Right, let’s get this over and done with: give Ireland Test cricket status and then every cricket fan can breathe a sigh of relief before this World Cup is finished. Why? Because it would signal that the ICC is at least still listening, or straining to, with one of those old ear-horn hearing-aid thingies, to what the sport needs at a global level.
It would also mean there would be something for the other associates to look up to as a new benchmark, outside of winning the odd Twenty20 World Cup encounter.
England skipper Andrew Strauss has already told reporters this week that the ICC should have waited until the close of this one-day international tournament before deciding on the make-up of the 2015 edition.
At least give the likes of Ireland and Holland a chance – the British press reckoned the Dutch did everything right bar win against England in their opening group match, the perfect advertisement for associate nation cricket.
On February 24, FOX Sports’ online portal confirmed that Zimbabwe would return to the list of Test nations.
They will meet Bangladesh, New Zealand and Pakistan later this year, marking a comeback that’s been four years in the making. However, all three opponents play Zimbabwe in single Test matches.
Neighbours South Africa and Australia will also tour the country with A teams during the middle of the year in advance of the official Test reinstatement.
“We’re not going to rush it,” Zimbabwe Cricket chairman Peter Chingoka was quoted as saying.
“We are going to start with fewer games as we move along. I think we have a reasonable chance in those matches against those three teams.”
Chingoka added that he expected Zimbabwe to “cope well” with top-flight international cricket once more.
I wouldn’t be the only one who would reckon the Irish would cope just as well at present, especially given the Emerald Isle’s dominance of the ICC’s Intercontinental Cup in recent years. Then follow that with either Afghanistan or the Dutch.
How much of a skill gap is there – in truth – over four days of cricket between these countries and say Zimbabwe or Bangladesh? Why not send A teams at least to Ireland and Afghanistan – beating fellow associates every week soon won’t become enough of a challenge for them.
Let’s face it, when Bangladesh became a Test nation, it was probably more to do with the population of supporters and the fact they live next door to India and Pakistan.
The ICC should have given Test status to Kenya – a far better team at the time – and not worried about the nation’s general enthusiasm for track and field instead.
I’d rather watch a competitive team grow its fan base with solid performances than a weaker XI lose in front of an admittedly full stadium of rapturous fans.
Why don’t the ICC think outside the Test-nation box for once and plan for a greater future for the game?
If a few nations are willing, there are plenty of ways to do it. England-Ireland-Scotland-Wales in a home nations tournament, either at one-day or three-day length, for starters.
Or a one-day European Cup, including the Netherlands and maybe Denmark. How about the Asian Cup reverting to including more than the usual four of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh?
Where’s the space for Arghanistan, Oman, Nepal or Hong Kong?
The ultimate in smartness may yet be to split cricket into two divisions of eight – with promotion and relegation between them over say a four-year cycle. The top eight nations would play five-day Test cricket, while the second tier would meet across a four-day format.
As of the end of January according to the ICC rankings and most recent Intercontinental Cup and Shield results, the top Test division would be India, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka, Australia, Pakistan, West Indies and New Zealand.
The first-class division would contain Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Scotland, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Kenya, Holland and Canada. Waiting on the outer, perhaps playing three-dayers at least, could be the likes of Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, Uganda and Bermuda.
The ICC needs to make some sure-footed decisions about where cricket is going, and not just stick to money-making exercises for the sake of them. If it’s the International Cricket Council, then make that first word really say what it should mean.
Oh, and my take on the whole Ricky Ponting-smashes-telly saga? Personally, I would like to have seen him suspended for two group phase matches. Or be forced to play for Kenya. Twice.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Rob, Im saying for what really matters, which is for who gets to tour where, the votes dont mean s--t - the FTP is, was, and always will be merely theoretical.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Rob,the voting pattern is like a movable feast. Prior to the Mumbai terror attacks India .Pakistan.Bangladesh and SL voted as a block. Sri lanka will do India's bidding because of an interest free loan the BCCI gave them some years ago. Pakistan lately has been indebted to the ECB and will vote with them. South Africa and australia ,because of their partnership in the Champions League,I would think would vote with the Indian block. India can,in the end,open and lock doors. No power should be concentrated in so few.
Rob McLean
Guest
Ian, are you saying there is no voting alliance when cruciual questions come up? I have, myself, wondered in the past few days whether England would consider developing a great relationship with Ireland to help give the standard of play a kick along in order to have another 'voting partner' in the Test nations. I'm not sure though whether it would be relevant to ICC politics or not...
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Realist, Kindly stop being so bright eyed and bushy tailed. The balance of power in cricket has nothing to do with ICC votes, and everything to do with Indian pay TV and gambling money. You can have the votes, and I can have the money, and the teams will play where I say.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
lopati,of coursse it is viable...I would say it will also help the raising of standards in both countries..especially the cricket...but asking cric ket boards to think clearly is like asking our politicians to be honest.
Realist
Guest
Ireland will NOT get test status because this will threaten the Asiatic nations balance of power. You will get Afghanistan soon enough. Ireland I doubt anytime soon. They should have two divisions with promotion and relegation. Top 6 and a bottom 6.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The key is not the status games have ; it is whether or not they are played. For example, Australia goes to England regularily. When there, they do not play Ireland, and they do not play the Netherlands, and Scotland might or might not get a game. In short, Ireland having Test status will be meaningless if sides decline to play them, so fix that first.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
PS Russ - had a look at the website. Man, you're statistically madder than me when it comes to cricket. But why not - it's a wonderful sport (still, despite all the annoying stuff happening around it at times).
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Russ - I agree totally with point 1 - I'm referring to the on-field side of it. The Irish as another team to play Test-level cricket, not necessarily run the ICC. Point 3 - don't quite think I'd get the South Region Cup going, but visits that take in nearby Associates, yes. For example instead of AUS-SAF-NZL as a World Series I'd have a quad with either Ireland, Holland or Kenya included (whoever shows enough promise at this World Cup - probably Ireland - or Kenya as they can hop on the same plane as the South Africans). Thanks for adding those other points to the debate as well. :-)
Russ
Guest
Ben, while I don't disagree with the general idea of expansion, it is highly unlikely the full members will vote in another member, given the approx. 10% drop in revenue that would entail for them. It is even more unlikely that they'd agree to a tiered system with relegation and promotion (there is already a tiered system without those elements). A drop to the lower division would cost a team ~$40m in touring revenue over 4 years, enough to bankrupt them, or force a de-professionalisation of their first-class structure. Any prospective test side, or modification to the FTP, needs to work through and around the existing structures and inequalities. I've written on these issues more than is perhaps healthy so I'll try and keep the rest of this comment down to a summary of where I'm at: 1. It is unhealthy for "Full member" status, entailing an acknowledgment of cricket development, voting rights and structure to be conflated with "test" status, which ought to be a purely competitive measure. From my perspective, any team that shows itself good enough to play test cricket ought to be given an opportunity to showcase their talent; if when their best players retire they go back to being mediocre, the structure should account for that too. We oughtn't try and pre-empt how good a side might be in some future universe. 2. While it isn't important, there isn't any particularly sound reason why multi-innings, multi-day first-class games between international sides couldn't be designated "tests". Rugby, for example, makes no distinction for quality. The I-Cup games are tests in all but name, and by extension, cricket already has 20 competitive nations, spread across two (fixed) tiers. 3. Some basic restructuring at one-day level is simple (as you noted). The AUS-RSA-NZ tri-series in two years time, for example, could easily be played as an eight team Southern Regional Cup and include both AUS-RSA-NZ-ZIM and KEN-UGA-NAM-PNG. 4. It is unrealistic to expect the marquee series (The Ashes, most obviously) to be moved or shortened, nor would most fans want that to occur. It is also unrealistic to schedule more than 9-10 teams into a 4-5 year rotating cycle. 5. Given those twin constraints, the best bet for an expansion of test cricket is to set aside two years in four for marquee bilateral series, and two years for a "championship" which would distribute funds to members otherwise not offered the "rich" series. 6. It is straight-forward to play a 6 team test championship (2 groups of 3) playing 3-test home-away series, where the group winners contest a 4-test (plus decider) home-away final (2 tests each) over Sept-Oct. Any first division championship could have a second, and even third, division competition. 7. It is slightly less straight-forward but possible to play either regional or group based qualifiers for the above test championship in the other year. Limited opportunities can be given to the associate nations during the preliminary rounds of this process. See this image for a worked example. 8. There is no point playing a lot of uncompetitive games. Cricket ought to be a meritocracy, not an aristocracy; teams (and players) should be given a chance to prove themselves, but also to find their competitive level. At every level of the game except that of the full members cricket is a meritocracy.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Erwin - I'd readily agree that the Banglas' have improved in the past decade. At the time (1999-2000) I personally felt Kenya looked the more suitable in cricketing terms, but that's just my own opinion. I wouldn't deny that they have a good youth system going now, too. As for the Irish - some sort of top-class status must remain a goal for them, and yeah, tours by/to countries with an A team or joining triangular/quad ODI series would be a good move to help them towards that goal.
Erwin
Guest
With all due respect, you are completely ignorant about the relationship between awarding Bangladesh test status 10 years ago and the progress of Bangladesh in top level of cricket since 2000. Without test status, there would not have been any Shakib and Tamim Iqbal in world cricket. Bangladesh was not prepared for test status 10 years ago, true. Hence it was a mistake, but a sweet mistake that one must admit. Cricket has never been a popular game in Bangladesh until 1990s. Even in 2000, cricket was fighting with soccer for its glory among local population. So it was the awarding of test status that raised the dream of becoming cricketers among young generation. For an Aussie kid, cricket could be an option, but for a Bangladeshi kid 15 years ago, choosing cricket meant living in outright poverty and there was hardly any professional cricketers in Bangladesh back then! Even the national team players who impressed in 1999 world cup had to look for jobs with banks and airlines while playing cricket as amateurs! Just 2 years ago there were three bowling machine in total in the whole country! Rather than wasting time in wrongfully criticizing Bangladesh's development it would be nice for Australians to help the cause of cricket in countries like Bangladesh, where the passion for the game even beats Australians' love for the game but not the financial capability. It is astounding that only with the sheer talent Bangladesh has established itself as one of the 5 best under-19 teams in the world right now(regularly beating Australia U19 and England U19 in away condition). The generation of Bangladeshis who took cricket seriously are only coming off their teenage years and they are going to be within the best 5 ranked teams in the world within next 10 years. This shall only be possible because Bangladesh getting their test status in 2000. I can't see Ireland strengthening their fan base within next 20 years and I am talking about Irish fans, not cricket lovers like you and me. First of all, cricket has to be popularized in Ireland and only then we can dream of such things. However, I do think Ireland should be given the opportunity to tour big teams in world cricket and play longer version against their A teams.
lopati
Guest
Ricky is dead right, afterall what does ANZAC stand for - it's a significant event both countries shared. And even thou Australia is bigger, and has the better record New Zealand has shown it can be a realistic competitor. This shows up in the other popular sports we both play as well, rugby union & league, netball and cricket. (Going a little off topic the rugbies and netball have shown that healthy, popular and economically viable trans-tasman competition can also exist at club as well as national level, something CA and the NZ boards should consider as they tinker with the T20/50 over/sheild comp formats.)
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Ben,it was meant as constructive criticsm and I am glad you have taken it as such. Yes,it would be a filip for people in New Zealand but somehow I don't think the Blackcaps can win. I was impressed with Ponting's generosity in offering the use of our physio and also his comment that they"are like our brothers." But once on the pitch it will be playing to win.
Tony
Guest
Dismissed batsmen have been throwing tantrums, and assorted items of kit, in the dressing rooms since WG was a boy and they will continue to do so. Not throwing your bat/pads/gloves/box, not kicking a chair, not slamming a locker door, not putting a stump through the umpire's door (and hello to you, Hansie), not smashing Doug Walters' smokes off his card table is against the spirit of cricket.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Fair point Vinay - thanks for the feedback. Purely as a fan of cricket, I do wish that players would be more aware at times that some of their actions are more scrutinised than they used to be in the past, but yes, I too hope for a cracking game tonight against the Kiwis. For the people of Christchurch in particular, I almost wouldn't mind if NZ won.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Ben,I was interested in everything you had to say right up to your take on Ricky Ponting and the TV. You were making sense talking about the need for the ICC to be sure footed. But you lost me with what is a non-story. The reputable Indian dailies like the times of India,Hindu and Express only give it passing mention. It is not a major story. It is not a black mark on australia's image. Ponting,for many ,is an easy target and I would have thought you would refrain from making a judgement. What is important is how Ricky performs on the pitch and how Australia go today.