Test Cricket Teams Needed - Apply Within

[GuyFromLancs]

The recent events seem to be compounding an on-going issue - the dearth of test-worthy nations in the sacred game.

I count 5 at the moment.

England
Australia
South Africa
India
Sri Lanka

....consider that Aus are weaker than they have been in the past 18 years. India are about to lose a generation of batting talent, Sri Lanka's greatest ever player has recently retired and South Africa and England aren't all they are cracked up to be, it looks a bit grim.

As for the rest, WI and New Zeland aren't test standard nations at the moment in my view. The former look pathetically weak compared to 10+ years ago, the latter are a good, one might say specialist, one-day outfit but a cobbled together nonsense at test level.

For this reason, the impending cricket crisis in Pakistan cannot be afforded by the game.

 

[Spark]

Hmm... whether the individual teams are test standard is less important then whether we're seeing as much/less/more good, hard, closely-fought cricket and we still are so I wouldn't get too worried yet.

 

[Athlai]

Dire.

 

[Jamee999]

New Zealand are a test-standard side, they're not a particularly good one, but they are one - they have some good players, they have a FC programme with some depth, they have Test-standard grounds etc.

This whole test-standard thing is overplayed - there are going to be some Test countries which are really good, and some which are pretty average, it depends on the population of the countries, and a lot of variance wrt players developing etc, and I think that the West Indies could be again very soon, and Bangladesh not too long after that.

Of course, the whole Pakistan thing is a different situation.

 

[Langeveldt]

No reason to keep NZ out of there, just because they aren't particularly great, doesn't make them worthy of being in the test match game

 

[Faisal1985]

non sense

 

[Shri]

Lay low for a few days Faisal, this thing will blow over and you will start posting normally again.

 

[Faisal1985]

You are right...will do.

 

[sledger]

Not sure what point the OP is actually trying to make RE: Pakistan

 

[Daemon]

I would include NZ, Bang and the WI just because I take perverse pleasure in watching underdogs have success

 

[stumpski]

AWTA ... even against England, sometimes.

 

[Matt79]

Of course if we followed this logic, England would have been stripped of test status sometime around 95

 

[weldone]

Dire.

non sense

absolutely...

 

[andyc]

Of course if we followed this logic, England would have been stripped of test status sometime around 95

And the world would've been better for it.

 

[Jono]

There was something endearing about mid-90s England though.

 

[Spudsy2061]

Hmm... whether the individual teams are test standard is less important then whether we're seeing as much/less/more good, hard, closely-fought cricket and we still are so I wouldn't get too worried yet.

/Thread and /Argument

 

[Kyle]

Hmm... whether the individual teams are test standard is less important then whether we're seeing as much/less/more good, hard, closely-fought cricket and we still are so I wouldn't get too worried yet.

This.

I would rather that there were only 3 teams, that played frequent, intense, hard fought and entertaining cricket. Dull, one sided cricket does nothing for the game. I love watching SA v Eng, but god only knows when that'll next happen in England. Eng v WI, Eng v Bangladesh, Eng v Pakistan all make it very hard to defend cricket to those who tell me "cricket is boring, watch football".

 

[Spudsy2061]

Eng v WI, Eng v Bangladesh, Eng v Pakistan all make it very hard to defend cricket to those who tell me "cricket is boring, watch football".

Point:

#1. The West Indies dominated cricket for a long time right before the turn of the century, so saying they aren't a good side to watch is fallacy.

#2. Bangladesh are terrible yes but every team promoted to Test status has to start there and in due time they will compete.

#3. The 3rd Test was riveting cricket but as long as the PCB is filled with corruption and allows its team to be it's always going to be a shady watch.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, close Tests between evenly-matched teams who aren't good enough to knock each other off aren't that interesting either. The overall standard needs to be high too. That's why people flocked to see the WI and OZ teams of the past; often the games weren't close but it was the highest standard of cricket imaginable sometimes so still worth a watch. That's what made India 2001 and England 2005 so awesome; you had two top-shelf teams and the series' were amazingly close.

As far as whether Tests are on the way out, I still say nah and that as long as Tests are seen as the highest form of the game, should be safe. Just a transitional period for mine. It's pretty much unpredictable what innovation/emergent team/talent will come along to attract people to the game and raise the standard again. Personally, if I was a quick bowler playing Tests, I'd be looking forward to the next few years and if a batter, be working on my backfoot game.

 

[Kyle]

Point:

#1. The West Indies dominated cricket for a long time right before the turn of the century, so saying they aren't a good side to watch is fallacy.

#2. Bangladesh are terrible yes but every team promoted to Test status has to start there and in due time they will compete.

#3. The 3rd Test was riveting cricket but as long as the PCB is filled with corruption and allows its team to be it's always going to be a shady watch.

#1. People coming into cricket don't know about how good they used to be. To be honest, they don't care. You and I can appreciate that, but it's still not good cricket.

#2. Fully agree, but I've posted before about how I support a league system for test cricket. If I was a Bangladesh fan, I'd soon get bored with never winning a match.

#3. 1 test in the series was even close! And by the third test, Pakistan couldn't even win the series anymore.