Associates to get a shot at Test cricket

[SpitfiresKent]

This is superb news for the Associates...
The winner of the next ICC Intercontinental Cup will get a go at Test cricket! A very good decision by ICC. I hope they give a thought to demoting a team like Zimbabwe (sorry folks, I loved Zimbabwe back in the day but these days they are just not test level)

That isn't fair. Zimbabwe get barely any Test cricket to play. They have some really good cricketers, give them a good run of home and away tours and they'll improve. They just need to be given a chance by other nations.

Zimbabwe; who are, lets be honest; not a lot better than the teams that play in the intercontinental cup; and when compared to Afghanistan and Ireland, clearly worse.

You really believe that?

 

[IceAgeComing]

That isn't fair. Ireland get no Test cricket to play. They have some really good cricketers, give them a good run of home and away tours and they'll improve. They just need to be given a chance by other nations.

fify

You really believe that?

Aye. Zimbabwe definitely are better than the lower IC teams; but the top two (Afghanistan and Ireland) I think would closely challenge Zimbabwe in a three game test series.

To be honest; Zimbabwe and the associates have very similar problems; in that they don't play enough multi-day cricket. The causes are different (the former is the end of the fallout from the boycotts of the last decade; the latter is simply the ICC denying full membership to the associates to keep the big three holding most of the power); and the sensible solution to the problem - get rid of the concept of "status" all together and let all nations with appropriate facilities play test matches) would help Zimbabwe as well! I'm not one of the idiots talking about "relegation" which isn't a solution but punishes a country for everyone refusing to tour them (rightfully imo, but that's a political thing)!

 

[SpitfiresKent]

Zimbabwe definitely are better than the lower IC teams; but the top two (Afghanistan and Ireland) I think would closely challenge Zimbabwe in a three game test series.

Yeah they would definitely pose a challenge but I think Zimbabwe would always come out on top.

the sensible solution to the problem - get rid of the concept of "status" all together and let all nations with appropriate facilities play test matches) would help Zimbabwe as well!

Yeah I agree, don't get me wrong i'd love to see Ireland and Afghanistan play Test cricket but I just don't agree on them being 'better' than Zimbabwe.

 

[War]

Yeah I agree, don't get me wrong i'd love to see Ireland and Afghanistan play Test cricket but I just don't agree on them being 'better' than Zimbabwe.

Not sure about Afghanistan, but Ireland certainly look stronger than ZIM these days, even with Ireland losing Rankin to ENG recently.

Only Brendan Taylor looks of real quality in ZIM teams. Whilze Mazakaddza, Chingumbura & Cremer look ok sometimes.

ZIM problem is they have too many defected players due to the Mugabe era problems. ZIM too , if you add all their defected player to their current set-up they look would have looked quite solid

Sean Ervine has been at Hampshire for years & his brother recently started playing club cricket in ENG, Anthon Ireland & Kyle Jarvis retired to county cricket, Colin de Grandhomme over in NZ & of course ENG have Gary Ballance. While Taibu retired from cricket for religious purposes & a bit of frustration with the ZIM problems.

So something like: Mowoyo/Sibanda, Masakadaza, Taylor, Ballance, S Ervine, De Grandhomme, Chingumbura, Taibu, Jarvis, Ireland, Cremer/Utseya.

 

[NoLeName]

The thing is, both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have some great players, but not really enough to build a competitive test team. I don't think they deserve to be playing test cricket anymore than the top associates do, so what's the solution? You could take away those two nations, but do players like Shakib Al Hasan, one of the world's best all-rounders, really deserve not playing test cricket? You could add the top associates, but then you have multiple nations who struggle.

Perhaps it is better to survey more left-field suggestions. All these nations have a couple of players who are good enough to play test cricket, but not enough to fill a competitive team. I heard a suggestion that one solution could be to initiate a 'Rest of the World' team whereby all the associates plus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe merge to form the ninth test playing team. This brings up a lack of pride for one's nation, and who would want to support a 'rest of the world' team? So that's a pretty useless suggestion. Another, more practical solution would be a two-tiered system. The top tier could be the top 8 teams, and the second tier could include Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands plus the three next best associate teams. Then every four years the worst tier 1 team plays the best tier 2 team in a three-match series, where the winner gets to compete in tier 1. A big issue would be the lack of interest and therefore money in the second tier, but this could be an interesting proposition were the logistics to be effectively planned. It would take a lot of time and money to implement and I doubt the ICC have the balls to create something like that.

 

[grkrama]

Ian Chappell: Test cricket needs fewer teams, not more | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

chappel's views on this if he has his way he will relegate windies too, but what he says is right when things aren't improving for 3 countries in the group esp zim , ban, and WI in tests its more important to bring them up to scratch than adding another team to the list, honestly nobody is going to miss watching zim or ban for 5 days except hardcore fans,this will change only if these countries could play competitive cricket, fans and sport will grow, funds will flow in and countries would want to tour them.
It cant happen just by ICC providing funds, these boards have to use it properly and invest in player n Team development, they have to realize its not just about producing a few talented individuals but molding them to professional team(essential stuff like fielding which can be easily coached and brought to level with top teams are lacking in teams like ban it is inexcusable after years of test status and shows mismanagement) and , and another thing is more FC cricket tours with at-least second string teams will also help them grow.

If Icc is really concerned about spreading cricket they should take care of the dwindling three first and for associates offer them something solid that will help them and the game grow in their country than offering some sort of win the contest and dine with celebrity X.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Another, more practical solution would be a two-tiered system. The top tier could be the top 8 teams, and the second tier could include Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands plus the three next best associate teams. Then every four years the worst tier 1 team plays the best tier 2 team in a three-match series, where the winner gets to compete in tier 1. A big issue would be the lack of interest and therefore money in the second tier, but this could be an interesting proposition were the logistics to be effectively planned. It would take a lot of time and money to implement and I doubt the ICC have the balls to create something like that.

Tier systems are always supported until you end up back in 1999, with England being ranked 9th (and last) in Test Matches and with the real threat of being "relegated"; which would kill the Ashes and probably have ended cricket as a major sport in England.

Abolish "status" as a concept. The only thing that you'd need to do. Have some money there to protect test cricket as a concept and to ensure that it survives and flourishes outside of the big 3/4; but literally that would open up the sport hugely. Having that: proper ICC grassroots campaigns (not another useless franchise league of old men and nobodies like the US Cricket Association has tried in the past) in the USA and China and getting cricket in the olympics and ensuring that the pitches built in host cities are both international quality and permanent would do a huge amount for the growth of cricket in the world, and it confuses me why the ICC don't. Actually, it doesn't - it costs money, and would take cash away from the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia, and that will never do!