I'm not being all doom and gloom. I'm being practical. I want us to play more tests, but I want us to be practical about it.Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:17 am
I don't see a reason for all this doom and gloom. Zimbabwe just played a fairly competitive series vs Sri Lanka - a side that just whitewashed South Africa in South Africa. The team that lost to Bangladesh was missing 4 key players (Jarvis, Chatara, Williams, Moor) - meaning it was effectively a Zimbabwe A team.
If its purely a fiscal decision, sure. But not playing due to fear of the results is not only sad, but a waste of Test status IMO. You can't improve by not playing.
Even following your recipe...what happens if Zimbabwe start losing ODIs to Netherlands, Scotland, or Afghanistan? Do we then say, lets quit playing ODIs and just focus on playing T20s? Where does it end?
Yes, it is nice when we play games, but it's not entirely worth it when we are losing money, or losing badly. At one point it was said we need to play more to improve. It was also said we need to play more to get exposure. We need to play more to earn money. We need to play more to play more...Heard all those reason.
So perhaps we need a different approach then just playing matches for the sake of playing matches. At present, tests do not offer us much more than pride. So playing tests would be nice, but we can't just keep playing match after match. We are essentially going to make our income and have more chance of sides wanting to play us, by playing the shorter format. It also means that we can work towards the next WC (or we should be). It is also a catch22 because of the board. They are clearly not picking the best players and their is a lot of favoritism, so are we happy putting out sub par sides to get beaten and deal with it.