PDA

View Full Version : BD will compete with old rivals


bd_cricket
May 19, 2004, 01:01 AM
Todays newspapers say that ICC is considering splitting the test nations into two groups, which was suggested by Ganguli recently. In the same note ICC also says there will 16 test teams. If this happens we will be again competing with Holland, Kenya, Zimbabwe, UAE, Scottland, Namibia like old ICC chamiponship days.

Orpheus
May 19, 2004, 01:25 AM
that is the dumbest thing I have heard.... who comes up with these?

billah
May 19, 2004, 01:25 AM
I don't like the smell of this at all..

James90
May 19, 2004, 01:30 AM
Wtf is going on! That is soooo stupid! Don't they have any idea of history or tradition! Not only that, it's been well publicised that county cricket has too many teams why make it the same case at the highest level...although if you get games like UAE v Canada as tests it's not gonna be the highest level anymore

Tintin
May 19, 2004, 01:32 AM
although if you get games like UAE v Canada as tests it's not gonna be the highest level anymore


My guess is that the lower level games will only be first class, which is equivalent to losing the test status.

fwullah
May 19, 2004, 01:36 AM
It'll be at least 10 years for the ICC to have 16 Test Playing nations.

Because, except for Kenya, there is no other team that has capability or the infrastructure to be a test playing nation within the next 5 years.

However, there is always the possibility of having 16 teams with full ODI status, like Kenya has now; and that Bangladesh used to have for a few years.

- Holland is the most likely candidate to have this full ODI status within 5 years

- Nepal has the infrastructure to be a test playing nation within next 15 years; at least that is what their performances in the age-group level suggests

- UAE doesn't come close, unless ICC takes a major globalization process in which they decide to make at least 4 countries to have the full ODI status before the world cup 2011. In which case, UAE must qualify in the world cup first.

- I don't know too much about the current Scotland team, like UAE, they must also qualify for the world cup first

- Same for Namibia - the qualification for the world cup is a must.

billah
May 19, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Tintin

although if you get games like UAE v Canada as tests it's not gonna be the highest level anymore


My guess is that the lower level games will only be first class, which is equivalent to losing the test status.

You ain't jokin'. Right on the money. This can't happen. First class status for matches between UAE, Nepal and a few other developing nations may make some sens. Mani must be puffing something. First we hear he's gonna add 6 more countries to the Test pool by 2007, now this. Is he alright?

abhs
May 19, 2004, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by fwullah
It'll be at least 10 years for the ICC to have 16 Test Playing nations.



According to the newspaper repot, ICC plans to have six more test playing nations by 2007.

However, all these are still in the very premitive stage and may be placed in table for decison in June 2005.

Source: Sports news of Jugantor, 19 May 2004 (http://www.jugantor.com/wednesday/khela.pdf)
Page 2

fab
May 19, 2004, 01:51 AM
According to this source (http://www.thatscricket.com/news/2004/05/18/1805icc.html) they're just keeping an 'open' mind of the suggestion. Hope that's as far as it goes.

----

ICC open to Ganguly's 2-tier Test plan
Tuesday, May 18 2004 12:47 Hrs (IST)

London: International Cricket Council (ICC), which is planning to expand the number of Test playing nations to 16, is considering Indian captain Sourav Ganguly's suggestion of having a two-tier Test format, ICC president Ehsan Mani has said.

"ICC is considering suggestions like that of Ganguly's with an open mind. We have received many suggestions like these. A decision on having a two-tier Test format can be taken by June next year," Mani said in an interview to BBC Hindi.

Mani said, "ICC is having a strategic review of International Cricket these days where we will definitely review and analyse all these things. We are trying to find out a better way of running cricket competitions in the world.

"We shall probably make a decision on this by June 2005 when the final document should be ready. You should understand that this would have far reaching implications," he said.

Ganguly had recently suggested introducing a two-tier Test format so that the world's strongest team did not compete against the game's minnows as the ICC expected six more affiliated member countries to gain full membership by the year 2007. At present there are 10 Test playing nations.

Ganguly had said that globalisation of cricket was fine, but it shouldn't destroy the competitive edge of Test cricket.

The categorisation was essential because there was an "appreciable gap" among the current 10 Test-playing nations, he said.

Bangladesh, for instance, has struggled to compete against the other nine Test playing countries -- drawing just two Tests and losing all other matches out of 28 since gaining Test status in 2000.

The ICC is spending millions of dollars to popularise the game in countries like the USA, which has also qualified for the Champions Trophy to be played in England in September this year.

abhs
May 19, 2004, 02:07 AM
The Cricinfo also finally reports on the same:

ICC to consider two-tier format (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/149667_WCI_19MAY2004.html)

The ICC has stated that it is open to the idea of having a two-tier format for Tests. Reacting to Sourav Ganguly's suggestion that all Test teams be grouped into two levels, Ehsan Mani, the ICC president, said in a chat with BBC Hindi: "The ICC is considering suggestions like that of Ganguly's with an open mind. We have received many suggestions like these. A decision on having a two-tier Test format can be taken by June next year."

Mani clarified that the ICC was currently in the process of studying various aspects of the game. "The ICC is having a strategic review of international cricket these days where we will definitely review and analyse all these things. We are trying to find out a better way of running cricket competitions in the world. We shall probably make a decision on this by June 2005 when the final document should be ready. You should understand that this would have far reaching implications."

The ICC had earlier indicated that it was planning to offer full membership to six more countries before the 2007 World Cup, prompting Ganguly to suggest that a two-tier system was the only way to preserve the standards of Test cricket. The clamour for the new format has also gained ground after Zimbabwe's second string was thrashed in the Tests and the one-dayers by Sri Lanka. Australia are already in Zimbabwe for a series that many fear will be the most one-sided in the history of Test cricket.

Ganguly suggests two-tier system for Tests (http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAY/144720_IND_13MAY2004.html)

Sourav Ganguly has suggested that the ICC implement a two-tier system to preserve the sanctity of Test cricket. Reacting to the news that the ICC was planning to offer full membership to six more countries before the 2007 World Cup, Ganguly said: "If the standard of the game has to be preserved, it would be better to have a two-tier system." Such a system would ensure that the top teams only play each other, leaving the bottom-rung teams to battle among themselves.

The clamour over maintaining the standards of Test cricket comes in the wake of some hopelessly one-sided series over the last few years. Bangladesh have struggled since being granted Test status, losing 26 out of 28 matches, while the Zimbabweans Ė missing almost all their top players Ė have looked completely out of depth: they have been thrashed by the Sri Lankans in the current series, but an even more fearful mauling is in prospect in the upcoming series against Australia.

Ganguly also admitted that the while the Australians were still the best team in the world, the Indians were gradually closing in. "We have to match Australia in consistency. Australia have played good cricket over a period of time to become the number one team. We have played well and done well against them in Tests but in one-day cricket they have had the better of us. [But] doing well in the coming series will definitely close the gap."

On the issue of retaining John Wright as the coach, Ganguly said: "It depends on lot of issues. John has been a very good coach. But whether to retain him or otherwise depends on a lot of issues. He also has to decide. He has a family and he has been travelling widely for the last few years."

sage
May 19, 2004, 02:41 AM
This ganguli is way over the head. Ganja khor!

fwullah
May 19, 2004, 04:03 AM
I believe Ganguly is saying that because he's now confident that India is now on top, if India were not on top, like on 5-7 in the rankings, then his words would have been a lot different.

Anyway, according to the ICC Cricinfo report, I think the following teams has the possibility to be positioned on the lesser-group (considering only the form in Test Cricket among the current world of Test cricket of 10 test playing nations):

1. Bangladesh
2. Zimbabwe
3. West Indies
4. England / Pakistan
5. Sri Lanka

The above is only my personal opinion, however, I strongly believe that people of those 3/4 countries above besides Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will be quite frustrated to see such type of two-tier system. In the end, it'll not work, because there are a lot of controversies.

For example, what happens to this two-tier system's idea if England are one of the candidates to somehow manage to be in this group? The general public there will not take this idea so lightly. This is true for other test playing nations like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies as well.

So I see a no-win situation here, for the ICC.

fwullah
May 19, 2004, 04:19 AM
In fact, if this idea is to be taken seriously, then there should be a 3-tier system, not two.

These are the reasons why I think that there should be 3-tier systems:-

1. Australia
2. South Africa
3. England
4. India

Considering the current ICC Test Rankings, the above 4 teams have comprehensively beaten Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and they're also the top 4 teams in the Test Rankings. So they are at the top-tier system.

Pakistan has comprehensively beaten Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, however, there were at times that Pakistan managed to run (South Africa and other teams) them for money at times.

Then there are West Indies, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand, among whom, West Indies have beaten Bangladesh comprehensively in Bangladesh, but could not win against England or Zimbabwe.

Then there is Sri Lanka, who were beaten comprehensively by Australia at home, also beaten Zimbabwe and Bangladesh quite comprehensively on their away and home tour.

Then there is New Zealand, who have also comprehensively beaten Bangladesh, and very close to India/Australia at their home.

Where was I? I have completely lost my track as to what I was thinking.

I am not including Bangladesh and Zimbabwe because we all know that these 2 teams are already at the bottom of any rankings.

And if my idea seems logical at all, then there could be some day when there'll be the need for 4-tier systems, not 2 or 3. So it will be a lot more nonsense than it sounds now.

fwullah
May 19, 2004, 04:43 AM
Alright, lets forget about my last thread - it was completely useless, it is way over my head - only 1 thing that I learnt from it - its not as simple as just choosing a two-tier system or not. For example, what about the games when Bangladesh were able to compete with big teams? If the teams are chosen based on their results only, then it does not seem logical at all.

Besides, from competitive point of view, if the viewers watch matches between only 4-5 teams, and not all 10 teams playing matches against each other, then the viewers will get bored anyways, because the same players of one team are playing against the same players of another team.

This may seem 'not an OK logic' for teams that have many spectators and viewers, but what about teams that do not have so many support? So, even if this two-tier system works intially, there is possibility of this not working in the end at all.

And there is this little fact - if small teams don't play against big teams, then the players of the small teams do not have any idea that they're weak against something or stronger for other cases. Like, for an example, we used to think that our spinners were great during 1997, because with them, we could beat just any other ICC Associate team in the world. But when we were promoted to full ODI status, and started playing against test playing teams of around the world, then we started to realize that our spinners are not so great, and only until recently that our spinners are justifying their place in the world.

I am sure there are many other examples like this.

Ahmed_B
May 19, 2004, 06:09 AM
Lot of discussions we are having on a newly introduced idea in test cricket sphere. Lets just make a breakdown of the idea which doesn’t even exist but may be thought of by the ICC if difference of performance-standard between the lower and higher ranked teams are way too vast!

First of all, I’m almost certain that this 2-tiering will not work even if the number of the test-nations is increased to 12 (let alone current number of 10). Because if the tires consist of equal numbers then the top tiers will be of 6 nations at best –which will obviously leave 2 of the top 8 test nations into the second tier!! I just don’t think that will be accepted by any of them!!

In that case the only possibility that ICC has is to have 16 test nations in total, making two tiers of 8 nations each. According to the current ranking, the following will probably be the tiers:

Tier 1
Australia, India, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, England, W.Indies, S.Africa, N.Zealand (not as ranking)
Tier 2
Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Holland, Scotland, Nepal, Singapore, UAE (arbitrary list, as I haven’t done any stat-survey on any of the lower teams. Also can be Namibia or else)

Considering that anyone who is proposing this ‘Elitist’ 2-tier system has his reasons, its obvious that ICC has to take cricket long way ahead of current status worldwide to be able to even think of such a system! Because, no matter how much Bangladesh is criticized for its performance, there is absolutely no doubt about the spectacular infrastructure & popularity this country possesses for cricket itself! Among the current Associate members of ICC probably none has even anything near to BD (not even Kenya). I am sure BD won’t have to worry about falling into the second tier by the time ICC can make any way to establish the 2-tier, because the team is already in a consistent progress graph!

Nascer
May 19, 2004, 07:13 AM
[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Nascer]

Cricket46
May 19, 2004, 08:38 AM
I agree with some posts here that Ganguly would not have made such comments of two-tier test teams, if India had not been doing as well as they have been doing recently. I canít see any merit in this proposal. But then, I am not Ganguly.

The ICC plan of having 16 test teams by 2007 is absolutely out of the world and at best laughable. No matter how much we root for Bangladesh team, most of us agree that we have struggled and only recently have started to push the opponents a little bit. This, given the fact that our region has had a cricketing culture of many years. So what would happen if in 2007 Nepal plays Australia in a test match? I have nothing against Nepal or any other country. A Nepal vs Australia ODI would most likely be one-sided as well, but it would not be as bad as a test match between the two teams. As it is, people donít turn up for test matches (not even in the much-hyped up Indo-Pak series), such a thing, would surely do much harm to this form of the game.

A combination of the above two proposals is the way to go. And to me, that already exists to some extent. That is, the top teams play test cricket, and the next level plus the top teams all play ODI matches. Since Kenya is the only team in the non-test playing ODI category, the way to go could be to include a few more in that category. The next step would be to graduate into a test team. We all know that on a given day, funny results can come out of a limited over match. But there is no such scope in a test match. The differences are so glaring, that it makes a mockery of this game we love so much.

paco
May 19, 2004, 09:00 AM
I just hope that next time we play india in tests we beat them, and hopefully that will shut Lord Snooty up !!

AsifTheManRahman
May 19, 2004, 09:55 AM
Mani's a crazy nut case