n-Tier Again

[chinaman]

ICC ponders Test shake-up

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh may be forced to play a shorter programme of Test cricket, if the International Cricket Council's decision-makers agree.
The executive board will meet in October to discuss three modifications to the future Test programme.

ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed told a news conference in London: "It may be that there is an option for radical change to the structure.

"We set out to challenge the current thinking and assumptions."

The ICC sought feedback from an exhaustive list of national board chief executives, current captains and former players, sponsors, broadcasters and members of associated members.

The current format has 10 Test nations playing each other home and away over a period of five years.

But that could be altered so that only the top eight nations would continue to play in the same way, with the two lowest-ranked sides - currently Zimbabwe and Bangladesh - involved in a "modified programme."

A possible opportunity to have four teams playing in a second tier of Test match cricket was eliminated since it was not felt there was enough interest in such a proposal.

The ICC also admitted certain stakeholders had queried the long-time future of Tests over the more commercially viable one-day internationals.

It quoted one broadcaster as saying: "Test cricket is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time before the market kills it."

In a move to reduce the heavy burden on players, the ICC has moved to give them an extra day between back-to-back Tests.

This would mean that rather than two Tests starting on consecutive Thursdays, the second one would begin on a Friday.

The only discrepancy would be the Boxing Day and 2 January Tests traditionally held in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to maximise holiday time.

There has been no move to impose a maximum number of Tests in a series, with the minimum remaining at two.

Speed said: "In England, Test cricket is very strong. It's not as strong in certain other key markets.

"Some serious marketing effort by some of the other nations will be necessary."

Any changes to one-day international scheduling will only be considered when the modifications to the Test programme are agreed.

Source: BBC >>

[fwullah]

It is all very good, but I'm afraid, the decision is a bit too late for Bangaldesh. In fact, I believe that may be in long term we'll benefit from this 'modified program', but in the short-term we may suffer because of this late approach since our team is now already established (well, some individual players are established in the side) and are relatively playing better, given the time. The long term benefit is that we will face less injury to our regular players - Mashrafee, Sharif, Talha, Bashar etc.

What do you think?

[oracle]

It is all very good, but I'm afraid, the decision is a bit too late for Bangaldesh

I did'nt get it. If there is going to be test matches around and we are in this modified programme, then we are bound to lose out. This guinea pig aproach, by incl. Zim and BD, will do more damage than the least good intentions that we presume they have.

[Zunaid]

Speaking disapassionately, a reduced program is what is necessary for us. As I have mentioned time and time again, the ICC 10-year program was not conducive towards the development of Bangladesh cricket. We were playing too many games in too short a time - given the quality of our players, we did not have the luxury or opportunity to lick our wounds, identify short-comings and then resume the battle. Instead we have to get back into the fray without even being able to pick up the pieces. Losses after losses can only have a negative psychological impact on our players.

The frequency of matches and the frequency of defeats are strunting the natural growth of our players. Famous Russian psychologist/cognitive scientist wrote about what he termed the "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD). This zone is "the gap between a learner's current or actual level of development determined by independent problem-solving and the learner's emerging or potential level of development. That is, it is the set of knowledge that the learner has the ability to learn currently but does not yet understand -- things that are "just out of reach". (source of definition).

The ZPD between Bangladesh cricket players and the top Test countries were (and possibly still is) too large for our players to bridge. Way too many skills to learn, bad practices to unlearn, and shortcomings to work on then they had the time and opportunity for. The ZPD can be reduced but for this you need to give the players the time to work on it. This they never had. A much less hectic schedule will provide this opportunity.

Consider the old history of how long it took India or Sri Lanka or the Kiwis to become competitive at the highest level. Not in terms of years but in terms of games played. An interesting article on this appeard on the New Nation - "Of Test matches and Bangladesh - by Shahid Alam".

The same ZPD effect can also be seen with our Under-19 players as they are getting fast-tracked into the seniors. I have spoken about the possible dangers of stunting the talent and growth here. I recall under-19 coach McInnes also speaking about this in a BC post but I have not been able to find the exact article.

It is not that we do not have players who can compete with the best at their terms - it is that we are not giving them the opportunity to achieve what they can.


Edited on, September 7, 2004, 4:25 PM GMT, by Zunaid.
Reason: tpyoes

[Rubu]

if we are playing against the same opponents but fewer matches, that would be the best thing to happen for bd cricket now. but if we are to play against teams that are like current Zim or even worse (kenya, Ireland..)b, that would be the worst thing that can happen to us.

[fwullah]

Benefits:

1. National players will get some much needed rest
2. The injury to national (regular) players will be less
3. The BCB will be able to stage domestic tournaments without too much interference from International cricket
4. The national players will be able to get to play in domestic cricket if there is a break for a couple of months between 2 tours and thus get the experience of domestic matches
5. The national players will get some time to rectify their technical flawed skills


Shortcomings:

1. Our national players will get less exposure to International cricket (and the exposure to International environment like those of England/South Africa/ Australia) than they are getting at the moment
2. The Bangladesh team is currently playing well in each 2 alternative tours/tournaments, if there is such a system where the team will get less international matches to play, then the team's current good form may disappear
3. The national players who are now in good form, they may lose their form if the time between two tours is too long
4. The national players who are now in the 20s, they may lose some valuable time (may be 1 or 2 years) to the break rather than having to play in more International matches against stronger teams and thus have the opportunity to find out the weaknesses and strenghts of themselves

P.S. while writing the benefits, I found out a vital point: if our 'A' team has the same players playing in the national team, then there won't be any break for our national team players. So in those cases, there will be no benefit.

If you can think of any more points, please feel free to add.

[Ahmed_B]

"But that could be altered so that only the top eight nations would continue to play in the same way..." -Quoted from the article.


that magical number '8' again! :duh:

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

"National players will get some much needed rest"
ar shobar playerder rest lage na amader playerder ato rest lage keno. amader playerra ki jomidar naki. atoi jodi rest lage tahole shobai khele keno. shobaire nil khet theke katha balish kine dilai to hoi. sharadin pore pore ghumabe ar rest nibe.


"The injury to national (regular) players will be less"
taile shobai ghorer bhitor boshe thaklai to pare sharadin. tahole injury howar bhoi akdom 90% kombe.

"The national players will be able to get to play in domestic cricket if there is a break for a couple of months between 2 tours and thus get the experience of domestic matches"
tahole domestic cricket shara bosor khellai hoi. oder jodi atoi domestic cricket khelar experience lage tahole ar international cricket khelar dorkar ki. tahole akdom domestic cricket ar experience diye bhashbe.

"The national players will get some time to rectify their technical flawed skills"
technical fault jar thakbe she amni dol theke bad porbe. akjoner technical fault ar jonno pura dolke na khelanor kono jukti dekhi na ami.

[chinaman]

ICC executives will meet in Lahore on October 15-16 to discuss possible changes to the Test programme...

One option is to allow the top eight nations to continue with this structure, while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the two lowest-ranked sides, are handed a "modified programme" which could mean them playing only home Test matches.

More on cricinfo >>

[bdmoderator]

I don't think it will be a good or great decision. Because I think Bangladeshi players will be disappointed with it. And Home games doesn't help a team always. To develop skills, players must play in different conditions. So it will be a "BAD DICISION" by ICC.

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

shomogro bangladesh ebong shomogro zimbabwe ar jonogoner pokkho theke ami iccke iharup podokkhep grohon korar chinta korar jonno tibrobhabe ninda janai. tara riti moton double standard korche. karon akdike tara cricket playing desher shongkha barate chai abar ar ak dike test playing desher shongkha komate chai. ashole tara ki korte chai? they are just being ruled by the f.......indian media...

[BD Tigers]

I am not sure whether it is a good or bad decision, may be 60/40. In test arena, everybody thinks that if you are coming to my backyard, there is no way I will let you win - means the home team gets advantage in choosing the nature a pitch, players etc. But for Bangladesh these things doesn’t work. Because BD players cannot perform at the same level as they do oversees because of the Public/Media pressure.

[Zephaniah]

But our performance is better away from home!

[Zunaid]

One option is to allow the top eight nations to continue with this structure, while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the two lowest-ranked sides, are handed a "modified programme" which could mean them playing only home Test matches.

More on cricinfo >>

Now if that is how they are planning to achive a "modified program", this is stupid - doesn't help in anyway towards growth or progress. In the end, we will be nothing more than home ground bullies like India.

[akabir77]

And who decides when we are ready to play the away games??? This Bu** SH*t.... If we need more gap between games thats one thing but stoping away game altoghter is some thing else as we perform well outside our country and our player will miss valuable leasons like play in diff conditions and etc and how the new player will learn that.....

India didn't win a away game for long time. so did Srilanka (actulay they won most of the home games with the help of their umpairs), how about NZ??? so what next???? this is racism against poors and weak...

This can't be good for us in anyway...

Here is an idea india can't win any finalls so for now on they can't qualify for finals they will play in the group and semis and will go home...

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

u r right akabir.
sh....indiar mediar gushti kilai

[songsoptok]

It seems that we have to do something against WI or SA in coming Cham. Trophy.

prio deshbasi, asen amra ek sathe doa kori, ontoto ekta match e jeno amra jiti.

Although this prayer is too much for God.

Kintu icc er ekta shikkha hoa dorkar --- (gali dia loi)

[Piranha]

Fwullah, what is this fascination of yours with 'rest'? Cricket is a tough game for tough people. There is no point in coming up with lame excuses like rest, and exhaustion. If we keep getting burnt out, the fault lies with us, not with the scheduling.

There is however, a genuine case to be made for more 'learning time' between series. We cant keep zooming around from country to country without first rectifying some of the problems identified in the previous tour.

Despite some of the potential benefits of this modified schedule, i am strongly against it. This is all an eye wash for pushing the elitist agendas of some morons. The more test matches we play, the better it is for test cricket.

[Pundit]

My preference is to see BD play upto 2-3 series every year over the next 3 years. Each series should be of 2 tests and 3 ODIs as it is now. And with 2-3 4-day warm ups against the provincial teams when it is an away series.

On top of that, if possible, a 5-7 game tour to a test country to play against the provincial teams. England and Australia come to mind before anyone else.

Oh yes, and at most, 1-2 ODI tourneys.

This should keep them really preoccupied.

[AussieBloke]

Everyones been talking of the benefits and downside of a "modified programme" involving Zim and BD. It hasnt happned yet but if this happens, it may (just may) turn out to be the right thing that could have happened to BD cricket. Without supporting the n-tier system (which I dont), a "modified programme" may involve limited number of tests between Zim, BD and , say, the last 4 countries in the list of 8. Maybe 1 or 2 wins could see one team playing against the other 4 top teams, or something like this. Cricket is as much as a purist game as it is commercial. Unfortunately, few people would pay to see Aus against BD in a test match in Darwin. Sad, but true. The same thing could be said for Zim. Instead of playing against the top teams, BD should concentrate on improving performance by playing against top county or state teams that form the core of top cricket playing nations. If we can regularly fight against or beat top Ranji trophy playing states, or English county teams, or state teams from Aus, that is when we can take up our case with ICC of elevating our status. Otherwise, we would be getting our nose dragged against the mud time and again by media, commentators and other critics. The only downside will be whether a match between Zim and BD will draw any crowd. But we just have to wait and see how ICC deals with it before we can judge the merits of their decision.

[fab]

Originally posted by crickethorizon
"But that could be altered so that only the top eight nations would continue to play in the same way..." -Quoted from the article.
that magical number '8' again! :duh:

These magical 8 teams have established themselves over a very long time. I think it is funny how some people get angry when our practice matches are against minnow teams, yet cannot appreciate why teams like Australia do not want to play against us THAT OFTEN.

Anyhow, I think this is a good solution for the reasons people have already mentioned above. I just wonder though, what happens after Zim and Ban do improve substantially? How do we get into 'elite' level? Also, if we play fewer games in total, wouldn't that impair our team/player stats and rankings?

Pirhana wrote
This is all an eye wash for pushing the elitist agendas of some morons. The more test matches we play, the better it is for test cricket.

Well, that hasn't quite worked out in the past 4 years...

[insideedge]

Top teams have a higher opinion of Kenya than BD. I think it will be worthwhile to do some introspection about this fact instead of feeling victimised.

[fwullah]

between Zim, BD and , say, the last 4 countries in the list of 8. Maybe 1 or 2 wins could see one team playing against the other 4 top teams, or something like this.

I can't agree.

Why did Australia play against the West Indies during the 60s and 70s then? Australia should not have played against the West Indies at that time when Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, and all the other West Indian greats were playing then. They should have just played New Zealand, India. Just pointed out the facts. No offense to anyone.

If you don't play against the best once in life-time, then how do you know where you are in terms of world cricket?

[AussieBloke]

Well, the last 4 in the elite 8 isnt bad either. BD has a long way to go before matching them. So realistically it wouldnt matter whether its the top 4 or the bottom 4. Since a "modified programme" may be introduced by ICC, what we need to look at is how that can be turned into positives. We came close to defeating WI, but didnt. So in my book any team in the elite 8 would do. We still dont know what the "modified programme" would be. So we still may end up playing once or twice all 8 teams in the 5 year period. Playing against the top team wouldnt work if we are unable to defeat even the county sides or ranji trophy sides. Defeat after defeat can not boost our morale. First we need to attain that standard where we regularly can beat top county or ranji trophy teams and then we could put our case to ICC that we now belong to the elite group. All the players in the top cricketing teams are selected directly from these county or state teams. It would be fair on our part to admit that and try to match them.

[chinaman]

How could anyone say that a modified programme would help us? Any research done? Ever tried before?

Why there is sudden need of such program? Wasn't there any weak team before? Aren't we making progress since Whatmore took charge? We are defeated but not within 3 days.

There is no need for any such program when we are showing signs of improvements. ICC should stick to their commitment of giving us until the end of 2005 to win a test match or an ODI series.

It's no helping program, my friends, its money program.