Pakistan's Test Eligibility

[andmark]

Forgive me if this thread has been made before, as I'm increasingly rarely on the forums.

The elligibilty of Pakistan -as far as I'm aware- to play Test Cricket hasn't been an issue confronted "properly" by the ICC. As the current situation (as I'm sure any reader of this will know) stands, Pakistan aren't able to host international cricket matches due to nation's bad problems with terrorism. This has subsequently meant that they've had top relocate to that hot bed of cricket; United Arab Emirates.

I'm rather unsure whether a team which cannot host a Test on its own soil should be allowed to play Test Cricket. The series between England and Pakistan has clearly shown that Pakistan are a good enough team to have test status- a mind bopggling factor, which raises the question: Should a good enough team be allowed to "host" Test Cricket in other countries?

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't see why not. Test cricket would be poorer for Pakistan's absence and I don't see why a factor such as the location of their matches should matter in the slightest.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's a great testament to Pakistani cricket that they are performing away from home despite all the problems.

 

[GIMH]

I believe all recent Tests involving Pakistan should be struck from the record, just in case

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Same for the ODI's.

 

[andmark]

It's a great testament to Pakistani cricket that they are performing away from home despite all the problems.

Very true

 

[smash84]

Forgive me if this thread has been made before, as I'm increasingly rarely on the forums.

The elligibilty of Pakistan -as far as I'm aware- to play Test Cricket hasn't been an issue confronted "properly" by the ICC. As the current situation (as I'm sure any reader of this will know) stands, Pakistan aren't able to host international cricket matches due to nation's bad problems with terrorism. This has subsequently meant that they've had top relocate to that hot bed of cricket; United Arab Emirates.

I'm rather unsure whether a team which cannot host a Test on its own soil should be allowed to play Test Cricket. The series between England and Pakistan has clearly shown that Pakistan are a good enough team to have test status- a mind bopggling factor, which raises the question: Should a good enough team be allowed to "host" Test Cricket in other countries?

 

[Fusion]

I believe all recent Tests involving Pakistan should be struck from the record, just in case

 

[andmark]

I ensure you it is a serious point which I've been thinking about for a few weeks and today realised/remembered about seeing what people on here think

 

[Viscount Tom]

They're perfectly eligible to continue playing test cricket and I don't see why they should be stopped because of the security situation in Pakistan, heck if we were to disallow any country with terrorism issues over the past 5 years or so we'd be left with the South Africans the Kiwis and the Windies.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

If you stop Pakistan from playing, you will be letting the terrorists win. This is what they wanted, and they showed it by trying to kill the Sri Lankan cricket team.

 

[Jono]

Test cricket is already **** when it comes to proper competitiveness. There are around 196 countries in the world, and yet test cricket only has 9 proper teams playing the game. Within that, there are only ever 4-5 teams that are any good at one time, one team right has been pretty crap for a decade, and it is a combination of nations anyway, and another team has never really won a test match in its history. Add to that another team can't even play its players...

...and you want to question whether we should kick out one of the better teams (right now) in test cricket?

No ****ing way.

 

[GIMH]

Test cricket is already **** when it comes to proper competitiveness. There are around 196 countries in the world, and yet test cricket only has 9 proper teams playing the game. Within that, there are only ever 4-5 teams that are any good at one time, one team right has been pretty crap for a decade, and it is a combination of nations anyway, and another team has never really won a test match in its history. Add to that another team can't even play its players...

...and you want to question whether we should kick out one of the better teams (right now) in test cricket?

No ****ing way.

How about we kick you out as a compromise?

 

[Jono]

 

[Shri]

How about we kick you out as a compromise?

Nah, kill Kohli and watch Joni self destruct.

 

[Prince EWS]

Test cricket is already **** when it comes to proper competitiveness. There are around 196 countries in the world, and yet test cricket only has 9 proper teams playing the game. Within that, there are only ever 4-5 teams that are any good at one time, one team right has been pretty crap for a decade, and it is a combination of nations anyway, and another team has never really won a test match in its history. Add to that another team can't even play its players...

...and you want to question whether we should kick out one of the better teams (right now) in test cricket?

No ****ing way.

Nine? I can see you making a case for either eight or ten, but nine? Zimbabwe just beat Bangladesh in a Test 'series'; they were also very competitive at home against Pakistan and New Zealand. Their tour of New Zealand was a nightmare but Bangladesh have certainly had their fair share of those. Saying eight would be fair enough (in fact I'd say eight), but I don't see why Bangladesh should count if Zimbabwe don't.

 

[ganeshran]

Test cricket is already **** when it comes to proper competitiveness. There are around 196 countries in the world, and yet test cricket only has 9 proper teams playing the game. Within that, there are only ever 4-5 teams that are any good at one time, one team right has been pretty crap for a decade, and it is a combination of nations anyway, and another team has never really won a test match in its history. Add to that another team can't even play its players...

...and you want to question whether we should kick out one of the better teams (right now) in test cricket?

No ****ing way.

 

[Jono]

Nine? I can see you making a case for either eight or ten, but nine? Zimbabwe just beat Bangladesh in a Test 'series'; they were also very competitive at home against Pakistan and New Zealand. Their tour of New Zealand was a nightmare but Bangladesh have certainly had their fair share of those. Saying eight would be fair enough (in fact I'd say eight), but I don't see why Bangladesh should count if Zimbabwe don't.

FFS Prince, while I was making that post I just looked up the ICC test rankings, saw there were 9 teams and said 9.

Don't be a pedantic prick when I'm ranting.

 

[Xuhaib]

Test cricket is already **** when it comes to proper competitiveness. There are around 196 countries in the world, and yet test cricket only has 9 proper teams playing the game. Within that, there are only ever 4-5 teams that are any good at one time, one team right has been pretty crap for a decade, and it is a combination of nations anyway, and another team has never really won a test match in its history. Add to that another team can't even play its players...

...and you want to question whether we should kick out one of the better teams (right now) in test cricket?

No ****ing way.

which makes no different to any sports league how many good teams you have at one time in EPl, La ligua or Seria A.

 

[Cabinet96]

which makes no different to any sports league how many good teams you have at one time in EPl, La ligua or Seria A.

But you're never certain that a certain team will beat another in the EPL and you regularly get a team who's 15th beating a team who's 3rd. In Tests you don't get that to the same extent as confirmed by the recent whitewashes.

That's is probably partly to do with the length of Test cricket.