Ireland v Bangladesh Test status

Should Ireland replace Bangladesh in the ICC full member Test team list, or at least join the top ten.

Since their inclusion in 2000, Bangladesh have only won three Test matches, one against Zimbabwe and two against the West Indies who at the time were crippled by a players strike. Thirty four of their defeats have been by an innings.

They just never seem to improve in the Test arena, which some blame on the fact that there is a lack of first class cricket in Bangladesh which will not change any time soon.

Unless Ireland are given the same chance that Bangladesh were, we will miss out on some of the good players that Ireland have in the big arena.

Maybe it has something to do with cricket Ireland's infrastructure or maybe a money angle,or maybe they do not want it yet, i am not sure, but i would like for them to be given a shot.

On merit, Ireland deserve test status but there's no way they'll get it. India don't want them in as they might vote against the current Asian block, and England, who could be their biggest support, aren't all that keen on it either (apparently). The elitism in the higher echelons of the ICC sickens me sometimes, it's like they don't want the game to expand beyond their cozy little world. Bangladesh were only given test status in a political move by the BCCI to gain control of the ICC (hence how they can impose things like their stance on the DRS).

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On merit, Ireland deserve test status but there's no way they'll get it. India don't want them in as they might vote against the current Asian block, and England, who could be their biggest support, aren't all that keen on it either (apparently). The elitism in the higher echelons of the ICC sickens me sometimes, it's like they don't want the game to expand beyond their cozy little world. Bangladesh were only given test status in a political move by the BCCI to gain control of the ICC (hence how they can impose things like their stance on the DRS).

Thank you for the info MfC, i did not realise this at all. Shocking indeed. Wasted thread then.

Ireland are as worthy as anyone else, that's for sure, but I'll be surprised if they're granted Test status any time soon.

England probably don't want it so we can keep nicking their best players

Woahhhhhhh Roach bags Kohli for his 3rd wicket, India 47-3. Early yet, but maybe something extraordinary may happen.

I'm waiting for Mike's response to this, he's more in the loop than I am, so should have some "interesting" things to say. Ireland at the moment don't fulfill the official requirements for Test status (like having a first class system in place), or at least that's the official stance. The unofficial one is as I've outlined above.

wrong thread skyeman

LOL Yes, what a plonker

Personally I would like the word "test" to be abolished. It is a hangover from the colonial days, in which only the "worthy" were allowed to play the "best" form of the game.

The fact is, any 2 countries who wish to play a "test" match (that is, a timed-match over the course of 5 days) should be allowed to, regardless of status within the ICC. Cricket is the only sport I know of that excludes the huge majority of its members (95 out of 105) from a particular form of the game.

Added to this is there is no recognised pathway for a country to establish itself as a "test" playing country (i.e. full member). When it looked like Ireland would fulfil all the criteria, the requirement to have a first class domestic competition was added. I have no doubt that should Ireland achieve that, another criteria would be added.

The fact is, cricket is run as a closed shop, by the very few at the top for their own personal gain, with no motivation of expanding the game beyond their inner circle. Hence the decision to have the 2015 WC as a 10-team tournament (now reversed but still topical for 2019) and the subsequent "punishment" of reducing the T20 from 16 teams to 12 teams (on spurious economical reasons which even this amateur-economist can debunk in 5 minutes - everyone knows that it was essentially Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat after the associates/affiliates kicked up a storm over 2015).

Why is this? The ECB is essentially run by people yearning after the days when England ruled the world. The BCCI are still seeking revenge for whatever wrongs they are meant to have suffered during those years. As MfC points out quite correctly Ireland can never earn full member status as the BCCI don't wish to lose the majority of the Asian block. The ECB simply block Ireland to be able to pick their best players.

How can we change things? the first thing to do is to change the archaic voting system: at the moment the main deciding body of the ICC is the ICC executive board. On it sits one member per full nation, and a grand total of 3 members from all the associates/affiliates combined. That's right: the 10 full members have 10 votes in total, whereas the remaining 95 members have 3! Not to mention the fact that the president, VP and CEO are invariably from full member states. In addition I believe (to be checked) that 3 full member oppositions is enough for a veto.

The ICC Chief Executives' Committee (which deals with the management issues and hence plays a major role in the governance of the ICC) is run in an entirely analogous way.

Obviously no woman sits on either.

Simply put, Cricket can never become a global sport whilst this state of affairs continues. We are missing out on seeing genuine talents because of this short-sightedness.

Part of the upcoming Woolf governance review is to look into the ICC governance procedures. Several influential people are suggesting that the above system must change. The public and media have been asked for their opinions, the email is governance.review.icc@uk.pwc.com.

Thank you Mike, i will leave my thoughts by email.

Thanks, Mike, I'll have a think. Perhaps we could post our thoughts and suggestions here and we could see if we could add the weight of the forum behind anything we submit.

What is the actual evidenc ethat Ireland could:

Sustain test cricket
Has the player resources and interest to play test cricket
Has any public appetite for test cricket
would not act as a further finanicial drain on the other test nations who are forced to tour there and host them ( of who Only England could conceivably turn a profit)
Are better than Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe, neither of whome really deserve test status on playing merit anyway.


The lets spread and grow the game for everyone mantra and philosphy is fine, but dont kill what does work to do so. Its certainly ridiculous to suggest the ECB aere activley conspiring to deny Ireland full ICC memebrship, they are the only board who could conceivably significantly benefit from having Ireland in the club.


This gets bought up so often, at some point someone invetiably mentions the Irish board stateing that they werent ready for test cricket, but did harbour future ambition to take part when the foundations were there to support it.

A few suggestions which I have made:

1) Transparency: did you know that ICC minutes aren't routinely published? I find this staggering to say the least!

2) A minimum number of teams in world cups. Say 15%. Why do I say that? firstly it would lead to a 16 team WC which is what I feel is the best format right now (4 groups of 4, top 2 go through to the quarters, sorry if India or England get knocked out early). Secondly, it would bring cricket in line with other sports such as Football/Soccer (roughly 15 %, i.e. 32 out of 208) and rugby union (20 out of 117, so about 17%).

3) Voting rights: clearly the current system has to change. Not only is it inherently unfair on the non-full members, but having so few voters in total gives an inordinate amount of power to the most powerful, namely India at the moment (it used to be England of course). I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm sure there's a better system.

4) A genuine pathway to playing "test" matches. Currently the intercontinental cup provides a more than useful guide to what could become the "second division" of "test" cricket. Ireland are far ahead at the moment. Personally I would have 3 divisions of 8 teams, with promotion/relegation for 1 or 2 sides (maybe a play-off for second side, the promotion candidate hosts but must win to be promoted) every 2 years (possibly more?). 1st division would currently be England, SA, India, Aus, SL, Pakistan, WI and New-Zealand; D2 = Ireland, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Holland, Scotland, Namibia and UAE. D3= Canada, Kenya, PNG, Nepal, USA, Oman, Denmark and Hong-Kong. In time further divisions can and will be established.

There are other things which could be brought to the table, such as rotating the WC so it can be hosted also by associates (USA being an obvious choice), rotating ICC presidency between full members and non full members. I'm not sure I agree with these.

One thing I would like to see in place is more stringent nationality criteria, in particular in the associates, to promote cricket among the "indigenous" population. Currently some countries have a lot of "imports" (cough Italy cough) which is short-termist but more importantly damages the credibility of associate members as a whole ("how can you demand more? all your players are Kiwis/Ausies/Saffers/insert other nationality").

Incidentally here is what the late Peter Roebuck had to say on the subject of test matches:

"I would stop calling them Tests and start calling them Internationals. Test
status has become a bane not an aspiration. A political tool not a
recognition of progress. A mathematician’s and historian’s dream not a way to develop the game."

He expresses it a lot better than me (he is of course a journalist and I a humble mathematician) but this is exactly what I was trying to express in my first paragraph.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:What is the actual evidenc ethat Ireland could:

Sustain test cricket
Has the player resources and interest to play test cricket
Has any public appetite for test cricket
would not act as a further finanicial drain on the other test nations who are forced to tour there and host them ( of who Only England could conceivably turn a profit)
Are better than Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe, neither of whome really deserve test status on playing merit anyway.

what on earth does "sustain test cricket" mean? Ireland currently compete in the Intercontinental cup so they play a form of "test" cricket.

There is certainly enough interest in Irish players, board members and fans to wish to compete at a higher standard.

Yes, those poor other test nations being forced to play sides they don't particularly want to, possibly at a loss. Countries like Bangladesh who receive about 10 times as much money as Ireland from the ICC. How my heart bleeds.

This whole "financial drain" thing is a complete scam. Anybody can show that the financial impact on the established cricket boards would be entirely minimal. "Test" cricket would survive just fine under the system I have outlined in my above post.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The lets spread and grow the game for everyone mantra and philosphy is fine, but dont kill what does work to do so.

In what way does the current system work? It certainly works to exclude the vast majority of the participants, but I don't see that as a particularly good thing.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its certainly ridiculous to suggest the ECB aere activley conspiring to deny Ireland full ICC memebrship, they are the only board who could conceivably significantly benefit from having Ireland in the club.

Sorry but that's wrong. The ECB's stance on Ireland's possible admittance to the cosy club is well-known.

PSW, also some very good poits there, especially:


Has the player resources and interest to play test cricket
Has any public appetite for test cricket
would not act as a further finanicial drain on the other test nations who are forced to tour there and host them ( of who Only England could conceivably turn a profit)

But if Ireland feel they could achieve some of these and they think that they could make it work, I for one think that they should be given a chance.


Mike, the No4 suggestion on your list sounds like a great idea with premotion possible for the better team and likewise demotion for the poorer team.

Longer/bigger world cups ...seriously? Its a dreadful idea.

USA hosting a cricket world cup? Seriously?

PNG vs Oman as a regualr 5 day international fixture?

Theres some frankly bonkers pie in the sky thinking their. Simply wishing it were the case doesnt make it practical or relaistic in the short or medium term. Whilst its a nice aspiration wouldnt it be good to get some of these countries vaguely capable of sustianing something like competitive limited overs cricket (and a genuine audience) first, then start worrying about the 5 day game after?

this is going to get fun

[quote="Mad for Chelsea"]this is going to get fun [/quote


PMSL

As MfC says this is going to get fun...

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Longer/bigger world cups ...seriously? Its a dreadful idea.

Who said anything about longer? 4 pools of 4, everyone plays each other once in pools gives (unless my maths is way off) 24 games. Then 4 quarters, 2 semis and a final. You can even add a 3rd place play-off. This gives a maximum of 32 games. It is how the European and world soccer cups are run, and how the Rugby Union WC is run. Of course the difference is those sports actually want to develop beyond the cozy club, and cricket frankly doesn't.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:USA hosting a cricket world cup? Seriously?

I'm not sold on the idea, but they hosted a soccer world cup with reasonable success. Japan are hosting a Rugby world cup shortly. The US have a huge sub-continental and carribean community who would flock to the games if they were made affordable (of course, this is another problem). The USA is also the centre of the commercial world, so sponsors would be easy to come by.

Why are you so against the idea? Do you suggest it should never happen, and cricket world cups should only EVER be hosted by India, england, Australia, South Africa? Seriously?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:PNG vs Oman as a regualr 5 day international fixture?

You are simply being insulting. Have you ever seen any of these sides play? Didn't think so. You do know cricket exists outside the top 10 countries right? And you know, these teams have (gasp) tournaments, and play each-other and compete and stuff?

Why shouldn't they play each other once a year if they want to. It doesn't have to be 5 days, make it 4 or 3 if that makes you happier.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Theres some frankly bonkers pie in the sky thinking their. Simply wishing it were the case doesnt make it practical or relaistic in the short or medium term. Whilst its a nice aspiration wouldnt it be good to get some of these countries vaguely capable of sustianing something like competitive limited overs cricket (and a genuine audience) first, then start worrying about the 5 day game after?

Yup, similarly all new rugby members should only be allowed to play 7s, all new football members 6-a-side, etc. What an absolutely rubbish thing to say. These countries do play competitive limitted overs cricket, at a lesser level than others but it is competitive and it is limitted overs. Your thinking is exactly what is slowing this game down and not allowing it to progress, it still sees "test" cricket as something which should be "earned" (except or course there is no way to show you have earned it). It isn't. It is simply a form of the game, and as such should be played by all the countries who are willing to. At their level.

Some will claim I'm rude, but in all honesty there is some utterly stupid rubbish here.

A "Test" is called that simply because it is the greatest test of ability (mental, physical, technical etc. etc.) there is in cricket.
They are there for countries who are totally professional because few amateurs have the time or resources to even contemplate competing over 5 days, let alone a full series and that's the main reason why countries need to have a proper first class structure in place before being granted Test status.
If any of the associate nations want to play matches of 4 or 5 days against each other, fair enough, it will only improve their game, but there is no point in playing matches against any Test nations ATM as they are too weak to make a match out of it, even as a warm up match for a real Test series.

Most agree that Bangladesh shouldn't have been given Test status as they weren't even as strong as Kenya were at the time, it was a political decision helped by the fact that Pakistan threw the odd ODI against them, but at least their club game was far more developed than any other non-Test nation.
As for Ireland or any other country getting Test status, firstly they don't have the infrastucture or even the number of players needed to sustain a squad at even the level of Bangladesh, remember 5 day games are practically a different sport to ODIs and 20/20s.
Secondly and most importantly, no-one who's involved in the Irish setup has even mentioned Test status, they know they're a minimum of a decade from being ready to even bring it up as a possibility another decade down the line.

If another country is granted test status in the next couple of decades, it's far more likely to be Afghanistan or even a country who are currently true minnows, but have the sheer number of people and resources to allow rapid expansion of the sport if they put their minds to it, like Canada or even China.
As for changing the world cups, I think they should both be expanded to 16 teams and I don't see why they shouldn't be hosted outside the 'big' countries, but it's still a truly giant leap from ODIs and 20/20s to a Test series.

ReallyReal wrote:Some will claim I'm rude, but in all honesty there is some utterly stupid rubbish here.

A "Test" is called that simply because it is the greatest test of ability (mental, physical, technical etc. etc.) there is in cricket.

I have a class to give now so I'll answer your post in more details shortly, but the above is simply not true. If you speak to a lot of current players (including a certain SK Warne) they will tell you that due to the sheer pace, T20 is the toughest mentally and physically.

Mike, don't agree there. Much tougher mentally and physically when you're in a field all day - concentration wanes much easier. It is often a war of attrition.

Have to say I agree with reallyreal on this one.

i wondered how long it would be before this debate came up again.

i think ireland should get test status within the next 2 years, however i wouldnt strip bangladesh of theirs.

Fists of Fury wrote:Mike, don't agree there. Much tougher mentally and physically when you're in a field all day - concentration wanes much easier. It is often a war of attrition.

Have to say I agree with reallyreal on this one.

I go by what players (both test and county) have said.

I think the point is that to an extent you're not always "in the game" during a test match. There are periods where there is a lull, and times where you can be fairly certain you're out of the action. Of course you then have to have the ability to switch on in an instant: this is incredibly hard and a great attribute of someone like say Cook, but in T20 you have to be always switched on, which some players find both mentally and physically more tiring than playing a test match.

ReallyReal wrote:Some will claim I'm rude, but in all honesty there is some utterly stupid rubbish here.

A "Test" is called that simply because it is the greatest test of ability (mental, physical, technical etc. etc.) there is in cricket.
They are there for countries who are totally professional because few amateurs have the time or resources to even contemplate competing over 5 days, let alone a full series and that's the main reason why countries need to have a proper first class structure in place before being granted Test status.
If any of the associate nations want to play matches of 4 or 5 days against each other, fair enough, it will only improve their game, but there is no point in playing matches against any Test nations ATM as they are too weak to make a match out of it, even as a warm up match for a real Test series.

I don't see where you have disagreed with anything I have said.

To be honest I don't find you rude so much as uninformed and insulting. For example, Ireland, Canada, Afghanistan, etc. already DO play matches of 4 days against each other, in the Intercontinental cup. France's recent year involved 32 days of cricket (which is more than the annual leave allowed). These countries already spend a huge amount of time and resources to develop their game, and they are ATM being denied the "right" to play a particular form of the game (that is, they can play it, it just won't count).

Nowhere have I suggested these countries should play series again test nations. However they should be a pathway to enable them to. Currently there isn't. Test status is decided not on who you beat, but whether the current test countries want you to. Simple as that. This is where my 3 division idea comes in.

The point is "test status" has become a stigma rather than an aspiration. Every country should be allowed to play test matches if they wish to and can find a willing opponent. The status the current full-members enjoy should be renamed "test status division 1" and etc.

ReallyReal wrote:Most agree that Bangladesh shouldn't have been given Test status as they weren't even as strong as Kenya were at the time, it was a political decision helped by the fact that Pakistan threw the odd ODI against them, but at least their club game was far more developed than any other non-Test nation.
As for Ireland or any other country getting Test status, firstly they don't have the infrastucture or even the number of players needed to sustain a squad at even the level of Bangladesh, remember 5 day games are practically a different sport to ODIs and 20/20s.

Maybe, maybe not. Let's let Ireland play Bangladesh over multi-days and see what happens. I'm not nearly as sure as you are of the forgone conclusion. And to say "practically a different sport" is just balderdash. Different form of the same sport.

ReallyReal wrote:Secondly and most importantly, no-one who's involved in the Irish setup has even mentioned Test status, they know they're a minimum of a decade from being ready to even bring it up as a possibility another decade down the line.

Publicly just about true, because they know that they can't get it while the current status quo remains. On the other hand, Eoin Morgan clearly wanted to play test cricket, Dockrell and Rankin have said it's their ultimate aim, and Paul Stirling has actually said he'd like Ireland to have test status.

Privately a lot of Irish officials are pushing hard for support for their application to become a full member. Obviously I can't drop names on a public board, but I speak from experience.

ReallyReal wrote:If another country is granted test status in the next couple of decades, it's far more likely to be Afghanistan or even a country who are currently true minnows, but have the sheer number of people and resources to allow rapid expansion of the sport if they put their minds to it, like Canada or even China.

whilst the archaic system is preserved you are right, as Afghanistan would be expected to side with India. Although again your lack of knowledge of the associate game is exposed, the fact is Afghanistan cricket is a lot less healthy now than it was a year ago due to internal troubles. China of course could become a world power in anything they choose, but whether the full members will let them or not remains to be seen. The ICC seem to be keen to get the US involved due to perceived neutrality (apparently they quite like the english and the indians) and the commercial potential out there. Of course the fact that their board makes the russian elections look fair and transparent doesn't seem to bother anyone. That and they're not very good at cricket (compared to say Ireland, Kenya, UAE, Nigeria).

ReallyReal wrote:As for changing the world cups, I think they should both be expanded to 16 teams and I don't see why they shouldn't be hosted outside the 'big' countries, but it's still a truly giant leap from ODIs and 20/20s to a Test series.

I'm not advocating Denmark play a 5-test series against England you know... Although why it shouldn't happen in 50 years time...

I've been saying it for years that Bangladesh shouldn't have Test status. They aren't even competitive at home. You look at the other Asian nations, and when they obtained Test status, after a while, they where pretty tough be be in their own conditions. Bangladesh's Test status is a gimmick.

How anyone can claim 20/20s test the players more than 5 days play totally escapes me.
Clearly everyone is wired differently, but anyone should be able to compete for a couple of hours, it takes a hell of a lot more to do so for 5 days, never mind a whole series.
Obviously in 20/20s you don't have time to take your eyes of the ball, but that's the thing, just about anyone should be able to compete for an hour and a half in the field and however long you're at the crease.
Try keeping a high level of concentration for 6 hours for 5 consecutive days, or try bowling at 100% for 4 overs and then compare it to 10 over spells or holding up an end for a session or 2, or being stuck out in the field with nothing to do for 2 days before you get your chance to be a hero or zero when under a high ball.
As for Warnes comments, he would say that now wouldn't he, especially as he'd struggle to finish a Test match nowadays and certainly wouldn't be able to bowl at an end for a whole session without sending down more pies than he bowled during the first 10 years of his career.

As for all these Irish players who want to play Test matches, who wouldn't it's the pinnacle of the sport after all, but I'd like to know just how many players registered as being Irish currently play first class cricket and how many of those are first choice for a county, could Ireland even field a competitive team at that level?

ReallyReal wrote:How anyone can claim 20/20s test the players more than 5 days play totally escapes me.
Clearly everyone is wired differently, but anyone should be able to compete for a couple of hours, it takes a hell of a lot more to do so for 5 days, never mind a whole series.
Obviously in 20/20s you don't have time to take your eyes of the ball, but that's the thing, just about anyone should be able to compete for an hour and a half in the field and however long you're at the crease.
Try keeping a high level of concentration for 6 hours for 5 consecutive days, or try bowling at 100% for 4 overs and then compare it to 10 over spells or holding up an end for a session or 2, or being stuck out in the field with nothing to do for 2 days before you get your chance to be a hero or zero when under a high ball.
As for Warnes comments, he would say that now wouldn't he, especially as he'd struggle to finish a Test match nowadays and certainly wouldn't be able to bowl at an end for a whole session without sending down more pies than he bowled during the first 10 years of his career.

OK so all the players and coaches who have said that T20 is mentally and physically more draining than test cricket are deluded. I'll let them know.

Actually I'm sorry to say but you clearly don't understand high level sport. Not "everyone" can keep their concentration levels at the required level for an hour and a half without break. The intensity required is ferocious.

Seriously try it, try keeping an absolute level of pure concentration for an hour and a half. It's enormous. And when you do it you're knackered. The reason being there is no switch off. Even between balls, switch off for a few seconds and suddenly the captain is frantically gesticulating that you need to change your position by a couple of meters. All of a sudden you have
a) informed the batsman there is a change of plan
b) slowed the game up. Your captain now has 15 less seconds to complete the overs in time. This is 15 seconds of thinking time (when the ball starts disappearing all over the place) gone. Do it a few times and I can guarantee you're not playing the next game if I have anything to do with it. There's too much at stake.

ReallyReal wrote:As for all these Irish players who want to play Test matches, who wouldn't it's the pinnacle of the sport after all, but I'd like to know just how many players registered as being Irish currently play first class cricket and how many of those are first choice for a county, could Ireland even field a competitive team at that level?

Porterfield, Stirling, Joyce, Morgan, N. O'brien, K. O'Brien, Wilson, Cushack, Rankin, Dockrell, Eagleston. A fairly decent side, with plenty of young talent coming through. Certainly they'd hold their end up in the CC.

Anyway this is besides the point. the point is Ireland (and any other side) should be able to play a test match against a willing opponent if they want to. Why should their 5-day international match be given a lesser status than another?

Sorry Mike but you're wrong, there seems little point in me saying anything more than that as you've already decided what you think and no arguement will change your stance one iota.

Could you run a first class set up with four teams? I ask because the ICU is made of four regional unions, the North West, North, Leinster and Munster.

the problem bangladesh have is that they have no match winning bowlers.

ReallyReal wrote:Sorry Mike but you're wrong, there seems little point in me saying anything more than that as you've already decided what you think and no arguement will change your stance one iota.

Which particular bit am I wrong on? I'm happy to debate but you need to come back with arguments, not just saying "you're wrong, that's all there is to it". As I say, the idea that T20 is mentally tough isn't just mine. And I've explained where I'm coming from. Your counter-argument just seems to be "tests are longer, hence more difficult". Which is quite a leap in logic.

You make valid arguments, Mike, and of course it is mentally challenging to stay switched on for that amount of time solid.

However, it is my own view (and personal experience) that it is easier to stay switched on in one short but constant burst than it is to stay switched on for say 50 overs (Test matches obviously longer, up to 90) where concentration levels rise and fall. To switch yourself off and on isn't the easiest of things to do and is also incredibly mentally fatiguing. Add to that the physical exertion of being on your feet all day and I think Test cricket is the real test of mental and physical endurance when it comes to cricket. That isn't to belittle T20, which has its own challenges, but that's how I see it.

Tell you what, I'll try and ask a couple of players on Twitter later tonight.

Fists of Fury wrote:You make valid arguments, Mike, and of course it is mentally challenging to stay switched on for that amount of time solid.

However, it is my own view (and personal experience) that it is easier to stay switched on in one short but constant burst than it is to stay switched on for say 50 overs (Test matches obviously longer, up to 90) where concentration levels rise and fall. To switch yourself off and on isn't the easiest of things to do and is also incredibly mentally fatiguing. Add to that the physical exertion of being on your feet all day and I think Test cricket is the real test of mental and physical endurance when it comes to cricket. That isn't to belittle T20, which has its own challenges, but that's how I see it.

I agree entirely that test cricket is a huge battle of endurance and concentration. I do believe I acknowledged how difficult it is to be able to switch on and off. Everyone can of course switch off pretty much ok, it is the switching on bit which is hard.

However it is very very hard to stay switched on for a long stretch of time. Think about your every-day life at work. You may concentrate on a task for a few minutes, maybe even half an hour, but at some stage your mind wanders and you end up on one of these internet forum things

I give another point as to why T20 is challenging: you are always in the game.

Say you are at point and the ball goes to mid-off. In T20 you may be (after the keeper) the closest player to the stumps and have to "get the stumps" as the keeper backs up the throw. Or you may decide getting the stumps isn't going to happen but you should move towards third-man to stop a possible deflection off the stumps (or batsman). You may not need to do this as there may be a short third-man but then you need to consciously not do it (if you move towards him you could distract him). Of course you have to be ready for the keeper to throw you the ball so you can return it to the bowler. In a test match you can pretty much relax. The keeper/slips will get the stumps and back the throw (if no short-leg). The keeper returns the ball to the bowler via the slips and probably mid-off.

Imagine now you are at deep square-leg. In a test match, you are essentially there for the top-edge hook and to save a boundary from a bad ball. In a T20 there is probably no fine-leg, so you have to be prepared to cover ground left and right. You need to constantly look at the batsman to see what he's planning on doing and anticipate where the ball's likely to be going (short back-lift and he may be looking for the gentle 2, sweep and you can start going fine, front leg opens it's more likely to go towards mid-wicket). You need to watch the bowler for signs (both explicit and implicit - e.g. front arm) of where he's likely to be bowling. If a yorker outside off, the chances of it going fine are minimal so prepare to push off your right leg (fielding against a right-hander), etc. etc. Then between balls you need to be on constant alert from the captain who may want to move you a few centimeters. In a test match you can switch off between balls and sign some autographs, then switch on. The only signs you are looking for are the hook. Saving the 2 is a much lesser priority than in T20 (unless a batsman is with the tail, in which case you virtually switch to T20 mode).

This is not belittling tests. Keeping the level of concentration required for longer particularly as a batsman and the levels of endurance required to last 5 days is a huge ask. I just feel people dismiss T20 as hit and giggle a bit too easily sometimes. As I say, I genuinely believe fielding at least is a lot tougher in T20. And of course as a batsman you have to be ready to go in at all times (not the case if you're a number 6/7 in tests, unless of course Aus are playing SA).

In my own experience, though, standing still is harder than constantly being on the move! I can easily move about for 2 hours, but ask me to stand still for 2 hours and my legs are shot!

Harder to concentrate when your legs are aching like hell.

Like I say, both have their challenges and each and every point you make is certainly valid, but I'd probably side with Tests being the tougher.

I wouldnt deny that the minute to minute play in T20 is tougher, but 5 days of test match is a tougher total event. Its like comparing the 60m dash to the Marathon.

Anyway I see this as a side issue to the real one here which is sheer economics of bringing associates into teh test arena.
I do agree that theres no reason to keep the 5 day game a s a closed shop, if other boards are willing and able to arrange 5 day games theres no reaosn to deny them that. What I ffnds pie in the sky thinking is that they could just be parachutted into a 3 tier league system without masses of funding ( who pays), that there would be an audience for this, and that the players would instantly have the sjkills for it or want it when they could be earning much more playing in domestic T20 comeptitions. We already see this from the established test nations.
The core countires that have well developed cricket boards and traditions need protecting and nurturing as much as bringing through new blood.
The only thing that keeps test cricket goign at all for many of teh nations is the agreement that they all tour each other on cycle, its only really India Australia SA and England who draw enough money to make it genuinly economicaly viable. Adding more leaches in will weaken not strengthen the format. That Bangaldesh after years of investment and development are barely able to field a worthwhile side and still have a pretty poor audience sums it up really.

I undertansd the issue that the top table of teh ICC is a closed shop, and it does seem a bit odd that the control of T20 formats is conditional upon playing tests and being allowed to play tests.
I find the rest of your argumenst full of flaws and wild fantasies.
I dont think anyone would object to seeing viable competitojn in all formats of cricket played all over the world and comeptitons hosted globally. But look at the mess that happened even trying to host one in the Windies.
Cricket is a hell of a long way from what being able to deliver what you are talking about Mike, if it coudl ever get there we are talking decades by which time lord only knows what global shifts in economics and power and sporting interets will have occurred. The ICC is supporting the assciate nations, it is investing in international cricket development, it is giving Ireland a chance to rise. But the moeny has to come form somewhere, and tehre has to be an underlying market for the product. Ireland is still reliant on welfare and the use of the English county system to train and employ many of its players who otherwise would look elsewhere for a career. Its still a sidewhow sport in Ireland. The ECB is rightly supportive in trying to grow that because its in both countries interests to see Irish cricket develop, its a fixture that has the potential to be a very big money spinner if cricket really takes off in Ireland. But it wont happen overnight and Ireland are still struggling to be genuinly comeptitive (whats their record against bandgladesh and zimbawe like again?) even in the limited overs formats where their resources and experience are currently targetted.

Dont try and fly before you can walk, lets take this one step at a time. Dreams of test series between PNG and Bananastan are rightly not high on the list of ICC priorities, laying the foundations for the posibility in the future is and is being done but its not easy.

Mike Selig

You make lots of good points regarding concentration levels and work for a fielder in T20. Personally I think that you are guilty of exaggeration for effect.
Compare the position of an opening (or top order batsman) in Test & T20. I would hazard an educated guess that its an awful lot easier to make a quick fire 30 in T20 than a decent innings in Test cricket. For example, facing a fast bowler with up to 4 slips & a possibly 2 gullies and hoping that your team can bat for at least 1.5 days (5 sessions). The bowlers able to work up a real head of steam bowling 6-8 consecutive overs only to be replaced by another one ready to do the same and then the no 1 bowler returning. Having seen off the quickies, lets see how you deal with a spinner with men round the bat.
So, fielding might be more physically demanding in T20 but that's about it. Woe betide the slipper in Test cricket who drops what might be the only chance he gets all day.

im gonna repeat what i have said before because i think it needs to be said...

i think ireland should get test status sometime within the next two years, however i think it would be wrong to strip bangladesh of their test status.

Hence why the Test championship with different divisions would be perfect, cf.

Zim, Bangla and Ireland could be part of a lower division trying to gain promotion.

i brought up that idea some time back, and it got dismissed without looking at the reasons

zim,bangla,ireland all have quality youngsters coming though and would be good to see them all playing at the highest level.

Fists of Fury wrote:Hence why the Test championship with different divisions would be perfect, cf.

Zim, Bangla and Ireland could be part of a lower division trying to gain promotion.

Except that wouldnt make it finacialy viable for any of them to play test crciket at all

theres also the issue with it being all very well till you split Pakistan form India or England from Aus and lose one of the iconic series.

Hi guys, sorry to bring this up again, but do you think Ireland could have a first class set up with 4 sides ie a rep side of the 4 regional unions? Apologies if this has been already answered.

Sorry Dave, missed that earlier.

I guess it'd become a bit tedious, wouldn't it? Also, there wouldn't be a wide enough range of styles to fully equip the better players for the tests of international cricket, I'd imagine.

Are there not smaller counties within those regions that could host teams, or are they too thinly spread?

I don't agree with a promotion/relegation system in a Test series as the likelihood is that we would see two sides yo-yo'ing back and forward for a long time. What I would prefer to see would be two divisions or more.

Division 1: England, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies.

As I see no point stripping a side of Test status now, it would only harm there development and set them back years.

Division 2: Ireland, Scotland, USA, Afghanistan, Holland and whoever else wishes to enter.

Then all other sides who wanted to play 4 or 5 day cricket would be allowed to in a league lower than this.

There would be no promotion/relegation between any of the divisions. What there would be would be a list of set criteria for a side to achieve Test status. These may include a First class system, structure of the board and the ability to continue to produce good players rather than just having one "golden generation". Possibly other things aswell, Mike is more educated than me in knowing what is required to play Test cricket. A side would make a formal application to play "Test" cricket, which would be a title reserved for division 1, and the ICC would review it in comparison to the criteria. It wouldn't be done by a vote, it would be done by an independent panel made up of cricket experts.

Obviously this would only work if the ICC had complete transparency in it's dealings and could be trusted to work on the say so of all boards, not one



Fists/Dave, I could see no reason why 4 sides wouldn't work in at Irish first class system. I would say that they had to enter to English minor counties league to begin with and then possibly play in the CC? Whether this would class as an Irish first class system is different though.

You could possibly add Dublin and Belfast city sides to the four regions, but I wouldn't know enough about the North or Leinster to say if it's spread too thin. The North West would be, you could have a situation like the Scottish Borders if you had two sides there, population just isn't enough, IMO.

That's the underlying issue with Ireland, I guess - population.

Jdizzle, good point about the yo-yo effect, I had pondered that.

i think the ICC need to act with ireland pretty quickly, before many more of their players decide to leave to play for england, and they go backwards.

JDizzle wrote:

There would be no promotion/relegation between any of the divisions. What there would be would be a list of set criteria for a side to achieve Test status. These may include a First class system, structure of the board and the ability to continue to produce good players rather than just having one "golden generation". Possibly other things aswell, Mike is more educated than me in knowing what is required to play Test cricket. A side would make a formal application to play "Test" cricket, which would be a title reserved for division 1, and the ICC would review it in comparison to the criteria. It wouldn't be done by a vote, it would be done by an independent panel made up of cricket experts.

Obviously this would only work if the ICC had complete transparency in it's dealings and could be trusted to work on the say so of all boards, not one

The second paragraph is the key.

The first paragraph is about what is in place now. Unfortunately it leads to decisions being made on political rather than sporting grounds. And I completely disagree with calling only one division "test" cricket. Does any other sport do this? Is a football game between two division 2 sides given a lesser name?

Sorry why are people suggesting that Zimbabwe be demoted to a lower tier of Test cricket? They've won 9 Tests, beating sides like India and Pakistan twice each - no mugs at all. They recently came within 30-50 runs off beating New Zealand in a record run chase. Zimbabwe are streets ahead of Bangladesh/Ireland.

Peter I am somewhat confused by your financial discussions. Players from most countries are completely amateur. There are already numerous competitions ran for the associate nations. Holland already play a 4-day competition say, changing it to 5 days won't make a lot of difference.

I'm genuinely confused as to why you think massive ammounts of funding would be required when it isn't at the moment (it's peanuts) and I can't see how even adding a whole new tournament on top would do anything worse than double the amount required (and that only for 2 divisions as it is).

You seem to be suggesting that the players will need paying, this is simply not the case. My apologies if I have misunderstood but perhaps you could expand.

I think in recent years Ireland have more than held their own against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Crucially they recieve a fraction (roughly 1/10th) of the funding.

I agree with the "walk before you can fly" but you also need to allow people to dream of flying. At the moment this is not the case. Also, PNG have been able to walk for a while. Maybe it's time they were allowed to run? (I feel this metaphore may have run its course)