Will there ever be another Test-playing country?

[Mercules]

I hope so, the more we get the merrier. And tbh, I think Ireland could cope with test status. Sure it might be a while before they compete but with the financial backing and professionalism Test status brings I reckon they've enough ability and importantly, the know-how to harness that ability to become a side, ultimately, on a par with WI & NZ

 

[shirazu]

I think it might be a very long time before we see another Test nation. Reason is that the current Test countries are going to be reluctant to split their piece of the ICC money to one additional side. When it does happen it will probably be a wealthy/large TV market like China, USA, Canada or something like that.

 

[Params7]

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.

When Netherlands beat England in T20 WC 09, the entire Netherlands was going crazy with celebrations like they just won the world cup. A friend I have there told me so, it was on the headlining news and everything.

There's one way to spread cricket to new areas. ICC should organize tours and triangle series between minnows more often made up of nothing but ODI's and T20's.

Test Status will follow naturally. But trying to force Test cricket down the minnows throat is one way to ensure the people of that country to move even further away from cricket.

ICC should develop something like a Champions Trophy/T20 WC consisting of only minnow teams and promote it a lot. Won't generate as much money obviously but it will generate rivalries and passion between those minnow teams and when one of those minnows lifts a cup, you can expect Cricket to move up from 4-5th sport it is there to 2nd-3rd sport.

Params7 added 18 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

Like something along the lines "ICC Emerging Nations World Cup" made up of Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands, USA, Canada, etc etc. This kind of tourny probably won't do that bad because it will be all close games, and who wouldn't want to see USA vs Afghanistan, even if its just for the lulz?

 

[Paki007]

Afghanistan also can be the next to play tests because lots of pakistan players are also playing for them

 

[Owzat]

There already seems to be divisions within Test cricket anyway, and I don't mean the Asians getting their knickers in a knot with umpires etc

New Zealand - not a great side, most decent sides expect to beat them.
West Indies - internal turmoil aside, they haven't been a strong side for years as Vaughan's long run of success against them showed
Bangladesh - never really established themselves, not helped by sides reluctant to play them and when they do, they tend to get thrashed.
Zimbabwe - currently in so much turmoil they're not even playing Tests which is a shame because they had a good side back around 2000.

So why not bring in the likes of Ireland, Holland, Kenya etc and introduce two tiers? There practically already is and while money may be an issue, perhaps the growing interest from having closer Tests, less series etc could generate extra revenue. And why should it always be about the money, surely sports needs to ask themselves the question of why they exist instead of focusing purely on the marketing and finances.

So which is of more interest, Australia vs Bangladesh or Kenya vs Bangladesh? Have promotion and relegation so that the pick of the second tier can try their luck against the best. County cricket finally realised there were too many counties and introduced two tiers, many years later the ICC is sitting on its Rs and not moving into C21. It lets the smaller nations down, they may not be ready to beat the likes of South Africa and even England, but they're hardly going to develop if they are pushed back by old fashioned values and processes.

There have even been clamours to take away Test status from some countries, but why think backwards and not forwards? I know a lot hinges on money, not enough money to go around and a fear the added interest by a relatively radical move would not generate sufficient funds. But I'm sure the cricketers of Kenya aren't looking to become millionaires, I bet they'd be happy just to be relatively self-sufficient. And why should the elite few pocket all the TV money and be relatively rich at the expense of cricket worldwide. Why should greedy feckers 'retire' from playing Tests or ODIs so they can play in the IPL and various money focused competitions for their big pay-day, is that what cricket is to become?

It's a sad state of affairs that plenty of countries play cricket, yet only a few are really invited to play. A major competition like the World Cup invites only a small number of teams to participate, the people who run the competition (TV not the ICC) really only want to pander to the TV audience and think round robin, 'big games' are what people want to see. I thoroughly enjoy the ODI upsets of the past, Kenya shocking countries and even back in 1992 when Zimbabwe were stitched up by a chicken farmer it was good for the game. You can't tell me that the cost of staging a Test between two countries, even if only a few hundred turned up to watch, makes it not worth doing or even trying. Then I'm afraid cricket is the loser because the sport has let itself down. Just because the lesser UEFA nations like Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, San Marino and Andorra lose nearly all their games, never qualify and probably aren't "financially viable" matches, doesn't mean UEFA tell them they can't enter for qualifying. You end up with some really poor games in UEFA qualifying, but they still play. Maybe there is more money overall in football, but if they wanted to they could force those teams to play pre-qualifiers and shut them out at the earliest opportunity to maximise the "best games" and minimise the mismatches.

And how fair would it be on those people in Andorra, Luxembourg, San Marino and Lichtenstein if they were told their country wasn't good enough, not cost effective participants and they could only play a couple of games every two years merely to get rid of them asap? Cricket should be for every country that wants to take part, there should be enough money in the sport to make it real even if the overpaid ponces of England, Australia, India etc have to maybe take a hit of a third of their match fees to fund it. Put them on the spot, ask them if they'd be happy to donate part of their fees so their FELLOW CRICKETERS in smaller countries can take part. I bet few would say know even if they didn't agree with it.

 

[sohum]

The ICC should not be entertaining any thoughts of introducing more Test playing nations until they fix these problems:

1. Zimbabwe
2. West Indies Cricket Board
3. Bangladesh not being able to convert really good junior players into good senior players (suggests a lack of proper infrastructure).

Fixing these problems may take a long, indirect approach, including introducing some regulatory practices, especially with cricket boards that are messing up more than others (I'm looking at West Indies). Farces like the West Indies third XI playing in international-grade competitions and Test cricket is not acceptable.

 

[cahillchris]

Thanks for that interesting information. I am currently writing an assignment on this topic; Can I ask you where you obtained the statistics of playing records for the current test nations before being granted their test status? I will need it as a reference...

 

[TumTum]

Thanks for that interesting information. I am currently writing an assignment on this topic; Can I ask you where you obtained the statistics of playing records for the current test nations before being granted their test status? I will need it as a reference...

Just make it up, they never check those things :laugh

 

[rahuldravidfan]

There already seems to be divisions within Test cricket anyway, and I don't mean the Asians getting their knickers in a knot with umpires etc

New Zealand - not a great side, most decent sides expect to beat them.
West Indies - internal turmoil aside, they haven't been a strong side for years as Vaughan's long run of success against them showed
Bangladesh - never really established themselves, not helped by sides reluctant to play them and when they do, they tend to get thrashed.
Zimbabwe - currently in so much turmoil they're not even playing Tests which is a shame because they had a good side back around 2000.

So why not bring in the likes of Ireland, Holland, Kenya etc and introduce two tiers? There practically already is and while money may be an issue, perhaps the growing interest from having closer Tests, less series etc could generate extra revenue. And why should it always be about the money, surely sports needs to ask themselves the question of why they exist instead of focusing purely on the marketing and finances.

So which is of more interest, Australia vs Bangladesh or Kenya vs Bangladesh? Have promotion and relegation so that the pick of the second tier can try their luck against the best. County cricket finally realised there were too many counties and introduced two tiers, many years later the ICC is sitting on its Rs and not moving into C21. It lets the smaller nations down, they may not be ready to beat the likes of South Africa and even England, but they're hardly going to develop if they are pushed back by old fashioned values and processes.

There have even been clamours to take away Test status from some countries, but why think backwards and not forwards? I know a lot hinges on money, not enough money to go around and a fear the added interest by a relatively radical move would not generate sufficient funds. But I'm sure the cricketers of Kenya aren't looking to become millionaires, I bet they'd be happy just to be relatively self-sufficient. And why should the elite few pocket all the TV money and be relatively rich at the expense of cricket worldwide. Why should greedy feckers 'retire' from playing Tests or ODIs so they can play in the IPL and various money focused competitions for their big pay-day, is that what cricket is to become?

It's a sad state of affairs that plenty of countries play cricket, yet only a few are really invited to play. A major competition like the World Cup invites only a small number of teams to participate, the people who run the competition (TV not the ICC) really only want to pander to the TV audience and think round robin, 'big games' are what people want to see. I thoroughly enjoy the ODI upsets of the past, Kenya shocking countries and even back in 1992 when Zimbabwe were stitched up by a chicken farmer it was good for the game. You can't tell me that the cost of staging a Test between two countries, even if only a few hundred turned up to watch, makes it not worth doing or even trying. Then I'm afraid cricket is the loser because the sport has let itself down. Just because the lesser UEFA nations like Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, San Marino and Andorra lose nearly all their games, never qualify and probably aren't "financially viable" matches, doesn't mean UEFA tell them they can't enter for qualifying. You end up with some really poor games in UEFA qualifying, but they still play. Maybe there is more money overall in football, but if they wanted to they could force those teams to play pre-qualifiers and shut them out at the earliest opportunity to maximise the "best games" and minimise the mismatches.

And how fair would it be on those people in Andorra, Luxembourg, San Marino and Lichtenstein if they were told their country wasn't good enough, not cost effective participants and they could only play a couple of games every two years merely to get rid of them asap? Cricket should be for every country that wants to take part, there should be enough money in the sport to make it real even if the overpaid ponces of England, Australia, India etc have to maybe take a hit of a third of their match fees to fund it. Put them on the spot, ask them if they'd be happy to donate part of their fees so their FELLOW CRICKETERS in smaller countries can take part. I bet few would say know even if they didn't agree with it.

Pretty much on the money, my friend. Reps for you

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

tbh I have said again and again, there is no problem with bangladesh's progress.

also that sides are reluctant to play them is false, they have imo played far too much cricket. They played something like 9 tests in their first year as a test side, did anyone ever expect them to even draw a test in their first year?

it has gone on like that since, most sickeningly is how they've been used as a means to placate a sri lankan side that is the actual one being starved of regular high class opponents.

10 years in test cricket, 3 tests won, a few draws and some decent performances is actually pretty good going.

India took 20 years to win a single test, and it was another 7 until they beat one of the established nations again. NZ took 25 years to win a test. SL after 10 years of international cricket had won 2 tests. Zimbabwe had won 6, of course, 3 of those were against the brand new bangladesh side.

people need to chill out about bangladesh, it's coming along fine. They played way, way, way too many tests in their first 4 years of cricket. 18 test series???? who dreamed that up?

 

[AshesXII]

either Afganistan or Ireland
both deserve to be a full member

 

[Bluebagger]

Ireland? It is bad enough we have average boosters like Bangladesh and formely Zimbabwe now people want to add Ireland into the mix? The ICC should be culling Bangladesh not adding any more teams.

 

[icyman]

Rather I believe they should cut down on the number of sides.
Demote Bangladesh for sure as they have not shown any improvement in their form.

The nest Test nation could very well b Afghanistan. On current form,I would say the Afghans can beat Bangla any day.

But one also needs to understand that for a country to become a Test nation, the other Test members need to vote upon that. Now,I am pretty sure that countries like India,Australia and England will not vote for another nation as their ICC spoils will go down.

The reason for this being that the ICC spoils are equally divided amongst the Full members.

 

[Harishan]

I believe Bangladesh are on the improve but aren't up for test cricket at the moment. They have a side filled with potential and with Shakib leading them from the front they are capable of almost anything on their day. They have showed good form over the last 6 months against a second-string WI side and Zimbabwe who they beat retty convincingly in both the ODI series they played. The ICLers are also making a return soon which Banladesh will welcome back players like Shahriar Nafees, Aftab Ahmed and many others. This adds a boost to Bangladesh as there will be more players thriving for a spot in the team.

I reckon the first six months in 2010 will decide the future of Bangladesh Cricket. They play India at home, NZ away, England at home and England away. In total they play 7 test matches and quite a few ODI's which inludes a tri-series tournament.

And why are people coming to a conclusion that Afghanistan are a better side than Bangladesh? Yes the Afghans have showed some good form recently but I dont think they are up to a standard where they can beat Bangladesh, especially if it is their full strength side with the likes of Mashrafe Mortaza, Shakib Al Hasan, Tamim Iqbal and Mohammad Ashraful.

 

[McLOVIN]

tbh I have said again and again, there is no problem with bangladesh's progress.

also that sides are reluctant to play them is false, they have imo played far too much cricket. They played something like 9 tests in their first year as a test side, did anyone ever expect them to even draw a test in their first year?

it has gone on like that since, most sickeningly is how they've been used as a means to placate a sri lankan side that is the actual one being starved of regular high class opponents.

10 years in test cricket, 3 tests won, a few draws and some decent performances is actually pretty good going.

India took 20 years to win a single test, and it was another 7 until they beat one of the established nations again. NZ took 25 years to win a test. SL after 10 years of international cricket had won 2 tests. Zimbabwe had won 6, of course, 3 of those were against the brand new bangladesh side.

people need to chill out about bangladesh, it's coming along fine. They played way, way, way too many tests in their first 4 years of cricket. 18 test series???? who dreamed that up?

LOL looks like some of the posters under your post didn't even bother to read what you had to say