Should Bangladesh be allowed to play test cricket?

[irottev]

Bangladesh didn't play that badly against us. They bowled pretty well really. Their batting was poor, but then again it's not easy batting in NZ conditions.

They're all young. They'll improve.

I think they deserve to be playing tests. They'll improve.

 

[punterpupnroy]

Not at the moment in my opinion. They are just getting smashed and don't deserve their place at the moment. They need to develop more.

 

[angryangy]

The trouble is, there is no money in it if they are not playing internationals. Look at Ireland, look at Scotland, they have some decent players, but they rely on county contracts because simply being the best cricketers in their country is not enough to give up the day job. And at least they have good jobs that allow them to play cricket, could you say the same of Bangladeshis?

Would people go to see not-test cricket? Would India pay millions for the rights to not-tests and not-odis? If there's no real progressive benefit other than the experience, then a team like Bangladesh would be better served learning by playing against strong domestic teams; of which currently, Zimbabwe are participating in South Africa and Bangladesh have already played in India's Duleep Trophy.

The bottom line is really whether you think a team 'deserves' to participate based on its win/loss record or whether that should be determined by their infrastructure and potential to field a future great team.

 

[manee]

I've no problem with Bangladesh playing test cricket, I'm sure they will improve and I'm sure they will win a test match against a big boy in the near future. How will they ever improve if they don't play against top teams?

Winning one Test match against a good team in the not too distant future is not good enough for a Test team. Test teams should provide high level competition for entire series.

Bangladesh are not good enough for Test cricket. I believe that them, with some other strong associate nations (Andrew would be proud) should play four day fixtures with each other often. As soon as one team stands out as dominating, and winning at the rate that Australia do in the Test arena, then a promotion to Test status should be due. Currently, Bangladesh Test series are a joke. A run fest for batsmen and easy wickets for at least one or two bowlers on the other team.

I think playing Bangladesh should continue to play many ODI series as they do now. This will help them gauge the level of competition they need, without gifting teams easy Test wins. They are a competitive ODI side and are close to the standard of the top seven. However, they are abysmal in Test cricket.

The bottom line is really whether you think a team 'deserves' to participate based on its win/loss record or whether that should be determined by their infrastructure and potential to field a future great team.

I believe that a country must have a strong infrastructure to reach Test level, but that they should prove themselves as standouts amongst other associate nations first.

 

[icyman]

I can't give an exact date as that would be silly, however, I'd say another 15 years or so to really establish themselves. They played their first test in 2000 iirc. 7 full years isn't long.

Obviously no one can predict the future.
15 years is way too long.
Let them play in the Intercontinental Cup.I'm sure that the other countries can definately challenge them there.

I've no problem with Bangladesh playing test cricket, I'm sure they will improve and I'm sure they will win a test match against a big boy in the near future. How will they ever improve if they don't play against top teams?

As manee says,one test win against a big team is not good enough.
Havent they proved that their recent World Cup success was a mere fluke ?
Similarly,winning one test against a good nation can be hailed as a mere fluke.

When we talk of improvement,why is the ICC not involving countries like Holland,Ireland[with ODI status] to play more matches ?

Also,the Bangla Test series end in 4 days-They would be better off playing 4 ODi's then.Else,they can experiment with the Buchanan expeirment of playing 2-innings ODi's.

 

[Sureshot]

I think Bangladesh's form in the WC and ODI arena shows how much harder Test cricket is. They played their first test in 2000.

Took Sri Lanka 4 years to win a game (5 from as they debuted the year after they got test status.

India won their first test in 1952, they played their first in 1932, by my cricinfo link it works out at 10 years due to WW2, etc.

Bangladesh's record isn't great, but their players show enough potential imo.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Bangladesh would smash associate teams in 4-day and one-day cricket. Thats the problem. They are too good for there.
I say more 4-day cricket against Zimbabwe, and International 'A' sides. Along with a few test series.

 

[harishankar]

Of course Bangla should play Test cricket. How else can they get better?

Look at Kenya. A classic case of a team that promised so much in the 90s, but now languishing with so little cricket at the top level that they're not progressing at all.

We cannot have Bangla in a similar situation. Better they get thrashed and beaten and learn rather than not play at all...

It's not fair on them to expect miracles within one or two years. A Test nation needs at least 10-15 years to start winning consistently.

 

[manee]

I think Bangladesh's form in the WC and ODI arena shows how much harder Test cricket is. They played their first test in 2000.

Took Sri Lanka 4 years to win a game (5 from as they debuted the year after they got test status.

India won their first test in 1952, they played their first in 1932, by my cricinfo link it works out at 10 years due to WW2, etc.

Bangladesh's record isn't great, but their players show enough potential imo.

In the modern era, with the modern schedule, taking seven years to win a Test (with no sign of the trend ending) is shocking. India took 10 years to win a Test, but with the Nawab of Pataudi Snr playing for England, it was already clear that it was a matter of time since India created more stars of similar quality and lo and behold, they did. With a billion people and a culture where cricket took off big time, it was no shock that India would one day play at a high standard.

Bangladesh have not, to date, had one player of considerable quality and any sort of consistency. Mohammad Ashraful is seen as their saviour and he has Test and ODI averages both under 30.

I will admit that their pace attack has some promise. Mortaza is sharp at 135kph and gets a fair bit of swing. Hossain has a certain 'je ne sais quai' about him in the zip he gets off the pitch and how his pitched up balls always seem to bring runs or wickets and Sajidul Islam looks good too but simply being a good bowler is just not enough for Test cricket. They need to put together the performances, stick to the line and lengths and they have not been doing this. Bangladesh fall short in every department other than panache in the batting department, which won't get you far in Test cricket.

You know the old saying:

"If Jason Gillespie can score a Test double century against you, you really suck"

I have attached a poll.

Bangladesh would smash associate teams in 4-day

Would they? I think that they'd lose a fair amount of games.

 

[icyman]

Took Sri Lanka 4 years to win a game (5 from as they debuted the year after they got test status.

Sri Lanka were a class apart.They had fanatbulous openers-i keep on forgetting the name and they had a ruddy goood captain in--------- i forgot his name too

Look at Kenya. A classic case of a team that promised so much in the 90s, but now languishing with so little cricket at the top level that they're not progressing at all.
It's not fair on them to expect miracles within one or two years. A Test nation needs at least 10-15 years to start winning consistently.

Kenya should have been playing Tests instead of Bangla right now.
On an average a country must play 7 Tests per year.
I really do not see that happening wiht Bangla.

 

[ivanvdm15]

Well they'll never improve if they don't get a chance .....

 

[Sureshot]

Yup, international cricket is tough. I think they should be given more time and as Ivan says, they won't improve if their not given the chance. They certainly won't improve playing Zimbabwe and the other minnows all the time, in a say 2 tier system.

 

[irottev]

"If Jason Gillespie can score a Test double century against you, you really suck"

HEY!

Jason Gillespie is a classy batsman.

A point was made about Bangladesh meaning easy runs for the opposition and easy wickets. Why don't we ban green wickets or flat pitches? Those also equal easy wickets for bowlers and easy runs for batsmen.

Bangladesh would smash all those associate nations. They'll improve. Plus there are millions of people in Bangladesh. They have a very big fan base apparently and sooner or later they'll start churning out good players if they get exposure.

How long did NZ take to win a test? We still arn't the greatest side around, but he can compete every now and then. We got better.

 

[Kev]

Also, once they do win that first test, its doubtful it will be a one off occasion. Yes they could win one by fluke or default but I think its more likely it will come in a deserved fashion and once they cross that point they will only build on it and win more.

 

[nightprowler10]

In complete agreement with Kev and Sureshot.

The Bangladesh team has a great pool of talent and taking away their Test status would be a great injustice IMO. As others have pointed out, teams such as India and New Zealand took much longer to get their respective Test wins. Not every team can be as good as Pakistan (won their second Test).