Why don't we?

[Raynman]

I'm going by the assumption that ICC will retain bi-lateral series' and the allocation of matches will remain unfair. With that in mind, here are two things I would suggest to BCB:

1. Partner with Zimbabwe and Ireland and organize 3 ODI tournaments annually. Each team will host with a 4th nation. BCB can reach out to IND, SL, PAK for their commitment that one of them will take part in the BD hosted event while ZIM can reach out to SA and IRE can reach out to ECB given their relationships. This will allow all 3 of us to have more frequent ODIs for our improvements and banding together gets the bigger nations interested as their obligation is considerably less. It also allows IND for example to provide annual matches to BD, ZIM and IRE without having to host them.

2. Send a Bangladesh A team to the Associate tournaments. Their results should not interfere with associate qualifications but their presence will allow the associates more decent opposition and we will get critical experience for those that are knocking on the national team's door.

[sujon]

Very good thought.

[Shubho]

Very good ideas indeed, Rayman. Quadrangular series involving BAN, ZIM, IRL and a G8 team would be awesome. I'm sick of us playing 5-match ODI series with ZIM every six months.

I don't know about the BCB, but I'm sure the cricket authorities in IRL and ZIM would be game for this.

[Beamer]

Great idea. They should explore it. No doubt.

[SS]

Originally Posted by Beamer
Great idea. They should explore it. No doubt.

Yeap but we are talking about BCB!

[shuziburo]

I like idea 1. This will allow all the associate nations to play a g8 nation. The g8 nation will probably walk away with the trophy, but that's a small price to pay.

The A team should try to play the A teams of the g8 nations as much as possible. Playing the associate A teams will not bear much fruit and g8 nations are more willing to play our A team.

Devote a lot of time to the U-19 team. Our U-19 players can challenge the best teams' U-19, but by the time they make it to the national team, they fall behind. It has to be the level of competition they face. To make the best steel, you need it put it through roaring fire!

[Raynman]

Originally Posted by shuziburo
I like idea 1. This will allow all the associate nations to play a g8 nation. The g8 nation will probably walk away with the trophy, but that's a small price to pay.

The A team should try to play the A teams of the g8 nations as much as possible. Playing the associate A teams will not bear much fruit and g8 nations are more willing to play our A team.

Devote a lot of time to the U-19 team. Our U-19 players can challenge the best teams' U-19, but by the time they make it to the national team, they fall behind. It has to be the level of competition they face. To make the best steel, you need it put it through roaring fire!

Well we get to pick who plays in the team and it can used as valuable experience for those that need it. This doesn't have to replace us playing G8 A teams. (even though we were G8 for a few days there)

Playing against countries like CAN, NED, IRE (if they remain associates) where players are foreign born of countries like AUS, ENG, SA, WI etc. will definitely help in the long run.

[Murad]

Good Idea once again, Raynman bhai. But too bad BCB don't like good ideas. So apnar shob ideas sudhu BC tei roye jabe

[betaar]

I am not sure if I like the quadrangular tourneys involving associates. It’s fine and dandy if we are speaking of lending a helping hand to them but since BD it self is struggling to stamp its authority with the elite teams and considered as a minnow, I would rather we use the associates for our own benefits which will also give them the exposure of playing test playing nation such as us.

In a quadrangular set up, there will most likely be 1 game each for each team and given the lack of gap of strength between BD with Ire and Zim in oneday matches, we may end up losing, especially in their home condition, and fail to reach the final to play the G8 team. Some might call it cowardice, but the mental frailty that exists is our young team’s mind may be protected from deteriorating if we can avoid embarrassments like these.

I would rather BD play the associates in a bilateral series, max of 3 matches, prior to playing other nations in that continent. For example, I would like BD to play Ireland and Scotland before they go to Eng (I know we are not invited to Eng for a while) or play them in our home condition before we play teams like Eng, Aus and NZ. We should also cut down the # of games we play with Zim each year and play G8 teams more often.

[Farhad]

3 times a year is excessive. Once is an option worth considering though...

[affan_ayan]

I completely agree with betaar, additionally, all the big test countries will play us loose, if we keep loosing to the minnows. May be once we are a strong team, then we should help the associates more.

Mama, age nijer pran bacha.

[al Furqaan]

I like this idea better than any "promotion/relegation" systems anyone can come up with.

The thing is all 3 nations already get decent exposure to IND, SA, ENG. Ireland plays some top sides every summer (this year its Sri Lanka and Scotland in Scotland). ZIM has a partnership with SA already. and of course we get a series with India every 2-3 years. of course your idea is better because it gives greater access to all 3 top teams to the other 2 "minnows".

i like the A team idea also.

but what i would like to see is BCB, ZC, and CI taking the initiative (with other Test boards of course) in bringing Afghanistan to the fore. we could host a bi-annual quadrangular tournament featuring BD, ZIM, IRE, and AFG. the host venue could cycle between IRE/ZIM/BD every 2 years.

another idea that could be looked into is starting a bi annual "OIC Cup" featuring Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

there are so many options available to rope in the top associate sides like Ireland and Afghanistan, its sad to see the BCB refuses to do it. perhaps we can use our connections to push these ideas through.

[Isnaad]

3 tourneys a year in this fashion seems a little too much. How about 2?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[Ian Pont]

Originally Posted by Raynman
I'm going by the assumption that ICC will retain bi-lateral series' and the allocation of matches will remain unfair. With that in mind, here are two things I would suggest to BCB:

1. Partner with Zimbabwe and Ireland and organize 3 ODI tournaments annually. Each team will host with a 4th nation. BCB can reach out to IND, SL, PAK for their commitment that one of them will take part in the BD hosted event while ZIM can reach out to SA and IRE can reach out to ECB given their relationships. This will allow all 3 of us to have more frequent ODIs for our improvements and banding together gets the bigger nations interested as their obligation is considerably less. It also allows IND for example to provide annual matches to BD, ZIM and IRE without having to host them.

2. Send a Bangladesh A team to the Associate tournaments. Their results should not interfere with associate qualifications but their presence will allow the associates more decent opposition and we will get critical experience for those that are knocking on the national team's door.

No disrespect, but why would we want to play against ZIM and IRE? My thought is we are trying to play England, India, Australia and SL a great deal more and thereby get exposure to greater standards of cricket.

I feel this is a watering down and not a strengthening of our commitments to improving our own players. It's the very reason Australia never wants to come here. So we have to take them on and start winning to prove ourselves - and not play 'associate' ZIM and 'we are good but not quite read yet' Ireland - as our main sources of fixtures.

This is all superfluous anyway as the ICC would never look at this.

[kalpurush]

Agree with Ian. Shouldn't we try to play more against the top teams to be more competitive rather playing the likes of Zimbabwe and Ireland? And, we are playing Zimbabwe twice a year anyway.

We should give a tough fight against the Aussies while they are in BD after the WC and make a strong statement that we have improved significantly, also reaching QF by beating SA would believe people that we can play cricket in the highest level. Playing minnows in a continuous basis won't take us anywhere IMHO.

[Rifat_02]

Fully agree with coach. We are playing with zimbabwe a lot for the last five years anyway. Its not going to benefit us much. Look at the associates, they r playing & winning among themselves but is it really improving them? Most have gone behind us, take kenya, scotland & netherland for example. At one time we were fighting with them in ICC trophy and now look at us after getting test status.

The time for us playing them has long gone. Now we should be concentrating on the big fishes.

We should be hosting series vs West Indies & New Zealand more often. The last time West Indies came here was in 2002. Nine years ago!! Thats ridiculous.

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[Raynman]

Just to clarify, I'm not floating an idea that is a full schedule or a replacement to anything else for Bangladesh here.

It is in addition to other commitments BCB can secure. Series' vs. top teams are still the priority but adding this to the rotation in my opinion would allow more games. We end up playing ZIM 10 times anyways (5 here, 5 there). This could reduce that and incorporate a few big names into those slots.

If we can't beat AUS in the upcoming series (or in the knockout stages of the QF), we won't see them again for at least another 3/4 years. This way by helping out ZIM and IRE we also get more frequent shots at bigger teams. Playing ZIM and IRE regularly should allow us to experiment with 1 or 2 slots every now and then to help us find the right combinations as well for the more important series'.

[Baundule]

Both Raynman and Ian have merits in their views. Players usually improve quickly by playing better oppositions. So, we must try to get more games against G8 teams.

But as usual ICC will not care to allocate us enough matches against them and some boards will not respect the FTP. As a backup plan for the national team, playing against the likes of Ireland and Zim will do no harm.

In any case, we should keep our A team busy playing against the associates as well as against the G8 A teams. The current development process of Bangladesh cricket does not allow creating new players and that is why we hear craps like 'we do not have a replacement for X, Y or Z'. Making the A team more active will help in this respect.

[lamisa]

once a year is fine,it's a good idea.also the idea about the A team is good.but we really should be playing as many top teams as possible and also beating them because otherwise we will never get teams like australia to tour us often and never get to play in india.playing in india is no big deal apart from the pride-ego issue

[roman]

How about Improving the deomestic cricket? Making it more competitive? Thats more important than anything else isnt it?. If we have a strong domestic cricket then all the things that have been suggested here in this thread will follow automatically..Australia will come here to get beaten, India will invite us for money and we'll have stong line of backup players for X Y and Z...

[Raynman]

Originally Posted by roman
How about Improving the deomestic cricket??? Making it more competitive??? Thats more important than anything else isnt it?. If we have a strong domestic cricket then all the things that have been suggested here in this thread will follow automatically..Australia will come here to get beaten, India will invite us for money and we'll have stong line of backup players for X Y and Z...

Thats a MUST.

I think also finding ways to make the DPL more profitable will help BCB in the long run. This way the individual teams will have an incentive to find and develop their own talent which can only help the national team.

On a side note, what I don't understand is why do so many react to suggestions/ideas as an EITHER/OR. There is no ONE magic solution for us. All reasonable solutions should be discussed with the pros and cons weighed.

[betaar]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont
No disrespect, but why would we want to play against ZIM and IRE? My thought is we are trying to play England, India, Australia and SL a great deal more and thereby get exposure to greater standards of cricket.

I feel this is a watering down and not a strengthening of our commitments to improving our own players. It's the very reason Australia never wants to come here. So we have to take them on and start winning to prove ourselves - and not play 'associate' ZIM and 'we are good but not quite read yet' Ireland - as our main sources of fixtures.

This is all superfluous anyway as the ICC would never look at this.

I totally agree with you Ian. That's why I said this in my post:

Originally Posted by betaar
I am not sure if I like the quadrangular tourneys involving associates. It’s fine and dandy if we are speaking of lending a helping hand to them but since BD it self is struggling to stamp its authority with the elite teams and considered as a minnow, I would rather we use the associates for our own benefits which will also give them the exposure of playing test playing nation such as us.

In a quadrangular set up, there will most likely be 1 game each for each team and given the lack of gap of strength between BD with Ire and Zim in oneday matches, we may end up losing, especially in their home condition, and fail to reach the final to play the G8 team. Some might call it cowardice, but the mental frailty that exists is our young team’s mind may be protected from deteriorating if we can avoid embarrassments like these.

I would rather BD play the associates in a bilateral series, max of 3 matches, prior to playing other nations in that continent. For example, I would like BD to play Ireland and Scotland before they go to Eng (I know we are not invited to Eng for a while) or play them in our home condition before we play teams like Eng, Aus and NZ. We should also cut down the # of games we play with Zim each year and play G8 teams more often.

But whether or not ICC looks at any idea or plan that does not come out of India and does not make money for them, should not stop us from discussing, IMHO.

[sharifk]

Many of us in BC often forget the importance in the mental game. If we consider ourselves second class, why won't the entire world? The suggestion has come at such a wrong time when the team finally has learned standing up to the top teams. I guess the team had lost the confidence as soon as the negative minded Siddons took charge and wasted the positive few years invested under Whatmore era. If we are to take this negative approach, we will go back to the start again. I completely agree with Ian. But Ian, more often you will find people here in BC who have similar ideas to those who are running BCB. So it's unfortunate that these are the types of ideas hurting the development of our cricket.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont
No disrespect, but why would we want to play against ZIM and IRE? My thought is we are trying to play England, India, Australia and SL a great deal more and thereby get exposure to greater standards of cricket.

I feel this is a watering down and not a strengthening of our commitments to improving our own players. It's the very reason Australia never wants to come here. So we have to take them on and start winning to prove ourselves - and not play 'associate' ZIM and 'we are good but not quite read yet' Ireland - as our main sources of fixtures.

This is all superfluous anyway as the ICC would never look at this.

Ian, all the major teams have an obligation, whether real or merely moral to assist the associate sides. Of course self interest plays a part, but at some point you have to draw the line. The BCCI won't do anything except suck the money out of the game. Following their lead, the CA and ECB have also started to undermine the ICC in terms of which teams to play, etc.

The BCB should continue to press for home and AWAY series against all these teams, especially Test matches. However, I think we should do our part to help the associates. Zimbabwe might be pushovers, but they are slowly getting their cricket back in order, plus they are a full member with a vote, no matter how weak they are. Ireland are not that bad, and they could easily become an 11th Test nation in the forseeable future. Similarily, Afghanistan are nearly as good as, and for a time were better than Ireland. I agree teams like Kenya, Canada, Netherlands, Scotland aren't good enough to play us (and will probably never be), but we can't ignore the potential that exists in Ireland and Afghanistan. At the rate they're going at, they will overtake Zimbabwe for sure.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Ian, all the major teams have an obligation, whether real or merely moral to assist the associate sides. Of course self interest plays a part, but at some point you have to draw the line. The BCCI won't do anything except suck the money out of the game. Following their lead, the CA and ECB have also started to undermine the ICC in terms of which teams to play, etc.

The BCB should continue to press for home and AWAY series against all these teams, especially Test matches. However, I think we should do our part to help the associates. Zimbabwe might be pushovers, but they are slowly getting their cricket back in order, plus they are a full member with a vote, no matter how weak they are. Ireland are not that bad, and they could easily become an 11th Test nation in the forseeable future. Similarily, Afghanistan are nearly as good as, and for a time were better than Ireland. I agree teams like Kenya, Canada, Netherlands, Scotland aren't good enough to play us (and will probably never be), but we can't ignore the potential that exists in Ireland and Afghanistan. At the rate they're going at, they will overtake Zimbabwe for sure.

Reading the first sentence of Raynman's thread opening post, it doesn't seem the reason behind his suggestion concurs the reason of yours. With due all respect, just bringing a helping cause to support a dumb idea doesn't eliminate the dumbness from the idea.