Pakistan's Test Eligibility

[slowfinger]

Well Pakistan's Football ranking is 181st, so if you want to take away the only thing we excell at because of something that is out of our power then , dayum.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

We do excel at squash I think. Or have we gotten crap at that as well?

 

[Turbinator]

Each test Pakistan plays should be approved by the BCCI first.

 

[Furball]

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.

No you don't.

The Premiership has split into 3 distinct groups: the top 5/6 (Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool), the bottom 4/5 (who are absolutely woeful) and the rest of the league is generally full of meh teams who might put together a run and finish 7th if they're lucky.

 

[Jono]

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

Haha if you have read any of my posts in the sports forum you'll see I'm as critical about the competitiveness of the football leagues as anyone.

But I'm not a hypocrite. The competitiveness of test cricket is an issue. Especially since tours occur every 3-4 years to countries so it stands out even more when the same touring teams suck.

You can't only have 8 proper teams, and have half of them sucking and being uncompetitive often enough.

 

[Cabinet96]

No you don't.

The Premiership has split into 3 distinct groups: the top 5/6 (Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool), the bottom 4/5 (who are absolutely woeful) and the rest of the league is generally full of meh teams who might put together a run and finish 7th if they're lucky.

It may not be a regular occurrence, but the divide between the top teams and mid table teams isn't as big as the best test teams and the poorer test teams imo. For instance Australia didn't lose to New Zealand in a test for 26 years and England won their first 20 games against Bangladesh.

 

[Furball]

It may not be a regular occurrence, but the divide between the top teams and mid table teams isn't as big as the best test teams and the poorer test teams imo. For instance Australia didn't lose to New Zealand in a test for 26 years and England won their first 20 games against Bangladesh.

You get those sort of mismatches in football as well. Tottenham have an appalling Premier League record against Arsenal and Chelsea - IIRC they went for over 10 years without beating either side. And they play twice a season, every season. Whereas the "Australia didn't lose to New Zealand in a Test for 26 years" stat looks far worse than it actually is. It's almost 11 years since Australia won a Test series in England - which looks poor, but that time frame only encompasses 2 series played. In 7 of those 11 years Australia weren't playing Test series in England, but "no wins for 11 years" sounds a lot worse than "haven't won their last 3 series in England."

 

[Jono]

Haven't won their last 2 series in England you mean.

That's not comparable to NZ not beating Australia in a test (note not series, note not in a specific country) for so long.

 

[marc71178]

You get those sort of mismatches in football as well. Tottenham have an appalling Premier League record against Arsenal and Chelsea - IIRC they went for over 10 years without beating either side. And they play twice a season, every season. Whereas the "Australia didn't lose to New Zealand in a Test for 26 years" stat looks far worse than it actually is. It's almost 11 years since Australia won a Test series in England - which looks poor, but that time frame only encompasses 2 series played. In 7 of those 11 years Australia weren't playing Test series in England, but "no wins for 11 years" sounds a lot worse than "haven't won their last 3 series in England."

To be honest, no series wins in 11 years sounds pretty damn good from where I'm sitting!

 

[Furball]

Haha if you have read any of my posts in the sports forum you'll see I'm as critical about the competitiveness of the football leagues as anyone.

But I'm not a hypocrite. The competitiveness of test cricket is an issue. Especially since tours occur every 3-4 years to countries so it stands out even more when the same touring teams suck.

You can't only have 8 proper teams, and have half of them sucking and being uncompetitive often enough.

I'm not so sure I agree with you - the number 1 team who had been flogging opposition left right and centre for 2 years just got utterly thumped by Pakistan, and the previous incumbents in the number 1 spot (who, during that time went 3 years without losing a series and won 2 series outside their comfort zone and drew another one) have been flogged by teams ranked below them. And you're calling this uncompetitive?

There's definitely an issue with at least 2 teams being substandard, but I think the top 8 is pretty competitive at the moment. Part of the problem in Test cricket is a lot of the teams are strong at home, but ok/unproven/weak away from home (and bizarrely, the team which has been unbeaten in 6 years away from home is probably the weakest of the top sides at home) - yet this is caused, in part, by one of the things that makes cricket such a unique game. Few other sports are as condition-reliant as cricket - the type of cricket you'll play growing up in Mumbai is different to that in Melbourne, which differs from Manchester. Going back to England, at times in this Test series you'd be forgiven for thinking that England's batters had never encountered spin bowling in their lives, yet all of the Asian sides have toured England in the last 2 years and with the exceptions of Ajmal and Shakib (who delivered figures that were nothing more than ok) all the spinners on tour got absolutely belted. Throughout history, how many teams have consistently managed to win series away from home?

 

[Furball]

Haven't won their last 2 series in England you mean.

That's not comparable to NZ not beating Australia in a test (note not series, note not in a specific country) for so long.

Ashes 2005, Ashes 2009, MCC Spirit of Cricket series vs Pakistan.

I make that 3.

And yeah, I agree with you, but the point was that there would have been plenty of years in which New Zealand wouldn't have played Australia. So "no wins in 26 years" sounds worse than it actually is - it's not like New Zealand v Australia Tests are an annual event.

 

[BeeGee]

FFS, if you guys are going to argue over the NZ v Aus Test match record at least get your ****ing facts straight. The last time NZ beat Aus in a Test match, prior to Hobart, was 12th Mar 1993:

3rd Test: New Zealand v Australia at Auckland, Mar 12-16, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Do the math. 18 years, 11 months.

The 26 years figure is to the last time NZ beat Aus in Australia.

 

[Jono]

Wow, the roll eyes for that, really?

 

[BeeGee]

Wow, the roll eyes for that, really?

You're just lucky I didn't use , , or

Incorrect facts make baby Jesus cry.

 

[Jono]

Well I didn't use the fact anyway (you'll see I only said "so long" because I recall the confusion of the said date during the series) but the roll eyes is worse than any of those smilies tbh. Its pure evil.

 

[Xuhaib]

I agree with Furball when he says the length of the test match make it difficult to provide upsets but if you consider odi's a format which is less conditions reliant then tests thus making it closer to and football codes. For the past 10-15 years any top 8 side is capable of beating each other on their day yes there are always top2-3 which are the favored teams but any of the top 8 has a shot. Windies and NZ winning the ICC champions trophy is a testament to that.

 

[Jono]

Talking tests here though, since its Pakistan's test eligibility which is being discussed.