View Full Version : Darwin Tests: Waste of time...
What a waste of time this test series is.
The only reason they are staging it is so Australia collect some handy points for the Test World Championship. South Africa managed to top the Aussies last season by playing multiple tests against the weakest sides on the planet - this tactic has obviously caught on.
Probably a good way to boost some statistics too - Steve is pretty keen to get his 50+ average back before he calls it a day.
Originally posted by Zeke
The only reason they are staging it is so Australia collect some handy points for the Test World Championship. South Africa managed to top the Aussies last season by playing multiple tests against the weakest sides on the planet - this tactic has obviously caught on. Complete rubbish. You make yourself look like a fool by sprouting such utter nonsense.
It's not a 'tactic' at all. Australia has never sought out to play weaker opponents. The ACB's... sorry CA's... hand has been forced by the ICC. For years Australia has avoided playing the likes of Zimbabwe, as they have been percieved as a unworthy opponents. The ICC a year or two ago drew up a rough schedule in which all Test teams must play each other at least once home and away over a five year cycle. Australia can't fit Bangladesh into the regular season so these Tests are being played outside the normal season in the warmer cities.
As for the Test championship, perhaps you'd better update yourself on the news. It's formulation has been changed to reflect the quality of opponent (amongst other things) a team defeats. So Australia achieves less by beating a weak nation like Bangladesh than it would a stronger opponent*. In any event, how is it different to say, West Coast beating up on Carlton? This is a sporting competition after all and the stronger teams will have to meet the weaker teams.
* Well as I understand it anyway, the formula for the new championship is somewhat arcane
I would have thought that it was pretty good for cricket fans down there to get a bit of action in the winter months & for those people in Darwin (& is the next one in Cairns?) to see a bit of Test cricket in the flesh.
As for the structure of the Test championship I got a bit of a slating on here when I said that the team leading the competition weren't the holders of the Test Championship but merely the leaders in a race, but I stand by this until the first 5 year cycle is completed.
Until that moment I don't think it counted for anything that SA were leading the thing at all, nor does it really matter who leads it really until the first 5 years are complete.
When that happens then whoever is leading will be the Champions of that 5 year period & then it will trully becoming a rolling Test Championship as the new results merely slot in & replace those for the corresponding series.
Until that 5 year period was complete the whole thing was going to be meaningless as some sides stacked up the victories against the easybeats whilst others sides had yet to meet them.
I don't really understand why teams should gain more points from beating certain teams than others (I was actually unaware that they'd brought this in).
If you don't manage to beat Bangladesh in a series then really you'll have effectively dropped points against your nearest rivals & that's a big punishment regardless of the fact that it might be worth fewer points, they don't need to go around creating artificial incentives.
The big series will always be the ones against your main rivals at the top & no amount of messing about with the scoring system will change that.
One of the cricket writers over was advocating that their should be more points on offer for beating a side away from home but this again missed the point IMO.
If 2 sides played back to back series home & away & both times the home side won why should they get less points than 2 sides who had the same situation but both won the away series?It doesn't make sense, a win is a win & shopuld be worth the same at all times.
Maybe there's some merit in bringing in bonus points for winning a series say 3-0 rather than 1-0, but even this doesn't seem right as some sides throw in the towel when the series is dead & the weather will affect things as will the fact that some teams will play more 5 match series than others.
The issue of whether Bangladesh should be playing Test cricket is another issue, after comparing them to Kenya in the WC it's hard to make a case for them.
There was a lot of speculation that Pakistan lost to them in the 1999 WC to help facilitate the case for (in Wasim Akram's words) '..our cousins in East Pakistan*...' to gain Test match entry.
I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.
*East Paksitan is the previous name for Bangladesh
Originally posted by DIPPER
As for the structure of the Test championship I got a bit of a slating on here when I said that the team leading the competition weren't the holders of the Test Championship but merely the leaders in a race, but I stand by this until the first 5 year cycle is completed.
Until that moment I don't think it counted for anything that SA were leading the thing at all, nor does it really matter who leads it really until the first 5 years are complete.
When that happens then whoever is leading will be the Champions of that 5 year period & then it will trully becoming a rolling Test Championship as the new results merely slot in & replace those for the corresponding series. Well South Africa were handed the trophy at the time. Also, I think the fact that the championship was decided on points per series and not straight points reflected the fact that the top spot was for the immediate champion and not just the leader.
Maybe there's some merit in bringing in bonus points for winning a series say 3-0 rather than 1-0, but even this doesn't seem right as some sides throw in the towel when the series is dead & the weather will affect things as will the fact that some teams will play more 5 match series than others. I believe that's another change they've made. ;)
I think the new championship is decided more on a Test-by-Test basis rather than the old Series-by-Series basis.
I stand to be corrected on these points as I haven't quite grasped a full understanding on the current system.
The issue of whether Bangladesh should be playing Test cricket is another issue, after comparing them to Kenya in the WC it's hard to make a case for them.
There was a lot of speculation that Pakistan lost to them in the 1999 WC to help facilitate the case for (in Wasim Akram's words) '..our cousins in East Pakistan*...' to gain Test match entry.
I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.
*East Paksitan is the previous name for Bangladesh That was suggested at the time. I don't really understand why Pakistan would feel obliged to help the current Bangladesh, but then there's plenty I don't know about that part of the word.
Still there were obviously contributing other factors. Kenya beat the West Indies in the previous World Cup - 1996. And it didn't give them Test status.
Originally posted by DaveW
Well South Africa were handed the trophy at the time. Also, I think the fact that the championship was decided on points per series and not straight points reflected the fact that the top spot was for the immediate champion and not just the leader.
Well i'm not disputing that they were deemed to be the immediate champion just the thought process behind it, even with average points taken it's still clear that they bumped up their average by beating up crappy teams more than Australia.
That was suggested at the time. I don't really understand why Pakistan would feel obliged to help the current Bangladesh, but then there's plenty I don't know about that part of the word.
Well I don't claim to be an expert on the asian socio-political situation it's just when Wasim calls them ' ...our cousins..' & is effusive in his praise you get the impression that maybe they were giving them a helping hand.:D
Especially as they'd already qualified & they knew that they wouldn't lose points from that game in the Super 6s.
Still there were obviously contributing other factors. Kenya beat the West Indies in the previous World Cup - 1996. And it didn't give them Test status.
I'm not saying that it was the only reason, I'm sure it helped but i'm sure there was support form the Asian block in general plus the potential for support & TV income is bigger in Bangladesh than it is in Kenya.
I mean who's going to go into bat for Kenya?I don't think South Africa for example have ever even given much support to Zimbabwe, in fact I believe the opposite to be the case.
noodnuts
22 Jul 2003, 08:19
we are witnessing the death throes of cricket...........someome put it out of it's misery.
Wicked Lester
22 Jul 2003, 09:23
Death throes or not one thing is certain - I have never been less interested in a test series, which is sad for a self confessed test cricket tragic.
This feeling must be just about universal. On Sunday I had to turn to the later sports pages (just before AFL reserves scores) to get the scorecard.
Quite frankly I'd rather watch two state second eleven sides battle it out than the torture of this thing masquerading as test cricket.
Phil Doyle
22 Jul 2003, 13:51
From little things big things grow. If cricket is to remain a global game then Australia must do its part to help develop the game. Trevor Chappell wrote a great piece that's available at www.cricket.org about Cricket in Bangladesh.
Funny as it may seem cricket is not just about white Private school boys playing each other when ti suits them.
Wicked Lester
22 Jul 2003, 17:10
Originally posted by Phil Doyle
Funny as it may seem cricket is not just about white Private school boys playing each other when ti suits them.
Not sure that notions of racial or socio-economic superiority were used or implied by anyone in expressing their views on the Bangladesh series Phil. Sorry to disappoint but I doubt there is political or west versus third world angle to this debate.
I think if anyone has been criticising the test series its because the word 'test' is an inappropriate term to describe level of the contest.
Australia is also oblidged to play teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. If Australia refuses to play these nations anywhere then they can actually be docked points to ensure that we can not be test champions, which I believe is fair.
Australia has to play all test nations regardless of their standard. Playing them in July/August in Darwin and Cairns also give both these areas a chance to watch test cricket. Very little top class cricket is played up there and first class cricket is a novelty and has never been played in Darwin.
Phil Doyle
22 Jul 2003, 21:13
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I think if anyone has been criticising the test series its because the word 'test' is an inappropriate term to describe level of the contest.
with that logic the test series between Australia and New Zealand in the late eighties should never have gone ahead either? or any of the last four ashes series bar one.
How are Bangladesh expected to improve if they don't face decent competition and get to use better facilities than they're going to face in Dacca?
Dogwatcher
22 Jul 2003, 22:51
I agree Phil.
Sri Lanka is becoming a hackneyed example, but their improvement in the game since Australia's first test against them in Kandy in 1983 (?) guides the way for Bangladesh.
Although impoverished, Bangladesh has a large population which will see the game take on greater importance as their appearances on the world stage increase.
Bangladesh may never stand at the peak of world cricket, but like Sri Lanka they may master the one day game. That improvement wil only come through exposure at any level.
So what if they dont become test kings, Fiji is not a strong performer at the world cup of rugby, but perform reasonably well in modified versions of the game. so be it. it all adds to the very rich tapestry of the game.
I am still faithful to the sport.
Originally posted by Phil Doyle
with that logic the test series between Australia and New Zealand in the late eighties should never have gone ahead either? or any of the last four ashes series bar one.
How are Bangladesh expected to improve if they don't face decent competition and get to use better facilities than they're going to face in Dacca?
Whilst I don't think that Bangladesh deserve Test status, if for no other reason than on purely cricketing terms Kenya would seem more deserving it does seem to be a tough call on when & how to introduce new Test playing nations.
They must have deserved it with sustained good performances against the other associate members but I suppose also there must be potential in that country for the game to flourish which is where I would guess that Bangladesh scores heavily over Kenya.
Part of the trouble with bringing in new Test nations these days is the Test Championship, with every side being compelled to play one another during each 5 year cycle it means that the calender is already at (or even past) breaking point.
Test cricket will IMO never be a fully global game but that's no problem as long Test cricket remains competitive & strong in the countries that play it.
If one compares how Bangladesh have performed since their introduction when compared with Zimbabwe then it seems to me that they weren't ready for it & I don't think Test match status is something that should be conferred lightly.
I believe that they've lost something like 19 out of 20 Test matches played & whilst Zimbabwe have hardly set the world alight they have for the most part been a pretty tough team who've put in some strong performances & I'm sure would have performed better without the political pressures that overlap into cricket in that country.
Without the Test Championship maybe Bangladesh could have eased themselves into Test cricket more easily, perhaps playing more Tests at home, palying more matches against other Asian sides where the conditions would be familiar, playing more against the other weaker sides & embarking on tours to say England & Asutralia where they could play a number of games against first class sides in different conditions- but as it is they're straight in the deep end & haven't shown too many signs of deserving their inclusion-plus the Kenyans must be despairing at the apparent unfairness of the whole process.
But who knows in 5 years they may have turned out to be another Sri Lanka, it's just that it looks doubtful at the moment.
GoEagles
23 Jul 2003, 15:58
I read that Sri Lanka will be playing in Darwin and Cairns next year for a 2 test series. Wouldn't it have been wiser for Cricket Australia to get Sri Lanka to play in October this year and put Zimbabwe into the 'Winter Test Matches'?