View Full Version : Bangladesh v Kenya
Bombers14
28 Jul 2003, 01:13
Who do you think should have test status?
Judging by the performance by Kenya in the world cup you would have to say them but there is a lot of difference between ODI and Tests. I would like to see a test series between the 2 teams. 3 matches. 1 in Bangladesh. 1 in Kenya, and 1 in Australia:D To make it fair.
Kenya have applied for test status for something like 2005 :(
Its a pitty we cant have 10 test playing nations.
Black Thunder
28 Jul 2003, 01:26
Kenya should've been given test status - they have much better cricketers, and their guys are quite young and enthuiastic.
but apparentally they didn't have the infrastructure but that is all crap IMO - it simply came down to the Asian influence in cricket, and they wanted a further strangle hold on it. There could've been 10 test playing nations - 3 in Asia, 3 in Africa, 2 in Pacific, England and Windies if Kenya had've (which they should've) been given test status.
but now there are 4 test teams in asia, giving them twice as many representatives as any other regions.
from what i've been told, the push from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, was HUGE for Bangladesh to get in, and was not going to be ignored.
The Scarecrow
28 Jul 2003, 20:29
Right now it's hard to say, I haven't seen Kenya in a test match, and what I saw of Bangladesh they had some good players, but were smashed. Atleast it was good for them to play against a top side and see what Test Match cricket is all about, Kenya looked good in the World Cup before being beaten in the finals.
Originally posted by The Scarecrow
I haven't seen Kenya in a test match. I don't think anyone has. ;)
Kenya have always been a superior cricket side to Bangladesh. Both before and after Bangladesh recieving full Test status.
The head to head ODI record between the two countries is 6 to 1.
Kenya's list of ODI scalps is impressive, beating West Indies at the 1996 WC, India a couple of times in other tournaments, and Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe at the 2003 World Cup.
The only impressive victory Bangladesh have had was against Pakistan in what was essentially a dead (some say fixed) match in the 1999 World Cup. They haven't won a ODI since then (they've also never won a Test) and even lost to Canada this year, the last team to qualify for the 2003 World Cup.
Lenny29
29 Jul 2003, 22:46
Originally posted by Bombers14
Who do you think should have test status?
Judging by the performance by Kenya in the world cup you would have to say them but there is a lot of difference between ODI and Tests. I would like to see a test series between the 2 teams. 3 matches. 1 in Bangladesh. 1 in Kenya, and 1 in Australia:D To make it fair.
Kenya have applied for test status for something like 2005 :(
Its a pitty we cant have 10 test playing nations.
...there *are* 10 test playing nations.
red+black
30 Jul 2003, 02:58
i voted Kenya but the 3rd option should have been neither. There should only be 9 test playing nations, and the way Zimbabwe is going, they should be relegated as well until I see pig-dog-scum-slime Mugabe's bullet-ridden maggot-infested head rolling on the ground.
The second string countries should have a similar program to test playing countries, maybe a 3 to 4 year plan, and have their own rankings. The better teams should play A sides and a decision should be made as to whether they are deserving of test status. Kenya doesn't deserve test status yet. And Bangladesh definately doesn't. Just because they are in now, I would support demoting them for a few years. Admit the mistake and let's move forward.
Re Mugabe, I held back my true feelings cos I didn't want to go overboard. Suffice it to say I wouldn't have a beer with him.
GoEagles
30 Jul 2003, 23:27
I have no doubt that in 15 years Bangladesh will have a competitive cricket team that will be able to match other cricket sides (not Australia if we can maintain our form).
A country of 150 Million People where Cricket and Soccer are the major sports - surely there is the potential for cricket to grow and for the country to develop some outstanding cricketers.
The Scarecrow
31 Jul 2003, 21:37
I reckon any team that plays World Cricket should have Test and ODI status, it would be good for the game to get some more countries playing cricket. But only if they can be able to compete, there are some teams that have been pretty weak.
dr nick
31 Jul 2003, 21:57
i voted kenya, but i wouldnt mind seeing a qualification tournament every four years (alongside the test world cup idea) that decides the 10th test team, and there should be some benchmark the 10th team has to pass to hold test status. if this is done, then in the future the same could be done for the 11th team if the 10th team passes the criteria to stay in the competition.
dr nick
31 Jul 2003, 22:00
Originally posted by The Scarecrow
I reckon any team that plays World Cricket should have Test and ODI status, it would be good for the game to get some more countries playing cricket. But only if they can be able to compete, there are some teams that have been pretty weak. that would severly demean the game, and we'd have a rugby league world cup type farce of a situation. i mean, imagine canada or the netherlands playing tests
Originally posted by nicko18
that would severly demean the game, and we'd have a rugby league world cup type farce of a situation. i mean, imagine canada or the netherlands playing tests
No-ones saying they should have to play Australia. Solomon Islands have full international status in soccer, but it's not like they go around getting smashed by Brazil and France. It's only when they are forced to play Australia once every 4 years.
Bombers14
3 Aug 2003, 17:28
Originally posted by L-Nizzy
...there *are* 10 test playing nations.
New Zealand dont count.....;) :D
Originally posted by Rob
No-ones saying they should have to play Australia. Solomon Islands have full international status in soccer, but it's not like they go around getting smashed by Brazil and France. It's only when they are forced to play Australia once every 4 years.
then you have Ruud Van Nisterol claiming 400 test wickets v teams like Canada and Brazil, and accompanying the likes of Holding, Warne, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee in terms of records
Originally posted by nicko18
then you have Ruud Van Nisterol claiming 400 test wickets v teams like Canada and Brazil, and accompanying the likes of Holding, Warne, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee in terms of records
I wouldn't expect the lower nations to play anywhere near enough games, but in any case, if individual records is the only reason as to why national cricket sides beyond the top tier are treated like they don't matter, then cricket deserves to be seen as an insular colonial sport. Do you really think that Ronaldo gives a fat rats clacker that some unknown 4th rate Australian striker holds the record for most goals scored in an international?
Who knows, Ruud Van Nisterol might be the greatest bowler the world has ever seen, but because he wasn't born and raised in the right country, he never has the chance to play test cricket. A guy like Steve Tikolo would have made a pretty good test batsman for most test playing sides, but because he made the mistake of being Kenyan, he will probably never have the opportunity to play.
Destructive
6 Aug 2003, 16:22
Out of those 2, Kenya. Bangladesh just are'nt up to it.
Originally posted by Rob
I wouldn't expect the lower nations to play anywhere near enough games, but in any case, if individual records is the only reason as to why national cricket sides beyond the top tier are treated like they don't matter, then cricket deserves to be seen as an insular colonial sport. Do you really think that Ronaldo gives a fat rats clacker that some unknown 4th rate Australian striker holds the record for most goals scored in an international?
Who knows, Ruud Van Nisterol might be the greatest bowler the world has ever seen, but because he wasn't born and raised in the right country, he never has the chance to play test cricket. A guy like Steve Tikolo would have made a pretty good test batsman for most test playing sides, but because he made the mistake of being Kenyan, he will probably never have the opportunity to play.
yeah, but you get that situation in all sports. if a rugby player was born in India, tough! sure, they can go and play for other nations (ala the africans playing for england over the years), but the example you use with ronaldo is off the mark. I think it should be a two tiered system, much like premier league and first division is. that way, records in the top level are seperate from the substandard lower tiered comp. of course there is always the window for promotion/relegation.
Originally posted by nicko18
yeah, but you get that situation in all sports. if a rugby player was born in India, tough! sure, they can go and play for other nations (ala the africans playing for england over the years), but the example you use with ronaldo is off the mark. I think it should be a two tiered system, much like premier league and first division is. that way, records in the top level are seperate from the substandard lower tiered comp. of course there is always the window for promotion/relegation.
You're partly right, but in just about every other international sport worth it's salt, more than 10 teams are allowed to compete. And in ODI's, just one more country is allowed to play them.
And I agree about the tiered system, I think the ICC is implementing something similar to that.
At the moment they'd both beat Zimbabwe.