Cricket committee calls for Test minimum

[mufi_02]

This might be good for us. We played 18 in the last 4 years but there is no way we are scheduled to play 16-18 in the next 4 years. But wow look at England, 49 tests in the last 4 years!!!!

The ICC Cricket Committee has recommended that Full Member nations be required to play a minimum number of Tests over a four-year period in order to maintain their status in another attempt to reinforce the primacy of the five-day game.

ESPNcricinfo understands that the number proposed by the committee, which was meeting for the first time since the controversial election of Laxman Sivaramakrishnan as a player representative in place of Tim May, is four Tests each year which would mean 16 over a four-year cycle. There have been a number of recent examples of Test series being postponed due to conflicting demands, either from one-day cricket or the proliferation of Twenty20 leagues.

If a four-year period is taken from September 2009 to September 2013 - using current fixtures - England will have played the most Test matches with 49 while, of the leading eight nations, New Zealand and West Indies will have had 31 apiece. Bangladesh sit at 18 with Zimbabwe languishing on eight due to their self-imposed exile from the format which ended in 2011. However, the squeeze on Tests has intensified over the last couple of years.

Last September, the Sri Lanka and West Indies boards mutually decided to shelve the two-Test series scheduled for this May and instead play a tri-series involving India. Originally Sri Lanka were scheduled to play two Tests, three ODIs and two Twenty20s as per the Future Tours Programme (FTP).

West Indies will play no further Tests this home season (they hosted Zimbabwe for two) after Pakistan's tour in July was also stripped to include just five ODIs and two Twenty20s but not the two proposed Tests.

In August, the inaugural Caribbean Premier League begins while Pakistan have tentative plans to play India and Zimbabwe although there are doubts over both. Depending on whether West Indies' Tests in New Zealand are pencilled in for December this year or January 2014, they may just play two Tests in 2013.

South Africa were also due to undertake a full tour of Sri Lanka in July and August but that has now been trimmed to ODIs and Twenty20s. That change was, officially, largely because of Sri Lanka taking part in the one-day tri-series in the Caribbean but the Sri Lanka Premier League is also due to take place in August.

An ICC statement said: "The ICC Cricket Committee reiterated its support for the strategy of ensuring an optimum balance and a clear differentiation between the three formats of the game, and noted the need to ensure that Test cricket, in particular, was protected.

"Noting the examples during the year where Test matches had been postponed to make room for other formats of the game, the committee recommended that all Test playing members should be required to play a minimum number of Test matches over a four-year period in order to maintain their Test status."

Away from Test cricket during the two-day meeting at Lord's the committee also raised concerns about the impact of the new ODI playing regulations on spin bowlers. One fewer fielder is now allowed outside the circle in non-Powerplay overs, there are two new balls used during the innings and bowlers can send down two bouncers per over.

Although the committee acknowledged the new regulations are "producing a more attacking game" they believe more analysis is needed before determining whether they should be extended to include the 2015 World Cup.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/c...ry/638358.html

[al Furqaan]

Or it could be a reason for excluding Bangladesh and ZIM from Test "status" by saying "oh you guys only played n matches" and then using that as a reason to play even fewer against us.

In an ideal world, all nations should play the same # of games. But to be brutally honest, thats not realistic. But Bangladesh should be playing 70% the number of games as England or India. Not 40-50%.

Unless the ICC can force members to observe the FTP barring security fears, there is no way to fight the money. We're already technically owed Tests by NZ and AUS, but that ain't gonna happen.

[shuziburo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Or it could be a reason for excluding Bangladesh and ZIM from Test "status" by saying "oh you guys only played n matches" and then using that as a reason to play even fewer against us.

In an ideal world, all nations should play the same # of games. But to be brutally honest, thats not realistic. But Bangladesh should be playing 70% the number of games as England or India. Not 40-50%.

Unless the ICC can force members to observe the FTP barring security fears, there is no way to fight the money. We're already technically owed Tests by NZ and AUS, but that ain't gonna happen.

It will happen if we become a big draw, but that is not near. I hope it is not a ploy to exclude BD and ZIM.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by shuziburo
It will happen if we become a big draw, but that is not near. I hope it is not a ploy to exclude BD and ZIM.

That is true. But that may not have anything to do with our actual ability. Pakistan are a big draw side even though their demographics are nearly identical to ours. They have over the years produced very marketable players and their seam attack has always been competant even when not extraordinary. Same with India and their batting lineup.

Unless we produce a few real gems of players, we will suffer the same fate as Sri Lanka or New Zealand, at best. That is, we'll be a competitive side, at time superior but still lacking respect and treated just a tad better than a minnow. At worst we'll be as we are.

[cricket_pagol]

I feel this might be good bangladesh, we will at least get 4 test matches per year...

[al Furqaan]

It should be 6 Tests a year. Regardless the ICC could mandate whatever, they're powerless. This one reason why I favor Ireland getting test status immediately.

[Tiger444]

I agree in an ideal world we should get the same amount of Tests but as we know, that's not happening. 4 Tests is a start but I think it should be between 6-8 tests a year rather than just 4.

[shuziburo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
That is true. But that may not have anything to do with our actual ability. Pakistan are a big draw side even though their demographics are nearly identical to ours. They have over the years produced very marketable players and their seam attack has always been competant even when not extraordinary. Same with India and their batting lineup.

Unless we produce a few real gems of players, we will suffer the same fate as Sri Lanka or New Zealand, at best. That is, we'll be a competitive side, at time superior but still lacking respect and treated just a tad better than a minnow. At worst we'll be as we are.

I think you need history and exciting players. Even when PAK was losing quite regularly to AUS and WI, they still had exciting players (Majeed, Sadiq, Asif Iqbal, etc). Then came Imran and Miandad; winning followed. The rest is history.

We have one exciting player (Shakib) and another is almost there (Nasir). I don't know whether Tamim will ever be the player he is capable of. He is not a disappointment like someone we all love, but he has not reached the level he should have. However, we have a few exciting youngsters. Will they fulfill their promise? If they do, we could become a big draw.

[zsayeed]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
It should be 6 Tests a year. Regardless the ICC could mandate whatever, they're powerless. This one reason why I favor Ireland getting test status immediately.

That would be exciting - Ireland's inaugural test should be with us - lot's at stake there.

[MHRAM]

6? 8 tests are a minimum!

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by MHRAM
6? 8 tests are a minimum!

They actually want 4 not 6. I agree with you, 8 Tests should be at a minimum for all Test playing nations

[Gowza]

it's quite ridiculous that BD has played so many less tests than others. it's quite common knowledge in sport that players and teams and the game keeps on improving, players/teams that play less fall behind i.e. they have less time to improve than the others. take a tennis player for example, if one of them gets a serious injury that takes them out for 6 months then it's quite tough for them to comeback and pick up right where they left off as the rest of the tour have been training, playing and improving whilst they've been sitting at home injured.

it's the same for any sport. the lower ranked teams have less chance of improving if they play less matches than the top teams. they don't think BD is worth playing, but the thing is they've never been given a proper chance to develop. think of it this way, a player that debuted for england 5 years ago now has 49 matches under there belt whilst a BD player only has 18, that's a huge difference in experience and development, at 49 matches you are an established player, confident in your abilities, confident that you can perform at that level. at 18 matches your still trying to establish yourself, become confident and hold down a spot in the team.

8 tests a year should be minimum for any team, even more so for the likes of BD, zimbabwe, NZ.

[al Furqaan]

Gowza, part of the blame lies with the BCB itself. BCCI (plus ECB, CA), while it is dangerously close to destroying the game, and has already a mockery of it, can't be blamed for why we play so few tests. India has actually done their fair share in terms of bilateral series (an away tour would be nice though) with like 4 series so far. But BCB takes the blame for leaving out Tests in 2010 vs NZ. Same thing happened with AUS in 2011. BCB needs to push to have 3 Tests at home vs SL, ZIM, NZ, WI, PAK cuz we're only going to get 2 away. We need to play ZIM and NZ and WI and SL every year, not every 18 months or every 24 months. Home and away. Those are teams we can beat at home, and compete with overseas.

Getting 6 or 7 Tests a year is not difficult if you do that.

Plus 4 dayers against Ireland and Afghanistan should be arranged. Play our Academy side or A team.

[Rinathq]

4 is better than 1 or 2 so I would take it any day. It would ensure at least 4 and than possibly more. Not a bad idea at all.

[Rinathq]

Originally Posted by Tiger444
They actually want 4 not 6. I agree with you, 8 Tests should be at a minimum for all Test playing nations

8 tests?
have fun finding seamers for 8 tests in Bangladesh

[BengaliPagol]

Minimum is only 4 test matches?

Disgraceful really.

So out of the 365 days in a year they spend only 20 days playing test cricket?

A cricketer's profession is to play cricket and they only use 5.6% of the year playing test cricket?

WTF

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Gowza, part of the blame lies with the BCB itself. BCCI (plus ECB, CA), while it is dangerously close to destroying the game, and has already a mockery of it, can't be blamed for why we play so few tests. India has actually done their fair share in terms of bilateral series (an away tour would be nice though) with like 4 series so far. But BCB takes the blame for leaving out Tests in 2010 vs NZ. Same thing happened with AUS in 2011. BCB needs to push to have 3 Tests at home vs SL, ZIM, NZ, WI, PAK cuz we're only going to get 2 away. We need to play ZIM and NZ and WI and SL every year, not every 18 months or every 24 months. Home and away. Those are teams we can beat at home, and compete with overseas.

Getting 6 or 7 Tests a year is not difficult if you do that.

Plus 4 dayers against Ireland and Afghanistan should be arranged. Play our Academy side or A team.

yeah i'm sure BCB are part to blame but haven't there been some series that were "postponed" and then never rescheduled and therefore were never played? could have been australia....not sure. but that sort of stuff happens to BD where it doesn't happen to the others.

i agree though that if there is an issue with playing the higher ranked teams then surely something can be worked out with the teams you mentioned which BD are more competitive with.

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by rinathq
8 tests?
have fun finding seamers for 8 tests in Bangladesh

So you wanna play less because of the injury scare of our seamers? Ya that makes real sense. Actually while we're at it lets say screw Tests. Lets not play since we can't find seamers for 8 tests a year.

What a logic

[Isnaad]

Teams that won't play Tests against us- Australia, England, South Africa

Teams that have little chance of playing Tests against us- India, Pakistan (+/-)

Teams that may show interest in playing against us- Sri Lanka, Pakistan (+/-)

Teams that won't mind playing against us- West Indies, New Zealand and Zimbabwe

Teams that would have given us more Test exposure had circumstances been permissive- Ireland, Afghanistan (+/-)

Sums it up.

[BD_TigerZ]

Originally Posted by Tiger444
So you wanna play less because of the injury scare of our seamers? Ya that makes real sense. Actually while we're at it lets say screw Tests. Lets not play since we can't find seamers for 8 tests a year.

What a logic

Even if we get smashed its gonna help us in the long term..

[Tigers_eye]

I smell something bad here.

[Rubu]

No big deal. We can just play 4 test series at the beginning of each year with Zim and we both will be safe for rest of the year.

[mufi_02]

Originally Posted by Rubu
No big deal. We can just play 4 test series at the beginning of each year with Zim and we both will be safe for rest of the year.

yeah I think this will end up happening. 4 will be minimum and as long as we play 4 in a calendar year no other team will play us. So in 4 years the max we will play is 16-18.

So if the trend continues, in 8 years we will play around 30-35 tests. Shakib/Tamim/Mushy will almost reach the end of their career after 8 years. Shakib (30 tests now) will finish career with around 60-65 tests despite having 12+ years international career. While Ishant Sharma already has 51. That will be a shame.

Lotus should do something as he is the VP now.

[shuziburo]

BCB has to press their counterparts for playing the shelved series.

ICC should impose a rule that no bilateral series can have less than 2 tests (may be even 3).

[shuziburo]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
yeah I think this will end up happening. 4 will be minimum and as long as we play 4 in a calendar year no other team will play us. So in 4 years the max we will play is 16-18.

So if the trend continues, in 8 years we will play around 30-35 tests. Shakib/Tamim/Mushy will almost reach the end of their career after 8 years. Shakib (30 tests now) will finish career with around 60-65 tests despite having 12+ international career. While Ishant Sharma already has 51. That will be a shame.

Lotus should do something as he is the VP now.

I would like Lotus to do something, but given his past record, I cannot be too confident. I hope he proves me wrong.