Developing Nations

[Richoagain]

What assistance does the ICC give countries like Namibia/Kenya/Holland etc?

Kenya look to have more potential (despite the smaller population) than Balngladesh, how come they got test nation status first?

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by Richoagain
What assistance does the ICC give countries like Namibia/Kenya/Holland etc?

Kenya look to have more potential (despite the smaller population) than Balngladesh, how come they got test nation status first?

big push from the Asian countries to get them in so they could get more representation on the ICC.

Yes, Kenya are a much better team though, but it remains to be seen how they're guys could get in the long form of the game. Most of the Bangladesh guys had some sort of experience playing over 4 or 5 days before they moved into tests (quite a few played in the Indian, Pakistan and Sri Lanka FC competitions in the seasons preceeding their inception), whereas I would recokn the Kenyan's have had very limited to none experience over more than 2 or 3 day cricket - at least of any quality.

The ICC gives smallish (too small IMO) grants to those developing countries. I think they need to associate FC teams with those nations and develop them more.

My plan for these nations would be to link a FC team with a nation, and have 3 or 4 players from that nation come to the state of the FC team each summer and participate in their grade competition. This would give these players exposure to top line cricket week-in week-out.

I would also have a system in place where retired cricketers can be offered coaching jobs in developing countries.

 

[ajackett110]

Black Thunder... A lot of what you have stated is correct, but it is not the reason the Kenyans have not been granted Test status ahead of Bangladesh.

It is not only the quality of cricket that is taken into consideration when promoting teams to test status, but it is the conditions of the country and it's facilities. In this regard, Kenya's facilities (eg. grounds) are not up to international standard as yet, however Bangladesh's is. What you have to realise is that Kenya would have to host one or two test series per year, and their facilities are just not good enough to accommodate this. While Kenya may be a better side, they will still need a lot of improvement on their "off-the-ground" needs.

Back to the original question, this should give the ICC good enough reason to fund Kenya to improve their faults. If they have the quality of players, they should definitely try to improve their facilities to promote Kenya to a test team, something they thoroughly deserve given their recent performances.

 

[GoEagles]

Didn't the ICC say that they will evaluate Kenya's request to be a test playing nation in 2004?

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by GoEagles
Didn't the ICC say that they will evaluate Kenya's request to be a test playing nation in 2004?

yea that will seriously screw up their 10 year plan


Ajacket,

granted that Kenya's facilities don't seem to be up to scratch, but the bottom line is Bangladesh were pushed over the line by the Asian countries in a big to get more status on the ICC.

 

[the fly]

Kenya applied last year and was knocked back because they have no domestic competotion at the longer form of the game. Bangladesh already had this when they were accepted as a test match playing nation.

 

[Slax]

I too have not been impressed with Bangladesh's start in Test cricket but here are a few little stats on some teams when they got test status.

New Zealand - Took nearly 30 yrs to win a test.
Sri Lanka - 33 Tests
Zimbabwe - 39 Tests

So be a little bit kinder to them. They now have Whatmore as the coach who turned Sri Lankan cricket around so give him a couple of years and they'll be ok.

Also Bangladesh has a better cricket infrastructure than Kenya.

 

[LordLucifer]

Don't worry about the Bangla's, they will be a very strong cricket nation in years to come, mark my words. When I visited there in 2000, I saw more kids playing cricket in the streets than I did in India. Anyone who has been to India will appreciate the magnitude of this.

 

[red+black]

Originally posted by Slax
New Zealand - Took nearly 30 yrs to win a test.
Sri Lanka - 33 Tests
Zimbabwe - 39 Tests

regarding that New Zealand stat: it was their 45th test that they first tasted victory.

Zimbabwe actually won their 11th test (it was against Pakistan).

tests played to win their 10th test:
NZ: 137
SL: 80
ZIM: (7 wins so far in 65 tests)

what is disappointing re bangladesh is not that they are losing, but that they are always getting thrashed.

19 tests:
1 draw
18 losses
- 13 by an innings
- 4 by 7, 8 or 9 wickets
- 1 by 288 runs

the only match they didn't lose was at home v zimbabwe:
Bangladesh 107 and 3/125
Zimbabwe 431
4th and 5th days completely washed out

other stats while i'm here:
- have conceded 400 runs in an innings 14 times
- have been dismissed for under 200 in an innings 24 times

can't wait to play them. i think channel 9 does not intend to show the tests (Melbourne Herald Sun, April 19) although they are contracted to show home tests live around Australia.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by red+black
regarding that New Zealand stat: it was their 45th test that they first tasted victory.

And that is part of the problem. New Zealand played 45 tests over thirty years. While Bangladesh played 8 tests last year alone. When are they meant to get time to practice in an environment where there confidence isn't being continually battered??

 

[red+black]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
And that is part of the problem. New Zealand played 45 tests over thirty years. While Bangladesh played 8 tests last year alone. When are they meant to get time to practice in an environment where there confidence isn't being continually battered??

my suggestion: probably before they entered the arena of test cricket. thanks again dalmiya.

 

[Slax]

The better question is not how many tests they play in a year it is what is their first class competition like. England have gone backwards over the last 20 years due to 2 reasons:

1. Thatcherism - Margret Thatcher cut funding to schools and told them to find money elsewhere. Subsequently the schools sold their cricket grounds to raise money, thus reducing the talent pool

2. Too many sides in county cricket. How can you maintain a reasonable standard with too many sides.

This is relevant because Bangladesh do not have the infrastructure at the moment. they do not have a lot of grounds and cricket (like in India) is a game of the well to do (India has more though). Without developing cricket in the working class you can not obtain a increase in the talent pool. Bangladesh don't even have a properly organised first class competition and without that they can not improve.