Time to stop insulting Zim, Bang & the associates. There have always been "minnows"

[C_C]

Who gives a flying f*ck how many years it was? SJS has already shown quite clearly that the number of matches is already more than New Zealand et al.
And it's number of matches, not years, that matter - because careers don't go in years, they go in matches.

Perhaps...but progress should have a time component to it...not just matches.
If a team goes from zero to world champs in 4 years, its an AWESOME accomplishment even if they play 365 matches a year....as opposed to a team that went from zero to champs in 30 years but played half as much.
Progress depends on how fast you develop your infrastructure, how quickly you uncover better players and how quickly players learn the harsher lessons of cricket.

But regardless, BD took LESS # of matches ( 34) to record their first vicotry than NZ(44).

 

[a massive zebra]

But regardless, BD took LESS # of matches ( 34) to record their first vicotry than NZ(44).

NZ did not have the opportunity to play a side as weak as the current Zimbabwe team - if they did have that opportunity they would surely have won just like Bangla.

 

[C_C]

NZ did not have the opportunity to play a team as weak as the current Zimbabwe team - if they did they had that opportunity they would surely have won just like Bangla.

A valid point.
I just find it unfair to slate bangladesh for their incompetence when its a fact that NZ,WI,RSA and IND started off being very much inferior in quality to the big boys.
I mean hell, everyone was a minnow once.

 

[Langeveldt]

My question remains, why is it

1) Promotion

followed by

2) Oh these guys have talent, now how are we going to develop their domestic structures so they will be able to compete with most test playing nations?

Why not the other way around? Ah! Money!

 

[C_C]

My question remains, why is it

1) Promotion

followed by

2) Oh these guys have talent, now how are we going to develop their domestic structures so they will be able to compete with most test playing nations?

Why not the other way around? Ah! Money!

Bingo!
it has always been money or other non-cricketing reasons. Dont think that it wast in any point in human history.

 

[Langeveldt]

I'd personally like to see Namibia get some elevation and exposure, but I know that would be further to the detriment of the test and ODI game, and Im downright happy they are nowhere near the big time as a result...

Time for a Holland-Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Namibia-Kenya-Nepal(?) mini league.. Lots of people like me have a soft spot for a smaller nation, and I reckon it would develop quite a dedicated following

 

[C_C]

I'd personally like to see Namibia get some elevation and exposure, but I know that would be further to the detriment of the test and ODI game, and Im downright happy they are nowhere near the big time as a result...

Time for a Holland-Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Namibia-Kenya-Nepal(?) mini league.. Lots of people like me have a soft spot for a smaller nation, and I reckon it would develop quite a dedicated following

I agree.
I think it would do a helluva lot more good if ICC organised a 5-year schedule period for the satellite nations...i dunno..give it some sorta FC status or something....
But the biggest problem is, again money.
These little nations do not have enough money devoted to cricket for them to be able to sustain tours and hosting other nations consistently.

 

[Deja moo]

I'd personally like to see Namibia get some elevation and exposure, but I know that would be further to the detriment of the test and ODI game, and Im downright happy they are nowhere near the big time as a result...

Time for a Holland-Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Namibia-Kenya-Nepal(?) mini league.. Lots of people like me have a soft spot for a smaller nation, and I reckon it would develop quite a dedicated following

You can knock Nepal off that list now. Theyre back to the period when a king wanted to be the master of his domain

 

[Richard]

I'd personally like to see Namibia get some elevation and exposure, but I know that would be further to the detriment of the test and ODI game, and Im downright happy they are nowhere near the big time as a result...

Time for a Holland-Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Namibia-Kenya-Nepal(?) mini league.. Lots of people like me have a soft spot for a smaller nation, and I reckon it would develop quite a dedicated following

The irony of the Zimbabwe situation is they've actually unearthed a bowler who has so far proven to be one of the best going around as far as ODIs are concerned.
Be a shame for Utseya's sake if he had to play low-status cricket all the time and no ODIs.
Of course, his single case doesn't change for one minute the fact that Zimbabwe shouldn't be playing ODIs.

 

[Richard]

I agree.
I think it would do a helluva lot more good if ICC organised a 5-year schedule period for the satellite nations...i dunno..give it some sorta FC status or something....
But the biggest problem is, again money.
These little nations do not have enough money devoted to cricket for them to be able to sustain tours and hosting other nations consistently.

Which is all the more reason for ICC to look at it's own millions (Christ, it even managed to secure a TV deal for the WCs of 2003 and 2007 at the very top of the TV rights market) and decide to use it constructively.

 

[Richard]

A valid point.
I just find it unfair to slate bangladesh for their incompetence when its a fact that NZ,WI,RSA and IND started off being very much inferior in quality to the big boys.
I mean hell, everyone was a minnow once.

Well... England and Australia weren't. Even RSA were for 10 yrs max - they were unquestionably worthy of playing Tests from the time they got their wristspin quartet.
The point, again, is that the game has changed - there is now no need for minnows, it's perfectly possible for them to come into the Test-game fully prepared and up-to-standard - as Zimbabwe's case proves. They were promoted when they deserved to be promoted, and it didn't take any time, really, for them to start competing.
Shame they can't be relegated in an inverse situation.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps...but progress should have a time component to it...not just matches.
If a team goes from zero to world champs in 4 years, its an AWESOME accomplishment even if they play 365 matches a year....as opposed to a team that went from zero to champs in 30 years but played half as much.
Progress depends on how fast you develop your infrastructure, how quickly you uncover better players and how quickly players learn the harsher lessons of cricket.

I'm personally more concerned about players and teams getting stuff that the records show as "Test-cricket" which is really nothing of the sort.
It's so much preferable if teams who aren't good enough aren't playing.
Has a team that's been a "zero" ever been champs, incidentally? Since the First World War, Australia were basically the best side in The World until the 1950s, when West Indies took over the mantle and have been just about there ever since, except when Australia have again briefly dominated. And England - even more rarely.
No-one else (you could count South Africa in 1969, or India in 1971 - but it'd be far-fetched IMO) has ever been unquestionably the best side in The World, so it's not being champs that matters - it's being competetive.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think a league for the smaller countries is the only way to go, it done in most other sports where the top teams play aganist each other and then the second string countries play by themselves, but regulary. The smaller cricketing countires don't play reguraly and that is why none of them develop the as fast as they could.

ATM if BD or Zimbabwe get dropped from test status they will not play any games like Kenya and others. So until there are more tornments for the smaller countries i can't see BD or Zimbabwe getting dropped from test status.

Also why don't the top 8 sides send 'A' Teams on tours of Scotland and Ireland when they go on tours of England, or tours of Namibia and Kenya when they go on tours of South Africa. The top test playing nations also have allot to answer for when it comes to the lack of development smaller nations. they pretty much forget about all these sides when the WC or CT aren't on and when they are on all they do is complain about the lack of standard of these teams. u can't improve unless u play quality sides regulary.

 

[Richard]

Yet for all the substandard nations the domestic sides of the Test-teams are quality sides.
So that's the standard of cricket they should be playing... much more regularly.
Not damaging the integrity of ODI and Test-cricket.

 

[Langeveldt]

Namibia used to play in the Standard Bank trophy.. That kind of stuff is top notch exposure for these teams, I think they only managed to beat Gauteng though which highlights the progress they have to make..

I think the major factor as always with this participation is money.. Namibia were relying on South African based sponsorship anyway..

 

[Richard]

Namibia used to play in the Standard Bank trophy.. That kind of stuff is top notch exposure for these teams, I think they only managed to beat Gauteng though which highlights the progress they have to make..

That's precisely the point.
If they don't keep getting the chances, they'll not make any progress (nor, for that matter, if they don't get some cash given them).
It's really, really sad that Associate Nations have been given these tiny little windows of opportunity - it was so, so utterly predictable that Scotland would be dropped from The National League before it was announced that they were being - but they'll never, ever make any progress this way.
Just when Scottish cricket looks to be moving forward (full-time coaches are something they could only dream of even 2 or 3 years ago) they get this sucker-punch.
It really sickens me.

 

[Langeveldt]

Tbh though you can't blame the national leagues who don't want to accomodate them.. Nobody wants a side who will only win 1 game a season tops..

I guess some guys need to get involved with their setups and start promoting growth from within their countries, because they won't get that much help from outside..

 

[Richard]

Tbh though you can't blame the national leagues who don't want to accomodate them.. Nobody wants a side who will only win 1 game a season tops..

And equally no-one should want teams who win 2 ODIs out of God-knows-how-many against the ODI-class sides, or lose 32 out of 34 Test-matches!
If Bangladesh really were derided as much as they should be, ICC would simply have to strip them of Test-status no matter what they wanted from a monetary POV.
It simply seems to me that people are too quick to accept mediocrity - but in the domestic leagues it's a bit more understandible because the games number so, so few in comparison.

 

[BoyBrumby]

ICC's new solution to the Zimbabwe/Bangladesh "issue":

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/FEB/180005_WCI_10FEB2005.html

It seems a bit of a fudge, but it is at least a step in the right direction (it at least acknowledges something needs to be done) &, on the plus side, could give a fillip to Dutch & Kenyan cricket too.

 

[Richard]

It's encouraging that they're simply recognising it as a problem.