Insane and mockery of Test cricket

[fredfertang]

No, no, not at all. NZ were given Test status from their debut Test.

Somewhat ridiculously, a full-strength England was playing a series in New Zealand while what was in effect England A (though both England's first and second string were extremely powerful and stronger than everyone other than Australia) were doing so in West Indies. The games in West Indies were not at the time recognised as Tests, despite the fact West Indies were a stronger team than New Zealand and had played Tests in England previously.

Why England sent their second string to West Indies and their first to New Zealand, despite the Caribbean offering far stronger competition, I'm not entirely sure. However, not all in the 1930s was quite yet what it should've been. There were still vaguaries.

However, New Zealand were truly the Bangladesh of their day in the 1930s. No game involving them merited Test status.

It was anything but full strength Richard - you clearly haven't read my feature!

 

[Goughy]

It was anything but full strength Richard - you clearly haven't read my feature!

Indeed. I have not read the feature but Im pretty sure 6 or so English players made their debut in NZs first Test.

Hardly full strength

 

[Richard]

It was anything but full strength Richard - you clearly haven't read my feature!

Not yet, I'm afraid (fully intend to, obv) and if full-strength is the wrong term, then it was closer to being full-strength than the side in West Indies, no?

 

[fredfertang]

These were those who played in the Tests in NZ

M.S.Nichols
K.S.Duleepsinhji
G.B.Legge
E.H.Bowley
F.E.Woolley
E.W.Dawson
A.H.H.Gilligan
M.J.C.Allom
T.S.Worthington
W.L.Cornford
F.Barratt
M.J.L.Turnbull

And these guys in WI

EH Hendren
A Sandham
LEG Ames
G Gunn
J O'Connor
W Rhodes
RES Wyatt
Hon.FSG Calthorpe
NE Haig
W Voce
GTS Stevens
WE Astill
LF Townsend

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Tate, Leyland and Duckworth remained behind and of the whole lot Duleep played 4 tests against Australia in the following summer, Hendren and Woolley 2 each and Wyatt and Nicholls one each

 

[Migara]

Ireland still better than Bangladesh. Yes, I give up

 

[Uppercut]

Are you going to dig this every time Bangladesh win a game or come close to winning a game? Games that Ireland aren't given the opportunity to prove themselves in, incidentally. Against sides with absolutely nothing to play for because they've already qualified.

 

[Xuhaib]

Ireland still better than Bangladesh. Yes, I give up

Shakib > Ireland > Bangladesh

 

[Evermind]

Shakib > Ireland > Bangladesh

Hahaha right on!

 

[BoyBrumby]

So a fully professional team with test status might be slightly better than a largely amateur one without it & whose captain had to take an unpaid leave of absence from his job just to play for them?

**** me, who'da thunk it?

 

[The Sean]

I thought the NZ Tests of the 1930s were also granted such status retrospectively, or have I misunderstood you here?

No, no, not at all. NZ were given Test status from their debut Test.

Are you sure? I could swear that I read something recently about three-day games that were retrospectively given Test status, and that NZ were the oppo?

The first NZ/Aus game after WWII (NZ had already played Test by this stage) was originally not a Test match. It was changed to a Test after the event.

England's two three-day matches against New Zealand on the 1933 tour (directly after the Bodyline series in Australia) were played as FC matches rather than Tests. However, these were retrospectively upgraded to Test status in 1948 along with the 1946 New Zealand v Australia match.

Wally Hammond thereby had the dubious distinction of never being able to enjoy holding the world record Test score - by the time his 336* in that series (which is now acknowledged as being the record at the time) was granted Test status, Hutton had eclipsed it.

 

[grant28]

He has a string of low scores, then scores a hundred, string of low scores, hundred, etc, etc. On his day, he's a class player and I'm sure if you asked any Bangladeshi people they would tell you that he is not an insult to their cricket. Why are you getting so angry over it?

 

[Richard]

England's two three-day matches against New Zealand on the 1933 tour (directly after the Bodyline series in Australia) were played as FC matches rather than Tests. However, these were retrospectively upgraded to Test status in 1948 along with the 1946 New Zealand v Australia match.

Wally Hammond thereby had the dubious distinction of never being able to enjoy holding the world record Test score - by the time his 336* in that series (which is now acknowledged as being the record at the time) was granted Test status, Hutton had eclipsed it.

Yup, and the first time I heard the "Bradman is the first to congratulate the youngster who broke the Don's own record" thing I thought "... eh? Hammond held the record in 1938... "

Only a couple of years after I first watched that clip did I find-out that Hammond's game wasn't recognised as a Test at the time.

Such a shame it didn't stay that way. NZ did NOT merit Test status at the time.