View Full Version : Test Status for Kenya
GoEagles
6 Feb 2003, 17:14
How did Bangladesh get Test Cricket status over Kenya?
Kenya has played in more World Cups than Bangladesh yet still haven't been given the chance to play Test Cricket. What do they need to do to be able to play test cricket, and was anyone else suprised Bangladesh was given the right to play the 5 day version before the Kenyans?
Kenya have shown themselves to be a better side than Bangaldesh in one-day internationals. Head to head the record is Kenya 5-1. Kenya have also twice beaten India in one-day internationals, and also West Indies in the 1996 world cup. Bangladesh have a mere three victories in one-day internationals (and none in 17 Tests) - one against Kenya, one against Scotland, and one in a meaningless world cup match against Pakistan (who were already thru to the next stage).
The decision to award Bangladesh test status ahead of Kenya was a political one - strongly pushed by the other sub-continent nations.
The whole "Test Status" thing is a problem for cricket. Personally I think the concept should be scrapped, that way all countries can just arrange to play countries of a similar standing. Bangladesh should be playing Kenya or even Scotland in tests, not Australia.
The ICC should allocate money towards giving these emerging cricket nations matches against state sides in the established nations. A summer of cricket against the Aussie state sides or even English county sides would do them a great deal of good.
catattack
6 Feb 2003, 18:53
Originally posted by Jim Boy
The whole "Test Status" thing is a problem for cricket. Personally I think the concept should be scrapped, that way all countries can just arrange to play countries of a similar standing. Bangladesh should be playing Kenya or even Scotland in tests, not Australia.
Fair point. I think that's a pretty good idea!
If the ICC are committed to trying to beef up the number of Test playing nations & the Test World championship then they've got problems.
Sides are playing too many games as it is & the injuries are starting to creep in.
I presume as well as political manouvering from most notably Pakistan that the ICC fekt that Bangladesh has more potential than Kenya, it still seems a bit harsh though.
There's no way that Bangladesh deserved Test Status yet...have they even won a test match yet since they became a test nation in 99? When was the last time they even won a one dayer? IMO Kenya should have been the next Country in as long as the ICC pumps alot of money into Kenya to get it going better.
London Dave
7 Feb 2003, 06:56
They got test status for one reason..politics. They would be another vote for the 'Asian' bloc in test cricket...call it Dalmiyas parting gift, ensuring that even though he was no longer ICC president, he'd still call the shots.
Before being granted test status, they did not even possess a first class cricket comp, all the top level cricket played there was one day stuff. I'm also told that umlike India and Pakistan, soccer is numero uno sport there too.
kenya I believe was offered test status, but declined as their local governing body felt that to go into tests with what they had at present would kill the game.
Having said that, I spose you gottas start somewhere, and I think they'd (Bangladesh) need to get their domestic cricket sorted and if that's getting stronger, the flow on to the test arena should occur.
In the long run, I fear more for Zimbabwean cricket than Bangladeshi.
Originally posted by St-KriS
There's no way that Bangladesh deserved Test Status yet...have they even won a test match yet since they became a test nation in 99? When was the last time they even won a one dayer? IMO Kenya should have been the next Country in as long as the ICC pumps alot of money into Kenya to get it going better.
If Bangladesh dont deserve test status then surely they dont deserve one day status either.They are going to be nothing but nuisance value in the coming World Cup as well as countries like Canada and Namibia which is going to make this World Cup a joke.If Australia bat first in the game against Namibia they could make 400 then bowl them out for 50.Countries should be made to qualify for the World Cup like they do in the soccer World cup
Originally posted by shiva25
Countries should be made to qualify for the World Cup like they do in the soccer World cup
I Believe they do, that's how countries like Canada and Nambia are in the World Cup. They werent just invited to make up the numbers (which they will do anyway).
Originally posted by shiva25
If Bangladesh dont deserve test status then surely they dont deserve one day status either.They are going to be nothing but nuisance value in the coming World Cup as well as countries like Canada and Namibia which is going to make this World Cup a joke.If Australia bat first in the game against Namibia they could make 400 then bowl them out for 50.Countries should be made to qualify for the World Cup like they do in the soccer World cup
I see your point, but countries do have to qualify via the ICC Trophy. Unless of course, you want to restrict the finals to 8 teams only.
If cricket is going to get exposure in new pastures, then it needs to give this lesser teams something to strive for. Namibia for example, has great potential for being a much more significant participator in cricket.
Now that I've given a couple a couple more seconds thought, a good idea might have been to include an ICC trophy all stars team. Cricinfo put together a team at http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2001/AUG/345359_CI_15AUG2001.html and they sound like they would give the lesser full status teams a run for their money. It would also enable talented cricketers some opportunity given that they are usually denied because of the ordinairiness of their team mates.
Originally posted by St-KriS
I Believe they do, that's how countries like Canada and Nambia are in the World Cup. They werent just invited to make up the numbers (which they will do anyway).
If they do have to qualify i would like to know what process these teams go through in order to qualify
GoEagles
7 Feb 2003, 15:28
Originally posted by shiva25
If they do have to qualify i would like to know what process these teams go through in order to qualify
I don't know the exact way, but I know that there is another mini-World Cup between the non test playing nations, and the top 3 teams are invited to join the test playing nations at the World Cup.
Originally posted by shiva25
If they do have to qualify i would like to know what process these teams go through in order to qualify
Get a clue. Why not take it upon yourself to do a little bit of research?
I got no problem with these 2nd rung teams playing in the world cup. While it seems like nusiance value to us, it will do a lot to foster intrest in the game in these countries. In time they may develop to be competitive.
Originally posted by shiva25
If they do have to qualify i would like to know what process these teams go through in order to qualify
It's called the ICC trophy, the top 3 teams qualify.
Although i'm told that for the next World Cup the qualification procedure will become a little more complex and regional, as the number of teams involved is getting to be too many.
Originally posted by Goo
I got no problem with these 2nd rung teams playing in the world cup. While it seems like nusiance value to us, it will do a lot to foster intrest in the game in these countries. In time they may develop to be competitive.
...especially if one of the minnows pulls off an upset and beats a decent team, as has happened at just about every World Cup.
Exactly. and the Pakis get paid their tour bonuses *cough cough* Bangladesh!
GoEagles
8 Feb 2003, 15:42
I agree that the World Cup goes on for too long (6 weeks)
Maybe they should only give the winner of the ICC Trophy a place in the World Cup to reduce the number of teams?
Originally posted by GoEagles
I agree that the World Cup goes on for too long (6 weeks)
Maybe they should only give the winner of the ICC Trophy a place in the World Cup to reduce the number of teams?
Why? The World Cup is the only cricket tournament in the world with any real significance, why would you want to rush it?
Originally posted by Rob
Why? The World Cup is the only cricket tournament in the world with any real significance, why would you want to rush it?
So we can concentrate on the upcoming footy season which is far more important
Originally posted by shiva25
So we can concentrate on the upcoming footy season which is far more important
Good call. :D
The Ewok
9 Feb 2003, 22:59
Originally posted by Jim Boy
The whole "Test Status" thing is a problem for cricket. Personally I think the concept should be scrapped, that way all countries can just arrange to play countries of a similar standing. Bangladesh should be playing Kenya or even Scotland in tests, not Australia.
The problem being that would stuff up the worth and prestige of the 'test records' side of it even more so
It has already happened with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh devaluing "test status" by for example Murali the chucker boosting his wicket tally by beating up on hack sides (he has nearly 100 wickets in 14 tests against these 2 countries alone), almost 25% of his total career wicket tally!
Without these rubbish wickets there wouldn't of been a debate of him getting Wisden Bowler of the Century as he wouldn't of been even considered a candidate (while Warne has played all of 1 test and 6 wickets against the Zimbos and none v Bangladesh)
GoEagles
10 Feb 2003, 13:02
Originally posted by Rob
Why? The World Cup is the only cricket tournament in the world with any real significance, why would you want to rush it?
I love my cricket, but watching Canada and Namibia getting belted by other countries isn't very attractive to watch. I'd rather see the top side of the ICC Trophy get invited to the World Cup, than having more teams being allowed into the core group (9 test nations)
GOALden Hawk
25 Feb 2003, 07:35
Originally posted by Darky
...especially if one of the minnows pulls off an upset and beats a decent team, as has happened at just about every World Cup.
Very wise call looking at last night. The response of the Kenyan crowd was magnificent - clearly cricket is looking good there.
And they definitely deserve Test status if Bangladesh have it - would be a difficult side to beat on the slow Nairobi pitch.
red+black
25 Feb 2003, 07:43
Originally posted by DaveW
... and one in a meaningless world cup match against Pakistan (who were already thru to the next stage).
i don't think that's a fair call. a win's a win, even if it was shrouded in an alleged betting scandal.
red+black
25 Feb 2003, 07:47
Originally posted by Goo
I got no problem with these 2nd rung teams playing in the world cup. While it seems like nusiance value to us, it will do a lot to foster intrest in the game in these countries. In time they may develop to be competitive.
exactly. take england for example. they need these competitive matches to drag their cricket out of the sheißenhausen.
dr nick
25 Feb 2003, 09:07
Originally posted by catattack
Fair point. I think that's a pretty good idea!
i dont. you'll find that mohammad ashraful will soon take around 400 test wickets and unjustly be in the company of some of the other greats of the game.
dr nick
25 Feb 2003, 09:13
Originally posted by Darky
...especially if one of the minnows pulls off an upset and beats a decent team, as has happened at just about every World Cup.
imagine how many canadians are looking further into this game of cricket after seeing highlights of one jon davison smash the fastest century ever.
i agree. nuisance value for us, invaluable for the spread of the sport globally.
and whilst we are at it, a Kenya - Bangladesh swap in the test arena...... uh oh, that might upset some of the politically correct at the ICC who bow to every whim of the asian nations.
dr nick
25 Feb 2003, 09:15
actually come to think of it, a good performance at the world cup doesnt mean much for the spread of the game. just look at melbourne where rugby league is concerned :p
Dogwatcher
25 Feb 2003, 11:19
I too was surprised and disgusted when Bangladesh got the go ahead ahead of Kenya - particularly after Kenya's world cup efforts in the sub-continent. It was a decision apparently based on purely political and egotistical motives.
I would back the call for Kenya to be made a test nation, although it might be better to shore up an African country in dire need of support at the moment in Zimbabwe. Their cricket needs some support from countries such as Australia - let alone the strife the rest of the country is in.
However, I would be loathe to exclude Bangladesh for their performances too much.
I'm not sure of exact figures at current time (and I know the little Pakistani off shoot has taken some dismal poundings), but it took New Zealand and Sri Lanka a very long time (20 years at least) to make an impact on the world scene.
Now look at those sides. Sri Lanka has won a world cup, while New Zealand are at least one of the more consistent sides around.
Bangladesh and other countries need a chance to develop without a huge weight of expectation of success.
Watching Zimbabwe last night made me feel that they were akin to Sri Lanka about two years before they won the WC in terms of position on the world scene - about ready to really cause some upsets but just requiring another couple of class players.
However, with the debacle going on in their country, Zimbabwe's chances of achieving that appear to be falling quickly. Particularly with players set to be banned, retiring or leaving the country to play elsewhere (Steve Brandt (sp?) who is playing for Qld).
Remember also that the Zimbos beat Australia in a WC in the 80s to make an early mark. They also have a fairly insignificant first class scene (four sides?), which doesn't place them that far ahead of Bangladesh.
I really think the best way for Zimbabwean, Kenyan and Nambian cricket to develop would be to play in South Africa's Currie Cup. Maybe two teams from Zimb. and one from the other two. It's a reasonably tough comp and would hopefully better their chances of developing.
Sorry that this has become an essay.
Development needs to occur if the game is to continue to be relevant- that's really the important thing I have to say.
dr nick
25 Feb 2003, 21:01
there are a few white farmers in that zimbabwe side who have had their land stripped and given to the black locals. Guy Whittal and Andy Blignaut are two that i know of but there are probably a few others.
it is outrageous that they have threatened to drop andy flower from the side if he wears the black armband.