New Zealand in South Africa - Dec - Jan 2012/13

[StinkyBoHoon]

erm, so you do think bangladesh have a perfectly acceptable test record and rate of improvement then?

everything you've written seems to suggest otherwise, unless the entire contents of your last few posts was meant to be sarcastic.

 

[War]

I don't see why that is. I hate to bring Football in to the discussion, but that's the only sport of any prominence that goes about it with tiers(that I know of). Anyway, are all teams in a said top league "complete teams"? No, they're not, you've got your fair share of good, average and bad teams jumbled up together.

Football has we know have tiers (divisions) domestically, not internationally. And even international football has no tiers really. In cricket with just 8 teams that play test well - it wont work.

Bangladesh have had Test status for 12 years, any improvement? Uhm, don't think so...

Well yea thats my point in response to the having tiers and giving associates like ireland test status. As Bangladesh have shown it takes a long time to be good at tests.

Bangladesh should have never got test status. But what i'd give them is that they have a cricket mad country, which is key for an emerging nations (something we cant say all the other associates currently have). Historically after 12 years technically they are on par with how most teams were - so we have to hope now that soon, they will start stepping up.

Bangladesh/Zimbabwe(along with the associates) shouldn't be playing Test cricket, agreed, but they should be playing Tier 2 Cricket with teams of their level.

Do like your idea on A tours between the top nations and associates though, exposure always helps.

Now that's something we can all agree on.

Well tier 2 cricket can be the a tours 3 & 4-day games which i suggested.

And yes the icc support to weak test nations has been spoken about for years. But with the icc such a lame duck organisation, such obvious things to aid in bridging the gap with the top 8 nations won't be done.

 

[Epic]

erm, so you do think bangladesh have a perfectly acceptable test record and rate of improvement then?

everything you've written seems to suggest otherwise, unless the entire contents of your last few posts was meant to be sarcastic.

You know, maybe I am wrong, sure Bangladesh don't have the most stellar of Test records, but should we really be expecting more from a side that was rushed into the mix far too early? IIRC, Bangladesh didn't even have a FC tournament or system before they got their Test status, seen it some where, can't remember though...

----------

Football has we know have tiers (divisions) domestically, not internationally. And even international football has no tiers really. In cricket with just 8 teams that play test well - it wont work.

Yeah, yeah, it was just an example, no way was I comparing the two...

Well yea thats my point in response to the having tiers and giving associates like ireland test status. As Bangladesh have shown it takes a long time to be good at tests.

Bangladesh should have never got test status. But what i'd give them is that they have a cricket mad country, which is key for an emerging nations (something we cant say all the other associates currently have). Historically after 12 years technically they are on par with how most teams were - so we have to hope now that soon, they will start stepping up.

How would you go about giving a side Test status then? The odd win at an International tournament? Don't know about that.

Well tier 2 cricket can be the a tours 3 & 4-day games which i suggested.

And yes the icc support to weak test nations has been spoken about for years. But with the icc such a lame duck organisation, such obvious things to aid in bridging the gap with the top 8 nations won't be done.

I suppose so, but I still think a tier with mainly Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and the associates would be far more competitive because let's face it, the Top 8 A sides would whoop Kenya home and away...

 

[Owzat]

45 all out is damning evidence the gulf between some sides is too great. Sorry War but your assertions are way off the mark, certainly about the "8 teams that play tests well". West Indies and New Zealand are ok and can sometimes hold their own, but most of the time they are just clearly better than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but way behind even the most inconsistent of sides in the rest.

Just because football doesn't have tiers or divisions at international level is irrelevant, football is MASSIVE compared to cricket or hasn't anyone told you.............? The World Cup finals has 32 teams in it, New Zealand and West Indies would be about 32-64 more teams outside of that if you wanted to draw comparisons. They'd be like Finland or Iceland, not a bad side but never qualifying.

And because you don't think it would work, although arguing there is no precedent and other such angles barely count as arguments, what do you suggest will?!?!?!?! Continue to see one sided thrashings for the sake of it? Introduce a new Test side every 12 years and HOPE they progress better than Bangladesh!?!?!?

West Indies (last 3 series)

vs Australia : P9 W0 D3 L6
vs England : P10 W1 D5 L4
vs India : P10 W0 D6 L4
vs Pakistan : P7 W2 D1 L4
vs South Africa : P10 W1 D3 L6
vs Sri Lanka : P7 W1 D3 L3

P53 W5 D21 L27 = Won 9.43% Lost 50.94%

New Zealand (last 3 series)

vs Australia : P6 W1 D0 L5
vs England : P9 W1 D1 L7
vs India : P8 W0 D4 L4
vs Pakistan : P7 W1 D2 L4
vs South Africa : P7 W0 D2 L5
vs Sri Lanka : P6 W2 D0 L4

P43 W5 D9 L29 = Won 11.63% Lost 67.44%

Both sides lose over half their Tests against the top six sides, even inconsistent sides like Pakistan and Sri Lanka beat New Zealand and West Indies. Just five wins in over 40 Tests each hardly represents quality, and one freak series win between them and that over England when ironically they were skittled very very cheaply like the kiwis have been.

So there is little evidence the Test scene is 8 "strong"

That between 18 series the opposition have not offered more than 2-3 Tests to New Zealand shows they see them as not much of a threat. West Indies only gained 10 more because of tradition, something War seems stuck in. Neither side may ever become a force, again in the case of West Indies, in fact if you wish to compare cricket to football then the "Test World Championship" of Cricket is like if World Cup qualifiers were 10 team groups. There will be 2-4 strong sides, probably 2-3 reasonable sides who could win the odd game at the finals but 3-4 sides who might beat sides occaisionally but mostly only each other.

Cricket will be stuck in the 20th century forever at this rate, slowly introducing Test sides into an old system. If cricket still only had six sides like in the 70s we would consider it antiquated, sure South Africa could return to the fold and there'd be Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh waiting in the wings, but the rest of the world would still be looking down on cricket as a minor sport. The cricket World Cup looks down on minnows as if they shouldn't be spoiling the event, eventually the ICC backed down and opened up the competition. In some ways 1992 was a good format, a bit like the Test set up in a round robin table format involving only Test sides, but the minnows need to be integrated.

How many years do you think it will be before Ireland, Scotland or Holland are given Test status? I reckon it may not ever happen because the ICC are stumped. 9/10 teams plus the introduction of T20 has maxed out the schedule, to add an 11th team would be ridiculous in the current format, 12, 13 etc would be even more ridiculous. BUT they don't want to change the format so it is a catch 22 situation.

Other sports adapt, cricket is like rugby with an elitist international set up. There is the six nations that only opened up from five to allow in Italy, and then you have the "southern hemisphere" sides as I believe South Africa, New Zealand and Australia are often referred to, then Argentina trying to break down the door of elitism for so long and proving a valued addition. The World Cup provides exposure for smaller nations, but while the six nations exists as the only European competition of note it will be stuck alongside cricket in the 20th century.

That Ireland and other sides are knocking on the door and the door is being left closed and their knocking ignored is ridiculous. The ICC needs to address the two problems, three divisions within the Test scene and sides waiting to join it. To expand Test cricket it has to change. Of course a lot of it is about money and so the sport itself will suffer for the sake of $$$$$$

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I don't think that the difference between cricket and football though is that football is massive. the difference is that people will happily watch a football match between two lower sides, or even tune into a massive mismatch. the crowds for brazil v ireland would be huge in ireland and followed with interest by most of brazil. australia would be able to tour ireland without many, even devoted, cricket fans noticing.

I do agree though that surely the way to make weaker sides improve is to help them rather than just constantly throwing them to the wolves. this idea that the only way to get good at test cricket is by playing lots of it is a bit mindless and simplistic.

one, slightly bizarre and probably unfeasible, thought I had was appointing the more established nations as a mentor to each of the smaller nations. south africa could be paired with zimbabwe, england with ireland, pakistan with bangladesh. I don't really know if this would work, or the bigger teams would be prepared to do it, but essentially it would involve smaller nations cricket boards becoming somewhat merged with their neighbours, while their neighbour agrees to do things like allow greater access to their centres of excellence, coaching and FC competitions (by removing that nations as an overseas class player maybe) and tagging them onto tours and letting them play as the warm up teams. maybe even allowing the odd player not in contention for their own nation to more easily transfer to play for them. right now england are more likely to poach a talented irish player than help develop one, how on earth are they supposed to move forward with a situation like that?

like I said though, even if they were handsomely paid it might expect too great a level of alturism.

 

[spooony]

So what did I miss except for New Zealand doing a fine effort at chasing Australia's 47 all out and fell 2 runs short.

Bangladesh is crap. Full stop

 

[CG123]

Other sports adapt, cricket is like rugby with an elitist international set up. There is the six nations that only opened up from five to allow in Italy, and then you have the "southern hemisphere" sides as I believe South Africa, New Zealand and Australia are often referred to, then Argentina trying to break down the door of elitism for so long and proving a valued addition. The World Cup provides exposure for smaller nations, but while the six nations exists as the only European competition of note it will be stuck alongside cricket in the 20th century.

I actually like the way international rugby works. It was Argentina's own downfall that they didn't get introduced into the Rugby Championship earlier, because of their players Northern hemisphere domestic commitments. There best player still didn't come down for the Rugby Championship last year. The only other Southern hemisphere teams are the Pacific teams, and there is always talk of getting them into Super Rugby etc. Like Argentina most of their players play in the Northern hemisphere though, and the amount of travel is already extremely excessive. Japan and Canada/USA are pretty much the only other non-European teams, and I know there was a time where there was a tournament involving Japan, Canada/USA, and the Pacific teams, although I think that got modified. Another thing you have to realise is that a lot of the WC revenue gets poured into the minnows, and the current WC model is no where near ideal for the likes of the All Blacks, and there was even talk of them boycotting the 2015 WC a while ago, not that that was ever really going to happen.

I can't really comment on the Northern hemisphere because I don't follow it as the standard of it is lower than what we get down here, you are however probably right in that it is quite elitist (more than the Southern hemisphere), but I think your perception of the Southern hemisphere might be off a bit. Also Rugby down here is very strong in the poorer communities, while traditionally in England it's been a rich mans game. Cricket is however different, and from what I've heard within Auckland at least it is elitist and you've got to be playing for the right teams etc. to progress in it. That is summed up by the lack of Maori/Pacific that play the game.

 

[spooony]

I actually like the way international rugby works. It was Argentina's own downfall that they didn't get introduced into the Rugby Championship earlier, because of their players Northern hemisphere domestic commitments. There best player still didn't come down for the Rugby Championship last year. The only other Southern hemisphere teams are the Pacific teams, and there is always talk of getting them into Super Rugby etc. Like Argentina most of their players play in the Northern hemisphere though, and the amount of travel is already extremely excessive. Japan and Canada/USA are pretty much the only other non-European teams, and I know there was a time where there was a tournament involving Japan, Canada/USA, and the Pacific teams, although I think that got modified. Another thing you have to realise is that a lot of the WC revenue gets poured into the minnows, and the current WC model is no where near ideal for the likes of the All Blacks, and there was even talk of them boycotting the 2015 WC a while ago, not that that was ever really going to happen. I can't really comment on the Northern hemisphere because I don't follow it as the standard of it is lower than what we get down here, you are however probably right in that it is quite elitist (more than the Southern hemisphere), but I think your perception of the Southern hemisphere might be off a bit. Also Rugby down here is very strong in the poorer communities, while traditionally in England it's been a rich mans game. Cricket is however different, and from what I've heard within Auckland at least it is elitist and you've got to be playing for the right teams etc. to progress in it. That is summed up by the lack of Maori/Pacific that play the game.

Argentina's best players did play in the TRC. They didn't play in June Internationals but TRC the French had to release them.Moari and Pacifics people is a different culture completely. Also Pacific Islanders play for NZ rugby because of Role models like Michael Jones, Umaga etc etc and try emulating them. And cricket do not pay highschool kids money to come to a NZ school like rugby too. Pacific Islanders main goal is to look after their elders one day and cricket do not pay as much as rugby do.

 

[CG123]

Argentina's best players did play in the TRC. They didn't play in June Internationals but TRC the French had to release them.Moari and Pacifics people is a different culture completely. Also Pacific Islanders play for NZ rugby because of Role models like Michael Jones, Umaga etc etc and try emulating them. And cricket do not pay highschool kids money to come to a NZ school like rugby too. Pacific Islanders main goal is to look after their elders one day and cricket do not pay as much as rugby do.

Argentina's best player Felipe Contepomi didn't play in TRC - Argentina: Contepomi expects to miss The Rugby Championship | Live Rugby News | ESPN Scrum

Yes I know that they were pretty much full strength, but my point was that it took ages for Argentina to guarantee a pretty much full strength team for TRC, hence it had nothing to do with elitism that they weren't included until now. There was no point including them if they were only going to play their B team.

It's the same with the Pacific teams, because most of their players also play over in Europe. Ideally imo a Pacific Island team consisting of the best players from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga would feature in an expanded Rugby Championship down the track.

 

[spooony]

Argentina's best player Felipe Contepomi didn't play in TRC - Argentina: Contepomi expects to miss The Rugby Championship | Live Rugby News | ESPN Scrum

Yes I know that they were pretty much full strength, but my point was that it took ages for Argentina to guarantee a pretty much full strength team for TRC, hence it had nothing to do with elitism that they weren't included until now. There was no point including them if they were only going to play their B team.

It's the same with the Pacific teams, because most of their players also play over in Europe. Ideally imo a Pacific Island team consisting of the best players from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga would feature in an expanded Rugby Championship down the track.

haha Felipe COntepomi was Los Pumas best player ages ago. Hence why he played for the 2nd and third stringers vs France in the June Internationals. He is not the best 10 12 or 13 in the Argentine setup. He is close to retirement. This is the guy who replaced him. EL MAGO he is pure class

 

[War]

How would you go about giving a side Test status then? The odd win at an International tournament? Don't know about that.

I suppose so, but I still think a tier with mainly Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and the associates would be far more competitive because let's face it, the Top 8 A sides would whoop Kenya home and away...

Well firstly for international tournaments, i'm in favour of the 50 overs world cup being a similar format the 1992 world cup. Top 8 teams + the best associate (this would decided in a play-off competition), each teams plays each other once in the group, then the top 4 teams into semi's.

While the T20 world-cup would involve mostly all the better associates. 16 teams, 4 groups. Because t20 is format where you will popular cricket to the associates & have a better chance of an upset.


If via the t20 world-cup associates show much improvement on the field & the country starts likening cricket more. Then we can consider getting more teams involved in the 50 overs cup, which would mean an adjustment in the format.

If now finally an associate team now makes good progression into the 50 overs cup as a odi team, along with the country getting more into cricket, plus doing well in a-team tours od & first-class 4-day games vs major nations - then i'd say they should be considered for tests status.

All these factors need to work hand in hand. Cant go about giving a associate test status just because they caused an upset in a few world cups like what bangladesh did in 1999 & why people have been calling for ireland to get test status based on upsets they achived vs pak & england in the 07 & 2011 cups.

----------

one, slightly bizarre and probably unfeasible, thought I had was appointing the more established nations as a mentor to each of the smaller nations. south africa could be paired with zimbabwe, england with ireland, pakistan with bangladesh. I don't really know if this would work, or the bigger teams would be prepared to do it, but essentially it would involve smaller nations cricket boards becoming somewhat merged with their neighbours, while their neighbour agrees to do things like allow greater access to their centres of excellence, coaching and FC competitions (by removing that nations as an overseas class player maybe) and tagging them onto tours and letting them play as the warm up teams. maybe even allowing the odd player not in contention for their own nation to more easily transfer to play for them. right now england are more likely to poach a talented irish player than help develop one, how on earth are they supposed to move forward with a situation like that?

like I said though, even if they were handsomely paid it might expect too great a level of alturism.

In some ways England & South Africa already do this. In a few tours recently teams coming to england have had to play ireland or scotland in odi's. And i know scotland, ireland & holland have been involved in the english domestic odi season.

While i think Namibia & Zimbabwe (during the recent test bad) was playing in the south africa domestic season.

 

[War]

45 all out is damning evidence the gulf between some sides is too great. Sorry War but your assertions are way off the mark, certainly about the "8 teams that play tests well". West Indies and New Zealand are ok and can sometimes hold their own, but most of the time they are just clearly better than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but way behind even the most inconsistent of sides in the rest.

This is a baseless generalization. I'm not doubting that nz getting bowled out for 45 is not very bad. But it was only a year ago that the proteas routed australia for 45 & nz beat australia in a test match.

Fact is NZ is simply suffering now from an exposure to their lack of depth caused by their two best batsmen being absent during the well document circumstances & dan vettori being injured.

Add three of them back plus dean brownlie who scored an impressive hundred today & a nz test team of:

Guptil
McCullum
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Brownlie
Wattling
Vettori/Martin/Wager/McClenegan
Bracewell
Southee
Bolt

...is solid enough to be stable mid-level test side that is potentially on the up like windies & pakistan. Not far behind australia who batting is still shaky. While everyone is still behind south africa & england who are the only two complete test sides.

Just because football doesn't have tiers or divisions at international level is irrelevant, football is MASSIVE compared to cricket or hasn't anyone told you.............? The World Cup finals has 32 teams in it, New Zealand and West Indies would be about 32-64 more teams outside of that if you wanted to draw comparisons. They'd be like Finland or Iceland, not a bad side but never qualifying.

Exactly - the massive nature of football means compared to cricket shows why cricket can't have tiers especially in tests. Its is far easier for most teams in the world to become good at the basics of football quickly. But its takes YEARSS for teams to be good at the basics of test cricket - that has been conclusively shown through 135 years of test cricket.

This is why as i've consistently said. Associates needs to prove their consistently in ODI & T20 first before they are even considered for tests.

And because you don't think it would work, although arguing there is no precedent and other such angles barely count as arguments, what do you suggest will?!?!?!?! Continue to see one sided thrashings for the sake of it? Introduce a new Test side every 12 years and HOPE they progress better than Bangladesh!?!?!?

to avoid repeating myself:

Well firstly for international tournaments, i'm in favour of the 50 overs world cup being a similar format the 1992 world cup. Top 8 teams + the best associate (this would decided in a play-off competition), each teams plays each other once in the group, then the top 4 teams into semi's.

While the T20 world-cup would involve mostly all the better associates. 16 teams, 4 groups. Because t20 is format where you will popular cricket to the associates & have a better chance of an upset.


If via the t20 world-cup associates show much improvement on the field & the country starts likening cricket more. Then we can consider getting more teams involved in the 50 overs cup, which would mean an adjustment in the format.

If now finally an associate team now makes good progression into the 50 overs cup as a odi team, along with the country getting more into cricket, plus doing well in a-team tours od & first-class 4-day games vs major nations - then i'd say they should be considered for tests status.

All these factors need to work hand in hand. Cant go about giving a associate test status just because they caused an upset in a few world cups like what bangladesh did in 1999 & why people have been calling for ireland to get test status based on upsets they achived vs pak & england in the 07 & 2011 cups.

The sanctity & tradition of what makes a good test team must be preserved. If associates like ireland, scotland, afghanistan can successfully complete this progression then yea they should never play tests. If its has to be they are only proven to be good @ one or both of the limited overs formats then so be it. No team however must even be given the free ride into tests like bangladesh did.

West Indies (last 3 series)

vs Australia : P9 W0 D3 L6
vs England : P10 W1 D5 L4
vs India : P10 W0 D6 L4
vs Pakistan : P7 W2 D1 L4
vs South Africa : P10 W1 D3 L6
vs Sri Lanka : P7 W1 D3 L3

P53 W5 D21 L27 = Won 9.43% Lost 50.94%

New Zealand (last 3 series)

vs Australia : P6 W1 D0 L5
vs England : P9 W1 D1 L7
vs India : P8 W0 D4 L4
vs Pakistan : P7 W1 D2 L4
vs South Africa : P7 W0 D2 L5
vs Sri Lanka : P6 W2 D0 L4

P43 W5 D9 L29 = Won 11.63% Lost 67.44%

Both sides lose over half their Tests against the top six sides, even inconsistent sides like Pakistan and Sri Lanka beat New Zealand and West Indies. Just five wins in over 40 Tests each hardly represents quality, and one freak series win between them and that over England when ironically they were skittled very very cheaply like the kiwis have been.

So there is little evidence the Test scene is 8 "strong"

That between 18 series the opposition have not offered more than 2-3 Tests to New Zealand shows they see them as not much of a threat. West Indies only gained 10 more because of tradition, something War seems stuck in. Neither side may ever become a force, again in the case of West Indies, in fact if you wish to compare cricket to football then the "Test World Championship" of Cricket is like if World Cup qualifiers were 10 team groups. There will be 2-4 strong sides, probably 2-3 reasonable sides who could win the odd game at the finals but 3-4 sides who might beat sides occaisionally but mostly only each other.

Spare me the dull statistical breakdown sir owzat - windies & new zealand have shown enough evidence in 2012 that they are improving. When i say they are "8 strong test sides" i'm not simply talking about performances on the field. If that is the case then as aforementioned, their is only 2 "strong" test sides in south africa & england.

We also have to look at where those countries are with the domestic structure & national interest in the game currently in a society that lives for fast sports that finish in 3 hours.

When it comes to the latter the top 8 nations have that equally. The difference between the top 8 nations since the post war has always been in the domestic structures production line in producing test standard players.

Domestic structures comparison between aus/sa/wi/eng vs ind/pak/sri/nz since 1948

Australia, England, Windies, S Africa are the only teams teams that have been legitimate # 1 teams in test history. That is not a coincidence because while they were the best teams in the world they had the domestic structures able to consistently produce good batsmen & bowlers for tests.

Windies of course declined in the last 15 years because the caribbean regional isn't has finally strong as the other 3 - which is highlighted by the fact they dont even have a sponsor for their domestic competitions. But once they get that back, the windies should be ok since the talent is around.

However the other 4 nations have had the same problems from the start that still affects them now.

Generally except for now gone tendy era of batsman, indian bats dont play pace well & they don't produce fast bowlers. Producing on 3 notable test bowlers since their inception in kapil dev, khan & srinath tells you everything. India of course given their financial power in the game have the unique ability to help fix this problem themselves - they dont need ICC help. Bu this problems is an age old one of indian cricket in tests, which really should have been eradicated to help them be a better test nation consistently.

N zealand problem is that they dont produce enough players of the crowe, hadlee, bond, astle, cairns type talent at once. Its sometimes one or two such players which such great talent among some hard working players.

They need the financial help to improve their grassroots so that they can produce more special talent players collectively.

Pakistan always have talent, especially since the 70s. Pretty much the best asia team of producing a good balance of batsmen & bowers that can regularly test the non-asian teams. But corruption & nepotism is their historical problem. Their domestic teams is run by company teams instead of the provinces, which is why imran khan himself said in the 80s he stopped playing cricket in pak domestically because its very poor way of identifying talent. ICC has failed them horribly in this front due to their poor leadership as a governing body.

Sri Lanka is sort of an unknown since they are potentially coming to end of their first great era of players in the short 30 year test history. But one suspects that given they are weak financial board, their don't the ready made domestic talent to find new a new sangakkara, jaya, vaas, murali anytime soon.



While that's the state of all of them in tests, all of the top 8 nations for example have been the best in the world in odi's at some point in the rankings or won cup/champions trophy titles since 1975. This again shows how hard it is to be good a tests, so its ludicrous to even contemplate putting nz, sri, pak & windies in a lower tier just because their test performances have been below par most of time.

ICC can do a lot financially to help them bridge the gap, since they are done the hard yards of being test nations for 75+ years & it would be better for the test game if competition between all 8 is stronger.

 

[spooony]

Argentina's best player Felipe Contepomi didn't play in TRC - Argentina: Contepomi expects to miss The Rugby Championship | Live Rugby News | ESPN Scrum

Yes I know that they were pretty much full strength, but my point was that it took ages for Argentina to guarantee a pretty much full strength team for TRC, hence it had nothing to do with elitism that they weren't included until now. There was no point including them if they were only going to play their B team.

It's the same with the Pacific teams, because most of their players also play over in Europe. Ideally imo a Pacific Island team consisting of the best players from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga would feature in an expanded Rugby Championship down the track.

Oh I forgot this. Got ya yeah bastards! That should make up a bit for the rugby haha

----------

This is a baseless generalization. I'm not doubting that nz getting bowled out for 45 is not very bad. But it was only a year ago that the proteas routed australia for 45 & nz beat australia in a test match.

Fact is NZ is simply suffering now from an exposure to their lack of depth caused by their two best batsmen being absent during the well document circumstances & dan vettori being injured.

Add three of them back plus dean brownlie who scored an impressive hundred today & a nz test team of:

Guptil
McCullum
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
Brownlie
Wattling
Vettori/Martin/Wager/McClenegan
Bracewell
Southee
Bolt

...is solid enough to be stable mid-level test side that is potentially on the up like windies & pakistan. Not far behind australia who batting is still shaky. While everyone is still behind south africa & england who are the only two complete test sides.



Exactly - the massive nature of football means compared to cricket shows why cricket can't have tiers especially in tests. Its is far easier for most teams in the world to become good at the basics of football quickly. But its takes YEARSS for teams to be good at the basics of test cricket - that has been conclusively shown through 135 years of test cricket.

This is why as i've consistently said. Associates needs to prove their consistently in ODI & T20 first before they are even considered for tests.



to avoid repeating myself:




The sanctity & tradition of what makes a good test team must be preserved. If associates like ireland, scotland, afghanistan can successfully complete this progression then yea they should never play tests. If its has to be they are only proven to be good @ one or both of the limited overs formats then so be it. No team however must even be given the free ride into tests like bangladesh did.



Spare me the dull statistical breakdown sir owzat - windies & new zealand have shown enough evidence in 2012 that they are improving. When i say they are "8 strong test sides" i'm not simply talking about performances on the field. If that is the case then as aforementioned, their is only 2 "strong" test sides in south africa & england.

We also have to look at where those countries are with the domestic structure & national interest in the game currently in a society that lives for fast sports that finish in 3 hours.

When it comes to the latter the top 8 nations have that equally. The difference between the top 8 nations since the post war has always been in the domestic structures production line in producing test standard players.

Domestic structures comparison between aus/sa/wi/eng vs ind/pak/sri/nz since 1948

Australia, England, Windies, S Africa are the only teams teams that have been legitimate # 1 teams in test history. That is not a coincidence because while they were the best teams in the world they had the domestic structures able to consistently produce good batsmen & bowlers for tests.

Windies of course declined in the last 15 years because the caribbean regional isn't has finally strong as the other 3 - which is highlighted by the fact they dont even have a sponsor for their domestic competitions. But once they get that back, the windies should be ok since the talent is around.

However the other 4 nations have had the same problems from the start that still affects them now.

Generally except for now gone tendy era of batsman, indian bats dont play pace well & they don't produce fast bowlers. Producing on 3 notable test bowlers since their inception in kapil dev, khan & srinath tells you everything. India of course given their financial power in the game have the unique ability to help fix this problem themselves - they dont need ICC help. Bu this problems is an age old one of indian cricket in tests, which really should have been eradicated to help them be a better test nation consistently.

N zealand problem is that they dont produce enough players of the crowe, hadlee, bond, astle, cairns type talent at once. Its sometimes one or two such players which such great talent among some hard working players.

They need the financial help to improve their grassroots so that they can produce more special talent players collectively.

Pakistan always have talent, especially since the 70s. Pretty much the best asia team of producing a good balance of batsmen & bowers that can regularly test the non-asian teams. But corruption & nepotism is their historical problem. Their domestic teams is run by company teams instead of the provinces, which is why imran khan himself said in the 80s he stopped playing cricket in pak domestically because its very poor way of identifying talent. ICC has failed them horribly in this front due to their poor leadership as a governing body.

Sri Lanka is sort of an unknown since they are potentially coming to end of their first great era of players in the short 30 year test history. But one suspects that given they are weak financial board, their don't the ready made domestic talent to find new a new sangakkara, jaya, vaas, murali anytime soon.



While that's the state of all of them in tests, all of the top 8 nations for example have been the best in the world in odi's at some point in the rankings or won cup/champions trophy titles since 1975. This again shows how hard it is to be good a tests, so its ludicrous to even contemplate putting nz, sri, pak & windies in a lower tier just because their test performances have been below par most of time.

ICC can do a lot financially to help them bridge the gap, since they are done the hard yards of being test nations for 75+ years & it would be better for the test game if competition between all 8 is stronger.

Think its simple. More bowler friendly pitches = better batsman.

 

[Aalay]

Australia, England, Windies, S Africa are the only teams teams that have been legitimate # 1 teams in test history.

I don't know how you are looking at England as legitimate #1 team. After they became no 1 test side in the world, they got whitewashed against Pakistan. That was their first series as a number 1 test team and they got whitewashed. They won against WI afterwards and then again lost to SA and lost their no 1 status as well. So just 1 test series win by being no 1 test team does not look good in that list.

 

[War]

I don't know how you are looking at England as legitimate #1 team. After they became no 1 test side in the world, they got whitewashed against Pakistan. That was their first series as a number 1 test team and they got whitewashed. They won against WI afterwards and then again lost to SA and lost their no 1 status as well. So just 1 test series win by being no 1 test team does not look good in that list.

Nah i wasn't talking about that england # 1 team. I as an english supporter never recognized them as # 1 as the faulty rankings systems said.

I was refering to the 1951-1958 england team.