Will there ever be another Test-playing country?

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
Interesting article I found when checking when Bangladesh, Zimbabew and Sri Lanka became Test nations (was right in all except I though Bangladesh was 1999 for some reason)

Roy Morgan
20 October 2009


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recent articles by Michael Taylor on why Ireland cannot play test cricket raise broader issues.

How many of the test-playing countries met the present criteria laid down by the ICC when they gained their test status?
Are the leading associate countries being set unreasonable targets compared with those the existing full members had to face when they gained their test status?
Does any associate country ever stand a chance of becoming the eleventh full-member?
These issues are examined with reference to two of ICC’s criteria:

the playing record; and
the existence of a first-class domestic competition.
Some other issues are referred to in passing.

Playing record

When the ICC was formed in 1909, England, Australia and South Africa effectively had ‘grandfatherly rights’ to test-match status. Although their qualifications were therefore met, it is useful to examine their playing records for the five years previous to the date they played their first test match. A five-year period is taken as being sufficient to demonstrate the level of consistency in performance and provide a reasonably number of matches.

Australian state teams played against two English touring sides but, with the exception of New South Wales, who drew with J.Lillywhite’s XI, all the matches were with odds. Nevertheless the Australian State XVs and XXIIs were victorious in 50 per cent of their matches against the English, evidence to suggest that they might do quite well in a match on equal terms. This, of course, was born out when Australia won the first test in 1877.

Prior to their first test South Africa’s provincial sides had played four matches against Major R.G.Warton’s English tourists; all were with odds but one (by Western Province XXII) was won. Australia and South Africa therefore obtained test-status without previously having played a first-class match against another full-member side.

By the time other countries were being granted full-membership, there was sufficient first-class cricket being played to make evaluations of their performances against first-class teams from existing full-member countries a meaningful statement of their playing record (see Table 1). These matches include those against first-class domestic sides (e.g. English counties, Australian states) and ‘unofficial’ tests.

Table 1. Playing record of countries in the five year period prior to being granted test-match status

Country Year of
full membership Playing record in matches against first-class
teams from full member countries
England 1909 Grandfatherly rights
Australia 1909 Grandfatherly rights
South Africa 1909 Grandfatherly rights
New Zealand 1926 Won 7% of 15 matches
West Indies 1926 Won 23% of 13 matches
India 1926 None played
Pakistan 1952 Won 16% of 6 matches
Sri Lanka 1981 Won 8% of 24 matches
Zimbabwe 1992 Won 17% of 30 matches
Bangladesh 2000 Won 0% of 9 matches

In the five years prior to gaining full membership, all except India and Bangladesh had succeeded in winning at least 7 per cent of such matches. India did not tour or receive tourists from any full-member country between 1921 and 1925 but were granted full-membership in 1926, largely on the recommendation of Lord Harris, then President of the M.C.C. and a fomer Governor of Bombay. Bangladesh had won none of their first-class games before becoming a full member.

It therefore seems that in the past as long as some matches have been played against first class opposition from existing full-member countries and the results have not been too disastrous, the qualification for full-membership has been met. Even allowing for the possibility that an error was made with Bangladesh in 2000, an ability to win at least 7 per cent of the matches against first-class sides of full member countries seems to be enough to justify full membership.

Although the current ICC guideline criteria state that attention is also given to performances in one-day internationals and the ICC Trophy, these were not considered in the above analysis because an ability to succeed in one-day limited-overs cricket is an unlikely indicator of how well a country will perform over a test match of five days.

Domestic competition

Table 2 shows that status of each country’s domestic competition at the time full membership of the ICC was attained. Only four countries had an existing first-class domestic structure and only in England did these involve more than four teams. In the West Indies and in India, neither competition could be considered as having ‘national coverage’. Jamaica were not part of the West Indian Inter-Colonial Tournament and India’s competition was the Bombay Quadrangular.

Table 2. Status of first class domestic competition at date of first test match (England, Australia, South Africa) or date of admission to full membership

Country Year Domestic competition
England 1877 Unofficial county championship of ten teams (first class)
Australia 1877 No regular competition
South Africa 1877 No regular competition
New Zealand 1926 Plunkett Shield. Four first class teams
West Indies 1926 Inter-Colonial Tournament. Three first class teams
India 1926 Bombay Tournament. Four first class teams
Pakistan 1952 No competition
Sri Lanka 1981 No first class competition. Club contest for P.Saravanamuttu Trophy
Zimbabwe 1992 No first class competition. Club contest for Logan Cup
Bangladesh 2000 No first class competition. National League with six teams

A first-class domestic competition cannot therefore be considered a prerequisite for full membership. The majority of countries managed effectively by setting-one up afterwards. There also seems to be no requirement for a minimum number of teams. Three or four sides should be sufficient though it should be noted that in 1995/96 Zimbabwe’s competition was reduced to two teams who played each other three times.

Today there would be the question of who would decide whether or not a domestic competition was first-class. The Cricket Boards of the full member countries have the right to determine the status of matches in their own countries but the Boards of the associate countries do not. It is therefore not possible to have a first-class domestic competition prior to full membership unless the ICC declares it to be first class.

Missed opportunities

There has been at least two opportunities for some of the present associate countries to be considered for full membership. When the ICC was formed in 1909, Philadelphia was still an important centre for cricket and it had first-class status. In the five years prior to 1909, Philadelphia played 14 first class matches against English first-class sides, including the 1908 tour of England, and won 36 per cent of them.

Based on comparisons with other countries, this should have been more than sufficient to gain full membership. However, the founders of the ICC chose to restrict membership to the Commonwealth. By the time membership was expanded in 1926, the standard of Philadelphian cricket had declined and the Commonwealth view still prevailed.

In 1997 Bangladesh and Kenya were accorded one-day international status and first-class status for matches of three or four days against first class sides from full member countries. Between then and 1999 Bangladesh managed to play nine first-class matches whilst Kenya managed only one. Kenya played four other fixtures which were not rated first-class though they were against full member sides. Since neither country won any of these matches, the playing records of Bangladesh and Kenya could be considered similar.

In the event Bangladesh were encouraged to establish an acceptable domestic competition before being granted full membership in 2000 but Kenya were not. Presumably this decision was based on other criteria such as cricket being recognised as a major sport in Bangladesh and the existence of a test-match ground (the National Stadium in Dhaka), conditions which were not matched in Kenya. The outcome demonstrated the inconsistency in ICC’s decision-making in the Zimbabwe were previously granted full membership despite cricket being a sport of a minority of the population.

The question remains open on whether, by not according the United States and Kenya full membership at an appropriate time, the ICC is partly responsible for the decline in the standard of cricket in both countries.

The aspirants

Table 3 shows the playing records for 2006 to 2009 in first-class matches for six associate countries. Five are from the top six countries currently playing in the ICC Intercontinental Cup. Afghanistan is not considered because it has only just obtained first-class status. Namibia is included because it has played more first-class cricket than any other associate country over this period. All six countries have won at least 25 per cent of their matches.

However, only Kenya and Namibia have played matches against first-class teams from full member countries with success rates of 50% and 27% respectively. In the other matches the associates are only playing themselves in the ICC Intercontinental Cup. However, these results should have some meaning since it was the ICC that decided this competition should be first class. Based on precedence both Kenya and Namibia would warrant full membership on their playing record against sides from full member countries. Looking at the overall first-class record, Ireland’s is clearly superior to that of any other country.

Table 3. Recent playing records (2005-2009) of six associate countries

Country All first class matches First class matches against
first class teams from full members
Ireland Won 63% of 19 matches None
Scotland Won 36% of 14 matches None
Netherlands Won 29% of 14 matches None
Kenya Won 38% of 21matches Won 50% of 4 matches
Canada Won 25% of 16 matches None
Namibia Won 40% of 35 matches Won 27% of 22 matches

Conclusions


The current criteria for full membership relating to playing record and the status of a domestic competition are inconsistent with history and were not met by the present full members at the time they obtained test status.


Failure to promote associate countries to full membership at an appropriate moment can be detrimental to their development as a cricketing nation.


The ICC recognise that the playing record of an associate country in three/four day matches against first class teams of existing full members is an important criterion in demonstrating when an associate country has met the standard to become a full member. Yet the ICC is not arranging any such fixtures. If it did, it would have to ensure that the associate country was able to choose its strongest team, e.g. Ireland would have to include all their players contracted to English counties.


A first-class domestic structure has never been a prerequisite for full membership. It is unlikely that a suitable structure can be established without the kind of sponsorship that goes with test-match status. Three teams are probably enough to form a suitable competition.


The ICC need to address these issues and consider their history to avoid being guilty of a ‘mediaeval guild’ mentality which restricts membership to a select few by setting criteria for membership which they know others cannot meet.


The associate and affiliate countries should raise these issues with the ICC and seek agreement on something more realistic. Warren Deutrom raises the possibility of full membership not necessarily implying that a country would play test matches immediately. Other possibilities which have already been accepted elsewhere within the ICC are: (1) use the analogy of the playing record criterion for promotion from affiliate to associate status whereby the affiliate needs to beat ane associate member - associate countries could be asked to defeat afull member country in a match over three to five days; or (2) full membership need not be a criterion for playing test matches as is the case with the status of Ireland and The Netherlands in women’s cricket.


Without some changes to the criteria, it seems unlikely that any associate country will ever qualify for full membership. The ICC needs to change its approach from that of providing guidelines which are open to interpretation to one of laying down a clearly-structured pathway which, if it is seen to be fair, must be well-founded on history.

References

Michael Taylor, 2009. Why Ireland can’t play Test Cricket (1).
Michael Taylor 2009. Why Ireland can’t play Test Cricket (2).
Warren Deutrom 2009. Why Ireland can’t play Test Cricket: Cricket Ireland response.


Will there ever be another Test-playing country?

The main reason for this is I was wondering if people thought there could be scope to include more Test nations or, if like me, they feel the only way more countries could join is to either have parallel divisions or two or more tier divisions to reduce fixtures. For me cricket shoots itself in the foot by being too elitist, countries can only play Tests and ODIs by invitation. But the invite card is too full, something has to be done. Perhaps Bangladesh was the wrong nation, at the wrong time or maybe just failed because the structure is such that new additions take too long to become competitive in the face of defeat after defeat after defeat.

Sri Lanka were uncompetitive until the early 90s, Zimbabwe became decent in the latter part of the 90s with the Flowers, Goodwin, Strang(s), Campbell, Streak and one or two others like Guy Whittall in the side. Bangladesh have struggled bigtime, perhaps for the sake of development and to reduce fixture congestion, the ICC need to consider two leagues. it doesn't have to be a tiered system with promotion and relegation, it can be parallel, but in all honesty two or more tiers is the only way to keep cricket competitive and reduce pointless two Test series designed more just to fulfil obligations with minimum time wasted.


I for one felt the biggest mistake when Bangladesh were brought in was in choice of country. Kenya would have been good for raising cricket's profile in Africa, they have had shock wins in World Cups so are not entirely useless. Canada might have been good for raising the profile in the Americas, Holland for raising it more in Europe. All in all perhaps bringing in all three or even more to a two-tiered system would have worked better, but the ICC take too long to move with the times anyway. Zimbabwe are a Test nation that doesn't play Tests, Kenya have qualified as a full ICC ODI nation but how often does any of the Test nations play them!?!??!? Perhaps the biggest reason for getting these countries in, and in some numbers, is to exploit the popularity of T20 and expand the profile of cricket. Give the people of Namibia, Kenya, Holland, Canada, UAE, Bermuda etc someone to cheer on in competitions. Expand the World Cups to have more countries like the football and rugby equivalents. Put aside the desire to try and make it all-play-all, marketable for TV cobblers and simplify the format. Do away with the "Super Six" and "Super Eight" concepts, play eight groups of four and then go straight to the knockouts like they do in the football. There's enough cricket throughout the year not to overbake the World Cup. And ffs stop staggering fixtures so s*y can televise all but a few, s*y has more than one channel and if it needs to show so many games then ffs introduce another channel.


For me the shame is I had to be searching for something else to come across a good article like this.
 

SciD

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Online Cricket Games Owned
Not read this. Just answering the title.

Even some of the sides that play do not meet the standard. No there will not be new test playing nation ever.
 

Howsie

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
If the ICC can get it right, Ireland should hopefully become the next test playing nation.
 

drainpipe32

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
I honestly reckon that 10 should be a maximum. Anymore and the value of playing for your country will drop, it'll become like soccer :S
 

Cricketman

ICC Chairman
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Location
USA
I hope so. At least competitive ODI cricket should be a main fixture in the emerging nations. It has to be aired on television, bring in big crowds, and there needs to be a lot of hype. It's all marketing. more ODI nations (in a lower division) = more test nations.
 
P

pcfan123

Guest
I hope so too, but after the Bangladesh experiment the ICC will be very hesitant to promote anyone. In an ideal world I would like to see the Zimbabweans and Irish playing Test Cricket. Or at least give Ireland full member status so they can get the funds.
 

Aoun13

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Location
Rawalpindi (Pak)
Profile Flag
Pakistan
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Yes their will be not only one but even two or three,one for me will be Afghanistan,if they will get support from Pakistan.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
the problem about the FC cricket thing is that while pakistan, sri lanka and bangladesh had no FC competitions it was easy to see that leagues would be sustainable in those countries. They had large populations and were primarily cricket loving. Bangladesh's league was actually already setup when they got test status, it just switched to first class later. Pakistan's was much the same. Sri Lanka held off for a bit, and didn't have a proper regional FC comp, even in the late 90s and despite being quite good at test cricket, but club cricket was pretty well followed.

With Ireland, well, cricket is behind rugby, gaelic football, hurling and football, and it's not a large country, it's hard to see a sustainable FC competition flourishing there.

There is a chance that they could set something up with Scotland and possibly the Netherlands, but given scottish, irish and dutch boards can barely afford to to keep more than 3 or 4 professional players contracted full time, it's difficult to imagine where the funds to sustain 2 entire teams will come from. It's also difficult to see how including the Netherlands would be practical given their distance.

however that's all being extremely pessimistic, as Ireland are showing they can produce international class cricketers and something could be worked out.
 

shravi

National Board President
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Profile Flag
India
Maybe if certain countries stopped stealing other countries' players...
 

McLOVIN

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
those 'tables' shows the brutality and unfairness of ICC

MacLovin added 0 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

Not read this. Just answering the title.

Even some of the sides that play do not meet the standard. No there will not be new test playing nation ever.

thats exactly why you should read the article 1st, before writing the 2nd line
 

jordox

International Cricketer
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Online Cricket Games Owned
Nah, there is no point of it. Zimbabwe haven't been able to field their proper team in years and Ireland aren't good enough for test matches. There has to be another way of promoting growth in Irish or whomsoever's cricket. You can't just slap them up into test match cricket, because they'll be destroyed. Just because they can win the odd game of ODI cricket doesn't mean they can win the odd test match.

As for Zimbabwe, forget about us. We shouldn't even be aloud to compete - the side we have been fielding is an absolute joke and is nowhere near the capabilities of the countries talent. I still stand by the fact that Zimbabwe has enough talent in the country to field a side that could rival England, it's just that the country is so corrupt and backwards we have no hope of fielding that side in the foreseeable future.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top