• 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.

New Test Teams(icc Wake Up)

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
pasag said:
Does anyone else see the similarities to the gay marrige debate. Seriously, if you remove test and replace marrige, it could be the exact same thing. People dont mind if they are together as long as they dont call it marrige devaluing the institution, call it, say a civil union.

Same thing with test status, you can play them, just dont call it a test because that devalues the institution.

Am I making any sense?

oddly, yes you are. Interesting connection to make.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
pasag said:
Does anyone else see the similarities to the gay marrige debate. Seriously, if you remove test and replace marrige, it could be the exact same thing. People dont mind if they are together as long as they dont call it marrige devaluing the institution, call it, say a civil union.

Same thing with test status, you can play them, just dont call it a test because that devalues the institution.

Am I making any sense?

Uh-oh. Thats not a good analogy because gay marriage does not hurt anyone else, whereas giving test status to minnows has a direct and appreciable impact on all cricketing records and competition.

Plus, that's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition). The reason Test cricket is an exclusive club is not simply due to some tradition, or some percieved snobbery on part of its member countries. Usually, its quite the opposite, with ICC and their wild expansionist plans.

You are right in that it devalues cricket, but its not because of some percieved impact to a theoretical entity (devalue of an institution). I don't think we want to be associated with the anti-gay-marriage crowd, at least in terms of the reasoning behind not granting test status to countries.
 
Last edited:

mihir_ozz

Cricket Spectator
What are records againts Minnows

Hey u guys so much againts minnows .........what records have created againts Zim & Bangladesh when they entered test.....No one has scored triple century yet againts them yet.....one format 400 runs came in match which was play not with minnows but with worlds no1 & no2 team AUS vs RSA......... Even 400 by Lara came againts England.......
are these teams Minnows but records are againts big teams also........
in 1983 Sri Lanka was also a minnow associate nation but they have world cup to there name.......
We are not expecting test status on a click ....but let these nations play first test with
bangladesh or zimbabwe westindies .then big boys can play them....
unlesss and untill they get the exposure how will these teams improve....Why cricket should be restricted to small world....

And Kenya deserved test status before bangladesh....world cup semi finalist how many one days it has played since world cup ...Icc should support these nations
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
So you're ignoring the 380 by Hayden then?

The reason the records haven't been broken is because there's so much Cricket played that countries try to get the games over and done with as quickly as possible.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
The only way any of these teams will ever improve is if they can start affording a squad of about 16 full-time contracts.

Players are never going to be able to reach the standards required if they have to work a normal non-cricket 9-5 job at the same time, with full time contracts players can afford to hone their games at english clubs and minor counties and maybe spend winters playing grade cricket/South African club cricket.

Then you will see improvements and it would also stop other countries nicking the best stars.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
Kweek said:
yup central minnow contracts are deffo they way to go !

maybe each of the main countries should sponsor 20 players from another country to play cricket full time. This would create links between countries and also allow the minnow nations to spend more money on other things like developing facilities or developing the game at grass roots level.
 
or another one would be to get the ICC to put a lot of funding into a country for 8 years you may ask 8 years why? As the initial 4 years before coming and the 4 years to get settled and a good finincial base i recommend after the world cups!
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
There were enough people on these boards castigating the ICC for throwing Bangladesh into the fray in 2000 - and they were the best minnow of the time by some way.

Six years later, many are warming to them but they still have a long way to go before they can be labelled as anything more than 'competitive'. It's only the farce that is Zimbabwe that protects Bangladesh from further criticism at the moment.

I honestly think that we will be lucky to see another side bridging the gap to test match status and standard in my lifetime.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
luckyeddie said:
There were enough people on these boards castigating the ICC for throwing Bangladesh into the fray in 2000 - and they were the best minnow of the time by some way.

Six years later, many are warming to them but they still have a long way to go before they can be labelled as anything more than 'competitive'. It's only the farce that is Zimbabwe that protects Bangladesh from further criticism at the moment.

I honestly think that we will be lucky to see another side bridging the gap to test match status and standard in my lifetime.
I know that, Bangladesh will suceed in the long run because of the cricket mad population, wereas other minor countries simply don't have that grass-roots support to hand to sustain a domestic first-class system.

But the aim should be to try and raise the standard of those ODI-only teams at the moment and make them into competitive one day sides, and so making the group stages of world cups more interesting and inclusive.
 

dro87

U19 12th Man
I can talk just about Italy, we have one contracted player/coach which is Joe Scuderi, plus other 7 first class players... Still we would get hammed by Bangladesh, or Zimbabwe... But slowly were getting there... In the '70 in Italy there was no cricket federation... This year we have Serie A (to play u have 2 field 7 italians + 4 foriners who can't bowl or bat toghter), B and C (which are played mainly by foriners= Sri lankans, pakistanis, INdians, Englishmen, aussies etc) + Coppa Italia (Italian cup played on twenty 20 format) + Under 19,17,15,13 played on regional basis...
Hopefully after getting admitted last year for the European Champs A group with Scotland, Ireland, Denmark Holland(in the past weve won against both the Dutch team and denmark) we can develop our cricket and get one day in the test arena :cool:
 

chekmeout

U19 Debutant
There is a very interesting article by a Mr. Nick Deverell (of kenyacricket.com fame) posted on my blog (link is in my sig) whereby he proposed the current system of Tests and InterContinental Cup to continue, with a play-off match say every two years or so between the winner of the InterContinental and the Test team ranked tenth.. If the winner of the InterContinental Cup is good enough to beat a test side, then they deserve to be there.. Plus it gives an incentive to the associate nations..

You should read the full article though..
 

Top