a crap test side. But it's one thing to be a crap side, and another to not belong at this level. Bangladesh belong in the former category. Yes they lose badly but no worse than any other team losing badly.

At least they won't lose 0-3 to Sri Lanka this time unlike the last team to tour Sri Lanka

 

[cnerd123]

No it's certainly not their job to promote cricket in other countries. What they are getting criticism for though is their actions that prevents other teams to develop cricket in their regions.

What have they done apart from look out for their own interests - something they are completely entitled to do?

The Big 3 aren't obligated to send their cricketers to play teams they don't want them to play, or to play in tournaments they don't want them in
The Big 3 aren't obligated to promote or fund cricket in other countries
The Big 3 aren't obligated to fund and organise events and tournaments that cost them more than they would earn from it.


They really haven't done anything wrong. It would be nice if they tried to use their wealth and fanbases to help cricket grow everywhere, but it certainly isn't required of them.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Also, stripping them of their status is not going to do Bangladesh any good. It will not help their country at grassroots level. Their fans will be incensed by the decision, and justifiably so. We should be proliferating this (test cricket) great game of ours, not retracting it.

 

[cnerd123]

Well, they beat India, famously, in that 2007CWC group match, and then went on to beat South Africa in the Super 8's. They've also beaten England, twice, in the '11 & '15 world cups. Moreover, Bangladesh have recorded ODI series victories against New Zealand (2011, 4-0 whitewash) and South Africa (2015, 2-1).

Maybe it isn't the greatest resume, but the Tigers aren't completely out of their depth. Remember, it took NZ & India approx 20 to 30 years before they became respectable forces on the world stage. It's easy to underline all of Bangladesh's big losses in an age where cricket is played more and more than ever before. Give them time, they have the population, as well as the supporter base, to make it eventually. Especially as Asia becomes a greater economic power over time.

tbf to Burgey he was probably half trying to make a valid point and half trying to bait me or AZH to respond.

But yes, you are completely correct.

 

[Black_Warrior]

What have they done apart from look out for their own interests - something they are completely entitled to do?

The Big 3 aren't obligated to send their cricketers to play teams they don't want them to play, or to play in tournaments they don't want them in
The Big 3 aren't obligated to promote or fund cricket in other countries
The Big 3 aren't obligated to fund and organise events and tournaments that cost them more than they would earn from it.


They really haven't done anything wrong. It would be nice if they tried to use their wealth and fanbases to help cricket grow everywhere, but it certainly isn't required of them.

Your first point is incorrect. Agree with the rest and no one is asking them to play Santa here.
They have an obligation to play every full member team and if Ireland and Afghanistan were to be given full member status, then yes they have an obligation to play them as well.

The fact that they run ICC in a way that strips the governing body of any power to enforce this on them is what is at the heart of the problem. So yes right now cricket calender is set by the Big 3 themselves and they play each other 5 times a year but this is exactly the problem.

We don't need anyone to be 'nice' here and give out charity. All we need is a fair system where every team players every other team. Period. This is how every other sport is run. Barcelona does not say we won't play the bottom ranked teams neither does Murray say I won't play anyone beyond the top 10.

 

[cnerd123]

They have an obligation to play every full member team and if Ireland and Afghanistan were to be given full member status, then yes they have an obligation to play them as well.

They don't actually. There is no law forcing them to do this. They could arrange a season full of cricket vs USA and China if they wanted to.

 

[Black_Warrior]

That's a bit like Kim Jong Un saying "There is no law in North Korea that says I can't be Supreme Leader, so I've broken no law"

 

[cnerd123]

That's a bit like Kim Jong Un saying "There is no law in North Korea that says I can't be Supreme Leader, so I've broken no law"

And it would be correct.

A moral obligation isn't a real obligation. Fact is, the BCCI can do what they like. All cricket boards can do what they like. We have no central governing agency that has any real power. And under the current framework, the fact that the BCCI plays any cricket against minor nations at all is a sign of their goodwill. To act as though they 'have' to do it is misleading.

And for countries like BD/Pak/SL/WI/Afg/Ireland to expect the BCCI/ICC to look out after them is to essentially pass the blame of their own poor management onto someone else. It's up to them to figure out how to make their team and the matches involving it marketable, and it's up to them to find a way to sustain cricket in their country. Not the BCCIs. And if their strategy is to rely on matches with India, then they have failed.

 

[Black_Warrior]

^No one is expecting anyone to look out for them mate. At least read before you become the BCCI apologetic.

The Big 3 have rigged the system to benefit themselves and get away with it. That is corruption and needs to be condemned as such.

 

[cnerd123]

^No one is expecting anyone to look out for them mate. At least read before you become the BCCI apologetic.

The Big 3 have rigged the system to benefit themselves and get away with it. That is corruption and needs to be condemned as such.

They haven't rigged anything though.

They have fanbases who are willing to spend money on cricket

They have decided that they want to keep most of that money rather than let other countries benefit from it.

They literally have done nothing wrong. All the outrage is basically moral outrage based on the premise that all cricket boards should be looking out for the sport as a whole vs their own interests. And that's a false premise.

 

[Black_Warrior]

^You couldn't be more wrong.

Take Bangladesh for example. A huge fan base.

India have a huge fan base too.

A proper series between the two is going to be a major event especially with the hatred between the two fan bases.

One doesn't have to be at the expense of the other. They don't have to stop playing England and Australia, but if they spread it out a little bit, who knows in a few years India-Bangladesh rivalry can evolve and become major. Australia didn't used to take India seriously until 2001 and look at the rivalry now.

If you play everyone, you create the potential for more interesting narratives and rivalries. The India-Australia rivalry and the Ashes rivalry are frankly getting a bit state. Kohli is a dick, Smith is a dick. They're both dicks and after a while you get bored. Bring Sabbir in for example and get him to troll Jadeja..now you have something fresh.

 

[the big bambino]

You think so? They plummeted to bottom of the rankings in 1999, I think having been beaten by the Black Caps!!

Countries who beat England in a test series during the '90s,

- Australia (five times)
- Pakistan (twice)
- India
- Sri Lanka (twice)
- West Indies (twice)
- South Africa (twice)
- New Zealand

And that is pretty much both home and away!

You are aware that BD and Z haven't won anything, right?

 

[Howe_zat]

 

[brockley]

Well 9/3 is gone,2nd division is gone,what will the spineless ICC come up with next.

 

[cnerd123]

^You couldn't be more wrong.

Take Bangladesh for example. A huge fan base.

India have a huge fan base too.

A proper series between the two is going to be a major event especially with the hatred between the two fan bases.

One doesn't have to be at the expense of the other. They don't have to stop playing England and Australia, but if they spread it out a little bit, who knows in a few years India-Bangladesh rivalry can evolve and become major. Australia didn't used to take India seriously until 2001 and look at the rivalry now.

If you play everyone, you create the potential for more interesting narratives and rivalries. The India-Australia rivalry and the Ashes rivalry are frankly getting a bit state. Kohli is a dick, Smith is a dick. They're both dicks and after a while you get bored. Bring Sabbir in for example and get him to troll Jadeja..now you have something fresh.

What you are saying isn't relevant at all to whether the BCCI is obligated to play other teams, or to support Test status for other nations.

There is no law that forces them to do it. Period.

When market forces dictate that it would be more profitable for them to play these lesser nations than Aus/Eng/SA, then I guarantee you they will do it. But that day hasn't arrived yet.

 

[BigCaine]

^No one is expecting anyone to look out for them mate. At least read before you become the BCCI apologetic.

The Big 3 have rigged the system to benefit themselves and get away with it. That is corruption and needs to be condemned as such.

How exactly did the big 3 rig the system, if bcci brings in 80% of the total income, how is it rigging if it asks for 20% of the distributed amounts.

 

[Black_Warrior]

What you are saying isn't relevant at all to whether the BCCI is obligated to play other teams, or to support Test status for other nations.

There is no law that forces them to do it. Period.

When market forces dictate that it would be more profitable for them to play these lesser nations than Aus/Eng/SA, then I guarantee you they will do it. But that day hasn't arrived yet.

*****, you know that cricket today is run like a mafia and the Big 3 are the the forefront of it. You also know that you are better than this and jingoism is not your forte. You have found yourself in the awkward position of defending Kim Jong-un and you are deliberately arguing points I never made. This is what jingoism does. Stop. Tell yourself that you are better than this. You have it in you to be passionate about cricket teams outside of your own. Be that guy.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

tbf to Burgey he was probably half trying to make a valid point and half trying to bait me or AZH to respond.

But yes, you are completely correct.

big bambino is completely serious though