brmtaylor.com admin wrote:
JHunter wrote:The Australia tour might well depend on if the Aussies decide to tour or if they are barred from travelling to Zimbabwe over the politics surrounding Mugabe. The Indian and South African tests would be more likely than the Aussie tests while Mugabe yet lives and only as long as the boards involved don't decide to convert the test matches into ODIs and T20s instead.
While the status quo is maintained I can't see Australia not touring on political grounds. We had no problem touring in 2014 for ODIs.
I think England is the only team that still worries about that.
I bet the players would much rather spend a week or two in Zim than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Right, I had forgotten about the tri-series. I just couldn't remember Australia actually touring Zim since 2004, but you are right - the tri series went ahead with no problems.
jaybro wrote:The ICC are scared that a fragile 'Test Cricket' will loose it 'prestige' if just handed out to anyone, I feel they're still gun shy after giving BD test status then watching them get ass raped for 10 years and they don't want to make the same mistake again. I actually think giving Afghanistan and Ireland Test status will actually strengthen Test cricket as it will give lesser sides like Zim and BD more options for matches, at this point Zimbabwe are too scared to play the big teams even at home so by giving them more suitable opponents to play they'll be able to better their skills and maybe one day feel safe enough to play the big teams ......
I wouldn't make assumptions about the ICC being scared or not (that's actually pure speculation based off no hard evidence as best as I can see - unless there is a quote somewhere floating around that indicates some ICC official as stating in diplomatic speak that the ICC is always evaluating lessons learned on a continuous basis about accepting an application for full membership or some such.
I do think given test status to Afghanistan (and maybe Ireland) may strengthen test cricket. At the very least it might push the current full members into agreeing a lengthened FTP which might allow for more sensible tours.
brmtaylor.com admin wrote:I think the ICC should be cautious about handing out Test status. Kenya are the perfect example... in 2003 sure you could have built a pretty strong case. But fast forward to now and you can see why it would have been a terrible idea.[
That's not true. In 2003 you could build a pretty strong case for Kenya having more or less permanent
ODI status, but that means zilch when it comes to test status since Kenya did not fulfil the criteria for full membership (no domestic multi-day cricket being a big, glaring failure). There was a lot of talk about it, but the talking heads have often been wrong (this should be clear enough when one reads cricinfo - I'll never forget when freaking CRICINFO confused Dominica (part of the West Indies and plays cricket) with the Dominican Republic (not part of the West Indies and plays baseball). And these are people who are
paid to know about cricket. I've heard commentators utter fluff before and you can often tell they have no idea what they are talking about but then neither does anyone else so they are never corrected and what they say is accepted as fact when in fact it isn't.
You couldn't give Afghanistan Test status. Geez they don't even have a home ground. Aren't all their players basically Pakistani's anyway?
Two and half years later we still have these misconceptions on this board? Seriously? That's extremely disappointing.
Actually brmtaylor.com admin you are sorta right. Afghanistan don't have
a home ground. They have at least
two - one in Kabul (Alokozay Kabul International Cricket Ground - opened in 2011) and one in Ghazi township near Jalalabad in the province of Nangarhar (Amanullah Khan International Cricket Stadium - opened in 2011).
The last time I mentioned these stadia (actually in response to a post from you)
back in June 2013 I provided links for the images of these grounds. I think this time I will just post the images directly to underline exactly what Afghanistan has:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08D2bRXQgdQ
Also none of their players are really Pakistanis. While some may have been born in refugee camps in Pakistan, but most of the over 1 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan have not been given Pakistani nationality apparently despite some of them being born there.
In fact out of the 31 players listed as being on the Afghanistan cricket team between November 2014 and November 2015, only one (Gulbadin Naib) was definitely born in Pakistan. A few others might have been. But the vast majority were born in Afghanistan (mainly in Kabul, Khost or in Nangarhar province) and all of them are Afghans.
Ireland, if they are still challenging in 10 years time... I think you could argue a case for them. In 10 years time, they'll have been a reasonably decent ODI side for 20 years. That's a couple of generations of players (not a flash in the pan thing like Kenya, where all the stars aligned but only for about 7 or 8 years).
ODI =/= tests. How decent an ODI side Ireland is has no bearing on if they can actually host test matches and field a test team. Some ODI players (e.g. Kieron Pollard) are good test or first-class players. Others (e.g. Dwayne Bravo) are rubbish at first-class cricket.
And, to put it bluntly, as a western country they will be in a better position to a) keep the game sustainable from a funding perspective; b) build appropriate infrastructure; c) host tours.
True in theory. Yet Ireland (a western country) has let Afghanistan (a war-torn third world country) move into a better position ahead of them in terms of having the domestic popularity and support for cricket and possibly even the appropriate infrastructure. Most of the current full members in any case are not western, first-world countries (only England, Australia and New Zealand are; the other seven are not).
eugene wrote:I have often thought that if anyone should be targeted for test status it is the Netherlands. The game has a long history there, is embraced by much of the local population, and they seem to regularly produce a number of talented players.
Maybe back in the 1960s. Certainly not today. That ship sailed long ago and now the Dutch cricketing community has zero interest in anything other than 50 over games outside of the intercontinental cup - the Dutch board tried to introduce a 2-day competition and the clubs let the initiative die as they were not interested. And the results show this: In the 2007-08 intercontinental cup the Dutch finished mid-table at 5th (out of 8 teams). In 2009-10 they finished 6th (out of 7 teams) and in 2011-13 they finished 8th (last). In the current 2015-17 competition they lost to newcomers Papua New Guinea (who have had experience with multi-day cricket in South Australia) and their win against Scotland was in fact their first win in the intercontinental cup since April 6, 2008 (against the UAE).
Outside of the occasional county contract or lower level multi-day stint in English cricket and experience in multi-day cricket from their home countries like Australia and Pakistan, most Dutch players don't have much practice with multi-day cricket and would seem to have less recent practice with that format than Irish, Afghan, Namibian or even Papuan players.
Kriterion_BD wrote:
We are a fortress in ODIs only. We are pathetic in T20s - not really cricket, IMO, and fortunately its the least prestigous format - but we have not won a SINGLE test match against an established side. Now if anyone else criticizes, I will point to both of the draws against a decent NZ side in 2013 that could have been potential test wins if they were timeless Tests, etc etc.
Now I believe we will be winning Tests at home in the next few years, but until we do, we can't really claim it. We are good enough to win ODIs away from home as well. We should have no less of a chance to win the Champions Trophy than India or Pakistan, and more of a shot than Sri Lanka come 2017 and also the 2019 World Cup.
As an ODI side, yes we are on current form easily a top 4-5 team. But we are bound to struggle at some point, and sooner rather than later. When we do, you can bet the Indopaksters will say Bangladesh are still minnows and what not.
We are moving in the right direction, slowly perhaps, but the light at the end of tunnel is getting brighter. But its not yet bright enough to see clearly.
Well said and I agree. And I believe the other sides with problems (WI, Zimbabwe) should keep that in mind as well when they go on the right track - it will be a slow process, but one which will bear fruit in time.