zimcricketforums.com

Hi again everyone. Haven't dropped in for a while but if I hadn't said it before congratulations to Zimbabwe on a return to Test cricket. Yes the results have been mixed, but overall global cricket seems to be of a generally more competitive standard now. Zimbabwe are competing in some matches but patchy at times and Bangladesh are improving.

Now in an earlier thread I noted that all full members of the ICC had played domestic multi-day cricket prior to becoming full members. As the full member ranks of the ICC swelled from the 1920s to the 1980s the number of other members outside of the full membership circle that played domestic multi-day cricket decreased (since they were being inducted into full member status). By the time the last full member joined (Bangladesh) in 2000 there was only one non-full member with any regular domestic multi-day cricket; Argentina (with a traditional North v South competition). Outside of that there is the Saudara Cup between Malaysia and Singapore (a 3-day match) and the ICC Intercontinental Cup (and during 2009-10 the Intercontinental Shield as well).

However since then various teams have attempted to institute multi-day cricket. The Netherlands had plans for 2-day domestic cricket around 2008-2009 but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Kenya had a Sahara Elite League which was planned to be 3-day matches in January 2008 (to coincide with the holidays to allow for player availability for all 3 days of play); but following the election violence the tournament was postponed to June 2008 and downsized to 2-day matches because of the unavailability of players outside of Saturday and Sunday. There was only ever one version of the event in 2008 and it hasn't been played again (and since then Cricket Kenya has gone through a lot of turmoil anyway).

Now it appears that three countries; Afghanistan, Ireland and Scotland are already playing or about to play domestic 3-day cricket. Information for Afghanistan is a bit hard to come by, but in searching I have seen references to a 3-day tournament between regional teams being played between April 25, 2011 and May 17, 2011. More definite proof is this Afghan Cricket Board annual report which gives brief details on the Etisalat Regional 3-Day Tournament that was played between June 23, 2012 and July 3, 2012 with 5 regional teams playing at two stadia (Kabul and Nangarhar). the winner was the Mes Aynak regional team. And both the Etisalat Afghanistan and Afghan Cricket Board facebook pages make note of a planned 3-day tournament in May 2013 in which the Afghan national team will be participating in so as to prepare for the Intercontinental Cup match against Namibia. Meanwhile, Ireland has (FINALLY) put in place a 3-day tournament between 3 provincial unions (Leinster, Northern and North-Western) with the hope being that in the future 5 provincial teams will eventually play. Currently it is double round-robin (5 matches planned). Ireland is also hoping that this tournament (the Inter-Provincial Championship) will be granted first-class status by the ICC by 2015 (with test status for Ireland by 2020). Scotland is set to have a Pro-Series between 2 regional teams in a double round-robin (2 matches). And it seems that if the 2012 plans of CricketIreland are anything to go by (see slide 6) then a possible "Celtic Championship" would be played between the 3-day champions of Ireland and the 3-day champions of Scotland.

It's about time Ireland did this. They wasted a lot of time between 2007 and 2011 griping about there being "no clear pathway" to test status when in truth the pathway was so simple a 12-year old should have been able to understand it (it was all of 2 pages long!) and involved putting in place a domestic multi-day tournament. It is interesting to note that Afghanistan shot to prominence in 2008 (a year after Ireland did so in the World Cup) by winning Divisions Five and Four of the World Cricket League in the World Cup Qualifying structure (and garnered further prominence by making it through Division 3 and into the 2009 World Cup Qualifier tournament). By 2010 to 2011 they were making plans for various three-day domestic tournaments between Afghan sides in Afghanistan itself and in Peshawar, Pakistan. And it seems that by 2011 they were already playing domestic 3-day cricket in a country beset by civil war, a harsh climate and extreme poverty. Meanwhile in 2011 Mr. Deutrom was still going on about how Ireland should basically be gifted test status without putting in place the structures necessary to support it (but was making statements indicating that he finally got the point and would be putting in place a 3-day domestic tournament - perhaps he realized that he was in danger of letting Afghanistan end up getting test status before Ireland). I'm sure if Ireland had done what Afghanistan did, then they could have started a single round-robin 2-day (Saturday and Sunday) tournament between Leinster, North and North-West in 2009, expanded it to a 3-day (Saturday, Sunday and following Saturday) tournament in 2010, turned it into a more traditional 3-day tournament in 2011 (Friday/Sat/Sun or Sat/Sun/Mon) by 2011 (with players only needing to take 2-3 days off in the year to play on the Friday or Monday in the single round-robin format). They could then be looking to have the ICC declare the interprovincial championship as a first-class tournament by 2012 or 2013 and perhaps be looking at test status as early as 2015-2018. And what would this have done for Irish cricket is anybody's guess. Perhaps they would done better in the 2009-10 Intercontinental Cup (perhaps beating Afghanistan and getting more points out of the Zimbabwe XI match or winning one or two of the matches that ended up being drawn) - perhaps even winning the competition. Would it have prevented Eoin Morgan from playing for England? No. Morgan has wanted to play for England since he was 13 reportedly and unless Ireland got test status in 2009 then Morgan would be mad to refuse and English test call up in 2010. Nevertheless what is done is done and Ireland are finally on the right path.

If things go well then by 2015 international cricket will look something like this:

Full members with domestic first-class competitions: Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe

Other members with domestic multi-day competitions: Afghanistan, Argentina, Ireland and Scotland

And perhaps their ranks might be joined by Kenya/East Africa with a revived East African Championship (to complement the 50-over East Africa Cup and 20-over East Africa Premier League) involving Kenyan and Ugandan teams and maybe teams from Tanzania and Rwanda.

If (and this is a big if) all goes well (and if the East African Community continues it's progress towards federation) we might see 14 test nations by 2025: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, East Africa, England, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Scotland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe.

By then we might also expect to see Argentina, Nepal, the Netherlands, and maybe Malaysia and Namibia playing domestic multi-day cricket.

EDIT: Upon further research I have discovered that Malaysia has a domestic 2-day 2-innings competition or competitions in the MCA Inter-State League Challenge Division.

The problem in most countries is the lack of interest. In countries in East Africa that's compounded by a lack of money.

If Ireland make it, it definitely helps that they have the potential to be well resourced. It's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a developed country to put structures in place that support First Class cricket. Just simple things like having suitable venues, having new cricket balls, etc is going to be so hard for developing countries. It's hard enough for Zimbabwe, let alone a country like Rwanda.

Afghanistan is an obvious exception, but it's all but impossible to envisage a day where a Test match will be played in Kabul. The political situation is going to stop them from getting Test status more than any talent limitations.

I reckon a dark horse for Test status in the next 50 years might be Singapore. Like many former British colonies (a number of which are already Test nations) I think that country has all of the assets to make an impact. The obvious one being that it already has an active and well structured domestic league along with one, perhaps two, world class cricket venues in The Padang and Kallang Cricket Ground. Singapore has a sizeable Indian and Sri Lankan community and will surely continue to attract white expats for years to come. It's got a centralised population and it's a developed economy, it's in a good time zone for the Indian audience - the ingredients are there to grow the game quickly if so desired. The Singaporean government don't have much to hang their hat on in the way of sporting achievements (a gold medal in Table Tennis?) so investment in cricket would probably not be the worst thing for them. There's not that many elite nations to compete with, if they threw a bit of money at the problem they could probably make some decent progress pretty quickly. It wouldn't be hard to attract quality coaches either. So that's my bet for a dark horse in the Test arena in the next 50 or so years.

brmtaylor.com admin wrote:The problem in most countries is the lack of interest. In countries in East Africa that's compounded by a lack of money.

Those are the usual reasons cited for the supposed inability of places like East Africa to ever become full members. But:

- test cricket in general has much lower interest in the world than ODI or T20 cricket even in established test nations.

- the lack of interest hasn't stopped cricket being played in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda or Rwanda. In fact in Rwanda it has grown if I am not mistaken.

- neither the lack of interest nor the lack of money prevented Kenya from hosting a multi-day domestic cricket tournament in 2008. The major problems which affected that tournament were the election violence and the resulting unavailability of players directly due to the need to reschedule the tournament because of the election violence.

Remember, Kenya's cricket was in turmoil more or less for the entire period between 2005-2011 with brief respites in 2006-2008. It was only in 2011 after all that Kenya was able to organize a replacement for the National Elite League Twenty20 of 2008 (which had been organized alongside the Sahara Elite League multi-day competition and a 50 over competition). Had there been no election violence, The Sahara Elite League 3-day, 50-over and 20-over competitions would probably have gone as planned and might well have continued with Sahara continuing to sponsor.

Also the ICC guidelines on full membership requirements are fairly simple and do not necessarily require expensive provisions such as electronic scoreboards.

If Ireland make it, it definitely helps that they have the potential to be well resourced. It's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a developed country to put structures in place that support First Class cricket. Just simple things like having suitable venues, having new cricket balls, etc is going to be so hard for developing countries. It's hard enough for Zimbabwe, let alone a country like Rwanda.

Suitable venues do not have to be like what we see in Australia or England. They can be like what we see in Bangladesh.

And if the new countries were to play say...6 test matches a year (similar to Bangladesh) then with an average of 90 overs a day in 5-day matches (450 overs) and the new ball needed no earlier than every 80 overs then for each test match would need about 6 balls. Six test matches a year would mean a minimum of 36 test standard cricket balls per year. That would be about US$4,407. One can double that and add half as much again to ensure enough cricket balls for test matches then that would be 90 balls for US$11,018. Now add in the necessary balls for a single round-robin first-class tournament for East Africa involving at a minimum Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania. That would be 6 matches of 360 overs , requiring a minimum of 5 new balls per match. So a minimum of 30 balls. Throw in extra balls for good measure (say a total of 75 balls for US$8,033). Total cost per year is US$19,051 (when really only US$7,621 would be needed or even less if a first-class East African Championship consisted of 4 teams playing a single round-robin competition of 3-day matches each to start with). To put this in perspective, in 2006 Nimbus Sport signed a six-year TV rights deal with Cricket Kenya worth US$150,000 per year. And this was shortly after the total meltdown of Kenyan cricket with the Kenya Cricket Association falling into disrepute and being wound up in favour of a new board called Cricket Kenya. And this is with an associate whose finest hour was three years before (in the 2003 World Cup) and whose meltdown was total and complete.

Now imagine the kind of TV rights deal that a putative "Cricket East Africa" (made up of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and later Burundi) would be able to sign with an East African cricket team that has test status and which must play India and other traditional test nations at least once home-and-away over the cycle of a Future Tours Programme and which has permanent ODI and T20I status. I can see TV rights deals in the low millions (Zimbabwe has a deal with Ten Sports worth over US$1 million a year). East Africa is not going to be playing 5-match test series against opponents (at least not initially - it would make zero financial sense). But they would be playing test cricket and playing a lot of ODI cricket and T20 cricket.

*Note I use East Africa here based on the stated goals of the East African Community to federalize and based on Kenya and Uganda instituting shared 50-over and 20-over domestic competitions (the East African Cup and East African Premier League).

Afghanistan is an obvious exception, but it's all but impossible to envisage a day where a Test match will be played in Kabul. The political situation is going to stop them from getting Test status more than any talent limitations.

Afghanistan was not always the way it is. Before 1973 it was pretty peaceful and stable. Thus it's impossible to imagine that Afghanistan will always remain the way it is now (and even then it is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1990-1995). At some point, Afghanistan might well become like the UK during the Northern Irish Troubles - peaceful and stable in some areas with other areas of violence (and note that during that time, cricket never stopped in England despite the threat of terror by various Irish republican groups.

There is also no requirement for full members to be politically stable. If this was so then Pakistan and Zimbabwe would have lost full member status already instead of simply undergoing self-suspension (Zimbabwe) or an agreed upon suspension of tours of the country (Pakistan). In fact NO ICC member has ever been kicked out. South Africa left the ICC in 1961 because the rules at the time tied membership (specifically full membership) in the ICC (then the Imperial Cricket Conference) with Commonwealth membership. South Africa did not re-apply to join and by 1970 the ICC suspended all official tours by its members to South Africa over apartheid. So if Pakistan can still remain a full member despite having no international cricket at home, then there is no reason why Afghanistan could not become a full member with no international cricket at home until the situation stabilized. Until then I'm sure the UAE would gladly play host to Pakistan and Afghanistan "home matches" to serve as a "home away from home". And even then there is little doubt that Pakistan and Afghanistan would tour each other even if nobody else toured them (Afghanistan has already sent teams to Pakistan (Afghanistan full team and Afghanistan XI) to play against various sides and in some of Pakistan's domestic cricket competitions). If I am not mistaken back in 2012 even the MCC were supposed to tour Afghanistan (but not Pakistan).

Additionally international cricket need not start in Kabul. Unless these pictures and videos are hoaxes then Afghanistan has already constructed a fairly decent looking stadium at the Ghazi township outside Jalabad: 1, 2 and 3 and has stadia being constructed in Jalabad itself, Kabul and Kandahar (all of which are intended to be of international standard).

I reckon a dark horse for Test status in the next 50 years might be Singapore.

Quite so. I agree. Though in researching I have yet to find a domestic competition of 2-innings cricket in Singapore.

Like many former British colonies (a number of which are already Test nations) I think that country has all of the assets to make an impact. The obvious one being that it already has an active and well structured domestic league along with one, perhaps two, world class cricket venues in The Padang and Kallang Cricket Ground. Singapore has a sizeable Indian and Sri Lankan community and will surely continue to attract white expats for years to come. It's got a centralised population and it's a developed economy, it's in a good time zone for the Indian audience

True. And some of the same applies to Malaysia (which is also in a good time zone, has an Indian community, some good venues, has already hosted the U-19 World Cup and has well structured domestic leagues. Malaysia does have it's issues though.

- the ingredients are there to grow the game quickly if so desired.

Bingo. And at the moment it seems that Singapore and Malaysia have little desire to push the game to develop very quickly in their countries and to gain full member status. That may change in time if they see the examples of Ireland, Scotland and Afghanistan gaining full membership and they realize that with a relatively modest investment they could do the same and reap the same benefits.

The Singaporean government don't have much to hang their hat on in the way of sporting achievements (a gold medal in Table Tennis?) so investment in cricket would probably not be the worst thing for them. There's not that many elite nations to compete with, if they threw a bit of money at the problem they could probably make some decent progress pretty quickly. It wouldn't be hard to attract quality coaches either. So that's my bet for a dark horse in the Test arena in the next 50 or so years.

Agreed.

I just don't see a day when any East Africa team will play Test cricket. There's just no money and no interest and without at least one of those attributes any bid to play any form of meaningful cricket, let alone Test cricket, is ultimately doomed.

But we cannot look at test cricket alone in isolation. an East African team (whether a single East Africa team or maybe Kenya) isn't going to have to support Test cricket in the country from money derived from Test cricket alone. No current full member actually does this. Test cricket is part of a matrix of cricket that full members undertake primarily supported by money from ODIs, T20Is, television rights and sponsorship. For instance, look at Cricket Australia's Annual Report of 2012. For the KFC Big Bash League the average TV audience (presumably per match) was 282,558 and the average attendance (presumably per match) was 17,753. Total unique TV reach was estimated at 3.1 million and total attendance was estimated at 550,328. Yes, Australia has a television market for their domestic T20 competition, but Kenya does not have to follow the Australian model down to the finest detail. The numbers I provided are to demonstrate that the majority of money will actually be derived from people who do not end up at the stadium and who may not even reside in the country.

And this is proven when one looks at Cricket South Africa's 2011/12 Annual Report. In that report the thoughtfully breakdown the revenue by source (unlike some other boards financial statements). The result?

Broadcast Rights income is shown to account for 64% of operational revenue, ICC distributions (from participation in tournaments or directly from the ICC for other reasons) is shown at 1%, amateur sponsorship at 2%, professional sponsorship at 13%, government grants were 0% (though presumably in some years there were government grants otherwise they wouldn't have that category) and "other income" was shown to be 20%. A bit further down the give an even more detailed breakdown by the specific figures in thousands of rand which I reproduce below (and to which I add the percentage of the total):

Amateur sponsorship 8,822 (in 2011 it was 27,470) [2.05%]
Broadcast rights income 276,723 (in 2011 it was 372 253) [64.35%]
CL T20 participation fee 36,066 [8.38%]
Coach hire 15,636 [3.64%]
Event income 0 (in 2011 it was 850) [0%]
ICC distributions 1,534 (in 2011 it was 143,174) [0.36%]
International gates revenue 27,254 [6.34%]
NLDTF (Lottery) grant 0 (in 2011 it was 12,500) [0%]
Other income 7,804 [1.81%]
Professional sponsorship 55,192 [12.83%]
Sports and Recreation South Africa grants 981 [0.228%]

Total 430,012 [100%]

So with South Africa broadcast rights formed more than half of the revenue. Even the participation fee for the Champions League T20 formed a greater percentage of revenue than gate receipts. South Africa is guaranteed participation in the Champions League it is true, but for Kenya/East Africa a participation fee if any of their domestic teams qualify would definitely add to revenue (or reduce expenses) and even if they do not qualify for the Champions League, the board can definitely rely on getting 10% of the auction fee of each and every Kenya/East African player in the Indian Premier League (see 1, 2 and 3).

And even if Kenya/East Africa had to rely a bit more on gate receipts than on broadcast rights, the fact is that the cost/benefit ratio for the various forms of cricket goes up the shorter the format of the game. Test cricket involves 5 days of cricket and for the Ashes in England a ticket can go for £80 per day, while for the ODI series involving Australia the tickets can go for £45-60 per match. T20I match tickets can be in the same range as ODI/test tickets but there the boards are only providing expenditure for 40 overs of cricket, versus 100 overs for an ODI or 450 overs for a test (potentially). With test matches the best revenue will be on saturdays and sundays with the weekday revenues being weaker. Gate receipts from ODIs and T20Is would tend to be higher than receipts from test matches because:

- ODIs and T20Is match tickets usually attract a slightly higher price in relation to the amount of cricket played (the price might be lower than for a test match ticket but less cricket is played and more people generally attend so revenue will be greater)

- You tend to have more ODIs and T20Is being played in a given year by a team than test matches. For example Bangladesh played 11 test matches between May 24, 2011 and May 24, 2013, Zimbabwe played 8, Australia played 24, South Africa played 19, Pakistan played 15 and England played 27. For the same countries the number of ODIs played in the same period were (respectively): 26, 20, 43, 24, 40 and 39. For T20Is the figures were: 14, 12, 20, 18, 21 and 22.

So the ratio of tests to ODIs + T20Is were:

Bangladesh - 11: 40
Zimbabwe - 8: 32
Australia - 24: 63
South Africa - 19: 42
Pakistan - 15: 61
England - 27: 61

For Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe approx 80% of their matches were ODIs or T20Is. I have little doubt it would be any different for Kenya/East Africa.

So most of the revenue from gate receipts in quite a few test nations are derived not from tests but from ODIs and T20Is. So the interest in test cricket does not have to be that high in order for test cricket to be supported. And there is some amount of interest in cricket in Kenya, otherwise there is no way Kenya could be an Associate at the level it currently is.

More importantly though is the interest that fans of other teams will have in watching which is what determines broadcast rights. As cricket fans will generally watch a match to see their own team rather than the other team it means that even an Australia-Bangladesh match will have Australians watching even if most fans know and expect Australia to win handsomely. Other factors such as time zone differences and competitiveness do have a part to play in how much broadcast rights are worth. But they will be worth something and generally worth at least US$1 million per year for full members.

Coupled with sponsorship there would be enough money for Kenya/East African full membership and thus test cricket in Kenya/East Africa. Would Kenya/East Africa be able to support playing 27 test matches a year? No. In fact Kenya/East Africa's test matches to limited overs matches ratio might be as much as 8:60 over a 2 year period (or close to 90% of matches being ODIs and T20Is). And with overseas tours being funded mainly by the hosting country (which is supposed to pay for the accommodations, etc of the visiting team but retain all gate receipts whereas in the past it was different) then Kenya/East Africa might find it worthwhile to have a lot of limited overs matches being played overseas (so that the only expenses for the board would be the player fees and maybe airfare).

JHunter wrote: It's about time Ireland did this. They wasted a lot of time between 2007 and 2011 griping about there being "no clear pathway" to test status when in truth the pathway was so simple a 12-year old should have been able to understand it (it was all of 2 pages long!) and involved putting in place a domestic multi-day tournament.

The pathway isn't that 'clear' as you claim. Just putting up a domestic multi-day tournament won't get you Test status. If that was the case, Argentina, USA, Canada and Kenya should have got it long back. To become a Test nation, you need votes at the ICC table. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe joined themselves with the Asian bloc, which charted out a smoother route to them. And that is where the basic problem in ICC is. It is just a ten-member club looking out for themselves, and throwing a few crumbs to the other 96 nations playing the game. If any new team even threatens get into the club, it will twist its rules and put new roadblocks whenever possible to stop the team.

samedwards wrote:

JHunter wrote: It's about time Ireland did this. They wasted a lot of time between 2007 and 2011 griping about there being "no clear pathway" to test status when in truth the pathway was so simple a 12-year old should have been able to understand it (it was all of 2 pages long!) and involved putting in place a domestic multi-day tournament.

The pathway isn't that 'clear' as you claim.

It IS that clear. Did you read the TWO PAGE document on the requirements of full membership? Do you realize that the document on the requirement for full membership is less wordy than the documents on the requirements for Associate membership?

Look, Mr. Deutrom was simply being obtuse from 2007 onward until he got a clue sometime around 2009-2010. He was quite naturally playing to his constituents by claiming some kind of underdog status in dealing with the ICC but that was never going to get Ireland anywhere and it showed. Afghanistan's cricket board exhibited no such behaviour after it's rise to stardom but got on with the business of putting in place the structures necessary and within 2 years of their rise through the World Cricket League had beaten Ireland by 7 wickets in the Intercontinental Cup and were taking the 2009-10 Intercontinental Cup title (something which Ireland had won for three straight seasons).

Just putting up a domestic multi-day tournament won't get you Test status.

Duh! It's pretty clear from the document that this isn't the only thing you need. However it is also VERY clear that there was no way that Ireland was ever going to be accorded full membership without a multi-day domestic tournament. And that is why I'm sure Warren Deutrom was wasting time between 2007 and 2010/2011. He was banging on about "no clear pathway" and implying Ireland should be given full membership off the back of the team's one-day performances in the period. That was quite simply NEVER going to happen no matter how much he complained. Had Ireland instituted a 3-day tournament, asked the ICC to adjudge the tournament as a first-class tournament (which is something Ireland can ask the ICC to do) and then applied for full membership after meeting all of the criteria and then been rejected...then and only then would Deutrom have had a case for all the public complaints. Until that happened he was basically being no different than an uninformed fan bitterly complaining about issues on which he was quite clearly ignorant.

If that was the case, Argentina, USA, Canada and Kenya should have got it long back.

The USA and Canada? When have the USA and Canada ever had a multi-day domestic tournament?

As for Argentina and Kenya, they definitely did (and do in the case of Argentina), but the kicker is that Kenya's tournament folded in 2008 and hasn't been resurrected since while Argentina's tournament is traditional and Argentina's cricket board hasn't shown any interest in applying for full membership. So until they attempt to do so, there is no way anyone can claim that Argentina should have got it but was denied it.

To become a Test nation, you need votes at the ICC table. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe joined themselves with the Asian bloc, which charted out a smoother route to them.

Funny this. It shows a woeful lack of knowledge of ICC history. Up until 1993 England and Australia held veto powers in the ICC. So until 1993 there is simply no way Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe could have joined if both England and Australia were opposed. Thankfully that thoroughly undemocratic system was abolished in 1993 (a year AFTER Zimbabwe joined the ICC as a full member). So in the case of Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe the "Asian" bloc that supported their entry in 1981 and 1992 respectively must therefore have consisted of England and Australia too. And England DID use their veto when they wanted to. They used it in 1989 to prevent Zimbabwean full membership. With Sri Lanka, full membership was first proposed for it by Pakistan in 1975 (and only lukewarmly supported by India) but this was turned down by majority vote if I'm not mistaken after the Pakistani delegate made an embarrassing pitch for Sri Lanka's membership. Only later in the late 1970s did Sri Lanka's quest for full membership gain the support of India, Pakistan and West Indies and by the 1980s it had the support of everyone and Australia and England did not veto Sri Lanka's full membership.

Incidentally it was India (in this Asian bloc that you seem to detest) which first advocated for the re-admission of South Africa in 1991 as apartheid was ending.

And that is where the basic problem in ICC is. It is just a ten-member club looking out for themselves, and throwing a few crumbs to the other 96 nations playing the game.

Yup, because the Targeted Assistance Programme which partly helped Ireland to put in place the Interprovincial Championship and help Ireland along the path to full membership is most definitely a crumb. Bitter much? Is shifting blame and not accepting individual independence and responsibility working out for any of those 96 other nations who seem to want to get rewards for zero work?

If any new team even threatens get into the club, it will twist its rules and put new roadblocks whenever possible to stop the team.

Ah yes! A claim without any proof whatsoever to substantiate it. Can you provide a single example of the ICC changing the rules on attaining full membership when a particular country was trying to apply? If you can't answer anything else, you should answer this.

It's always strange how easily folks resort to a victim attitude when in truth people (and organizations) have much personal responsibility and accountability. After all it isn't as if Ireland and Scotland were being denied separate membership in the ICC for decades - Scotland and Ireland were represented in the Cricket Council which governed cricket in "England" (actually in Great Britain and Ireland) from 1968 when it was founded until 1997 when it was replaced by the England and Wales Cricket Board. Along with Scotland and Ireland the other entities represented in the Cricket Council were the Test and County Cricket Board (for the first-class counties and the main body organizing test cricket in England), National Cricket Association (for club and junior cricket), the Minor Counties Cricket Association and the MCC (due to its special historical role in the game and the fact that it was the predecessor body governing cricket in Britain before 1968). Scotland left the Cricket Council in 1992 and then applied for ICC membership (being turned down in 1993, no doubt due to confusion over whether Scotland was still under the jurisdiction of the board representing "England") and then got membership in 1994 (when it seems the confusion was cleared up). Ireland applied for and got membership in 1993. So in both cases there could not have been a Scottish team or Irish team playing test cricket before the 1990s unless Ireland and Scotland themselves dissociated from the "England" board first and then applied to the ICC. Why they didn't do so until the 1990s is unknown to me, though I suspect it was because they weren't too bothered with the situation as it existed up until then (or it could be due to the veto England held).

What is particularly interesting is that the attitude displayed by Deutrom and which you seem to support is not based off any kind of evidence that I know of that the ICC had a separate standard for entry for the current full members; ALL current full members (including Bangladesh) had REGULAR multi-day domestic cricket before becoming full members. Every last one of them. So it's pretty much rubbish to suggest that future members should be given a bye to full membership without a regular multi-day domestic tournament.

J, I have to disagree with you and agree with samedwards, that the ICC is essentially a 10 member club looking out for itself. In fact, I'll go further. Its basically a 3 member club looking out for themselves, that throws crumbs at the other 6 full members, barring South Africa.

That being said, I do expect and hope that Ireland gets Test status by the year 2020. In fact, I hope they get it sooner.

Afghanistan also deserves it on merit, perhaps by 2025. But their security situation means that they won't get it either. Unless they can pull a Pakistan and host all their matches in the UAE.

Ireland will definately be the next candidate for test status.

Other than them I see these countries as the only other possibilities:

Scotland
Afghanistan (based in the UAE)
Netherlands (cricket has a sizeable following in the Netherlands)
Nepal (big interest in cricket)
Namibia
Kenya (they are on the up again)

JHunter wrote:It IS that clear. Did you read the TWO PAGE document on the requirements of full membership? Do you realize that the document on the requirement for full membership is less wordy than the documents on the requirements for Associate membership?

That two-page document contains guidelines, not rules (and they're guidelines a number of current Full Members don't even meet, at that). Any application for Full Membership still requires a vote of the existing Full Members, who will be looking at the Future Tours Programme, TV rights, the possibility of diluting all that with games against another nation that Indian, Aussie or English crowds won't necessarily want to watch them play against, and be basing their decision on that. Not on adherence to the guidelines in a 2-page ICC document.

My own thinking is that there's a 50/50 chance that Ireland will get Test status within the time they've targetted for it - Deutrom seems to be bloody persuasive when he wants to be, and that'll work in their favour. It's a long way from in the bag, though. And I'd bet there will be no other new Test country within the next 20-30 years, if not longer. There's simply no good reason why the 'traditional Test nations' would want to expand their cosy little club. Don't fool yourself by thinking they have any interest in 'expanding the world game' - they're purely interested in the money.