• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricketweb decides....Rules for Entry to Test Status

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
We often see phrases like "not of Test status", or "country X deserves Test status" on this forum but what does that really mean?

Is it possible for us to reach a general concensus on what criteria a country/region etc must meet i order to be granted Test status.

In order for a Team to be said to be good enough, or alternatively not ready, the conclusion must be based on qualifying criteria.

If it cant be measured then it is worthless.

So what do we think are the defined criteria a team must meet?

Obvious areas would be standard, playing population, history etc

Please offer your opinion and lets see if we can draw up a CricketWeb Code of Test Entry
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
IMO beat South Africa, India, Australia and Sri Lanka in ODIs, West Indies in T20I and win a Test Match against some outside Zimbabwe.

One more thing to task for Bangladesh IMO.
 

andruid

International Captain
My contributions. No Associate has fulfilled all of these thus none are quite ready yet

-Establish national u19 and u17 teams
-Establish stable Domestic FC, OD and T20 on a national level (stable: runs for at least 3 years without interruptions)
-qualify for 3 World cups in a row or 5 in total
-Show dominance in Intercontinental cup
 

stumpski

International Captain
The Intercontinental Cup is the breeding ground for potential Test sides IMO. Winning not just once or twice but several times would suggest that a team is too good to be wallowing with the other Associates and is worth a go at Test level. Would only admit them on a three year trial basis though.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Hard to say, but it's got to be based around FC achievements and not ODI...if an associate won the WC that should be no reason to consider them for Test status unless they have a solid FC background. IMO
 

stumpski

International Captain
Hard to say, but it's got to be based around FC achievements and not ODI...if an associate won the WC that should be no reason to consider them for Test status unless they have a solid FC background. IMO
Agree with that - there were many calls for Kenya to be admitted after reaching the semi-finals of WC2003, and they would just have been cannon fodder. Good oppo for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but that's about all.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
My major concern wouldnt be the actual performances but the cricketing infrastructure.

Ie If they are playing well and winning ATM what is there to suggest that that is sustainable. At the lower levels a RtD, Tikolo or Houghton can almost carry an Associate team to play at a good standard but if they retire or get injured what is to say that the country is capable of producing players of a similar standard?

Id want a criteria looking at the number of indigenous cricketers in the country and what structure there is for developing them.

eg Zim had less cricketers than the USA but an awesome schools cricket system that maximised their potential talent and kept a conveyer belt of reasonable talent coming through.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
  1. Total population must be large enough to sustain competitive cricket (minimum size should be NZ level, eg. 4 million).
  2. Domestic structure that consists of professional cricketers playing four day cricket and each team supported by a professional coaching staff
  3. Active cricketing scene at levels lower than FC, such as club level
  4. Domestic structure at the club and school level that can consistently feed players into the FC competition
  5. A national XI that is able to consistently (and over 5-10 years) beat domestic teams from most of the countries. Not all, because I have a feeling half the test teams would be blown out by WA or something like that, but in general a Test team should be competitive. At least at home, they should be able to play with or better than any domestic team.
  6. Cricketing academies, infrastructure that is able to give professional coaching, fitness and other services to the professional cricketers.
 
Last edited:

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
goverment subsidies?
That implies anyone in government know the sport exists in the first place. Plus, subsidies for professional sport is pretty rare - mostly it's only Olympic sports that get any such subsidies for paying athletes and coaches, I think?
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
That implies anyone in government know the sport exists in the first place. Plus, subsidies for professional sport is pretty rare - mostly it's only Olympic sports that get any such subsidies for paying athletes and coaches, I think?
In more developed sporting countries, perhaps, but I would have thought other smaller countries would be happier to fund a cricket side that could become internationally renowned then Olympic athletes in events that are not really in the eye of the world.

Having said that, I wouldn't have thought governments in many countries properly fund sport, and rightly so. Money is better spent elsewhere.
 

Top