Are Bangladesh making 'progress' ?

[Owzat]

Bangladesh were awarded Test status at the turn of the Millenium, since then it has been an uphill struggle. Some have suggested their status be taken away, I advocate moving forward and bringing in tiers so similarly able teams can play each other and progress rather than either get thrashed all the time, or not be involved at all.

So as Bangladesh were demolished by Zimbabwe in their 78th Test, have they progressed? They still only have three Test wins to their name, two of those over West Indies when there was turmoil in the West Indies camp and they put out a weakened side, and over Zimbabwe ? that back in January 2005.

I?ve broken Bangladesh?s record down into even spells of 26 Tests, I?ve also broken it down by who they played, the stronger Test nations and their fellow ?minnows?. I looked over West Indies record and they hit a massive decline after beating England in 97/98 ? hence Bangladesh?s relatively ok record against them of P10 W2 D2 L6.

Bangladesh

Tests 1-26 (10/11/00-29/10/03)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SRI/SAF : P18 W0 D0 L18
vs NZL/WIN/ZIM : P8 W0 D1 L7

Tests 27-52 (19/02/04-22/02/08)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SRI/SAF : P16 W0 D1 L15
vs NZL/WIN/ZIM : P10 W1 D3 L6

Tests 52-78 (29/02/08-20/04/13)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SRI/SAF : P15 W0 D1 L14
vs NZL/WIN/ZIM : P11 W2 D2 L7

The major Test nations dont play them much, six teams playing them about three times each on average over spells of 3, 4 and 5 years respectively and recording at most a draw every 15-18 matches or 3-5 years, whichever way you want to look at it (it is very poor). That the number of Tests per26 against top sides is getting smaller and the period longer shows noone really wants to play them. Even their record against fellow ?minnows? is not making much progress, about 2-3 draws for every 10 Tests played, and not even winning a third of their games against beatable sides.

For years people have been perceiving, or hoping for, ?improvements? in Bangladesh, a batsman makes a bit of an impact or a bowler, but this is barely even painfully slow, it is almost fit for burial. To make it a worthwhile comparison to see if their progress is more slow than previous Test ?newbies?, I?ve had a look at the first 78 Tests of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. These will be harder to compare as Sri Lanka made their debut when there were no ?minnows? bar maybe New Zealand, and Zimbabwe made their debut as Sri Lanka were finding their Test feet and South Africa returned to the fold. Of New Zealand?s 72 Test wins, 17 have come against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, four against Sri Lanka in the 80s and five against West Indies since the aforementioned win over England ? that?s about 1/3.

You may notice a shift of teams broken down within the splits, West Indies stronger in the early Zimbabwe years and Sri Lanka not so strong. I?ve put Sri Lanka in the stronger bracket from the Bangladesh debut date, West Indies are moved into the weaker bracket with the cut off point as 98/99. The breakdowns by opponent is a gauge of strength, but not the main focus, it helps to know who the wins and draws came against.

Zimbabwe

Tests 1-26 (18/10/92-14/01/98)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SAF/WIN : P13 W1 D5 L7
vs NZL/SRI : P13 W0 D8 L5

Tests 27-52 (19/02/98-15/06/01)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SAF : P14 W3 D4 L7
vs BAN/NZL/SRI/WIN : P12 W2 D3 L7

Tests 53-78 (19/07/01-04/03/05)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/SAF/SRI : P16 W0 D1 L15
vs BAN/NZL/SRI/WIN : P10 W2 D5 L3

Zimbabwe lost just under half their first 26 Tests, but did beat a decent Test side (Pakistan) even if they failed to beat either New Zealand or Sri Lanka. The major difference is Zimbabwe weren?t losing almost all of their matches, certainly not in their first 52 matches, even though the better Test sides beat them half the time. The comparitive records for Zimbabwe and Bangladesh after 52 Tests are :

Zimbabwe: P52 W6 D20 L26
Bangladesh : P52 W1 D5 L46

Collossal difference, Zimbabwe had won five more Tests and lost TWENTY less. Unfortunately Zimbabwe have declined against the better sides. This just further reinforces the claim we need tiers for Test cricket to progress into the 21st Century.

Sri Lanka

Tests 1-26 (17/02/82-12/02/88)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/WIN : P21 W2 D8 L10
vs NZL : P6 W0 D2 L4

Tests 27-52 (25/05/88-26/01/94)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/WIN : P21 W1 D10 L10
vs NZL : P5 W1 D4 L0

Tests 53-78 (08/02/94-26/11/97)
vs AUS/ENG/IND/PAK/WIN : P17 W2 D7 L8
vs NZL/ZIM : P9 W3 D4 L2

To throw in Sri Lanka?s first 52 Tests you get P52 W4 D24 L24 so not entirely disimilar to Zimbabwe?s P52 W6 D20 L26, further evidence if any were needed that Bangladesh have not vindicated their promotion to the Test scene. Some feel Bangladesh need to play with the big boys for various reasons including finance, they?ve not progressed much at all and you have to wonder if Kenya were more deserving at the time. Maybe as they would have become an odd one out African nation who had done well in World Cups maybe another Asian team who hadn?t was just what we needed.

Ireland are touted as a possible 11th Test nation, there are too many as it is and too many schedules, not helped by the arrival of T20 cricket. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are not viewed as equals by most Test nations, the only way forward is to bring in tiers so that Holland, Ireland and others can join the fold without overloading the schedule. It may not attract big TV revenue, England, Australia and others will just have to share the wealth a bit more from the increase in games against the sides that do attract TV revenue and gate receipts.

The irony from those who would say Bangladesh need the money is that the non-Test nations are being pushed away, excluded and indeed the ICC had to reverse their decision, no doubt TV influenced, to exclude them altogether from the World Cup.

It is interesting to see how long those first, second and third sets of 26 Tests took to complete, in months Bangladesh 35-48-62, Zimbabwe 72-40-44 and Sri Lanka 72-68-45. When Sri Lanka started playing there were less sides around, South Africa returned to the fold in the early nineties and both Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe played increasingly more Tests, but Bangladesh are going the opposite way.

Once England played Sri Lanka in one-off Tests, now England tend to play three Tests against them while Bangladesh are often fitted on before five Test tour and just given two Tests, the most England Tests have played Zimbabwe in a series as well.

 

[Aislabie]

Disagree.

It would be pretty easy to bring an eleventh team into a World Test Championship kind of thing. They would then have to play ten three-Test series, five at home, five away, in the four year cycle for the WTC, and would have plenty of time for extra non-WTC tours so that series like the Ashes could continue unfettered. Funnily enough, that's actually the next article I planned to write.

I honestly think that Ireland would be the equals of Bangladesh on home soil, and possibly Zimbabwe too, because of their discipline. If they could get Boyd Rankin back to spearhead their bowling attack (Rankin, Johnston, Murtagh, Dockrell) then they would be able to carve through the Bangladeshi batsmen if they continue to play half-assed swishes at straight balls

 

[SiriusBlack]

edited

 

[sifter132]

Nice stats as usual Owzat. I wonder if the team batting and bowling averages have improved for Bangladesh at all.

Disagree.

It would be pretty easy to bring an eleventh team into a World Test Championship kind of thing. They would then have to play ten three-Test series, five at home, five away, in the four year cycle for the WTC, and would have plenty of time for extra non-WTC tours so that series like the Ashes could continue unfettered. Funnily enough, that's actually the next article I planned to write.

Hmm yes it might work. Leave the calendar relatively open...only 10 compulsory series in 4 years doesn't seem a lot. Assuming every team has 2 Test series at home, and 2 away each year in a 'normal' schedule, then that would leave 6 extra series that could be put in every 4 years.

But just because it might work doesn't mean it's a good plan! What's going to help the lesser nations get better is the million dollar question. Is it tiers? Is it just throwing them in at the deep end against the best teams? That worked for Sri Lanka. Didn't work for NZ - they didn't win a Test for MANY years; Zimbabwe hasn't built on their strong start; Bangladesh's progress has been quite slow.

I think more 'A' team tours need to happen to and from Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Ireland. That would be my method of getting those nations good quality cricket without forcing the big teams to play them.

And as Simon says, Bangladesh need to sort out their plan at a board level.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think the FTP hinders them, I think those awful stats are in part due to playing too many tests in the first 5 or so years. they should have been expected to be beaten at that point and test series should have been played sporadically for no reason other than to gauge the quality of their FC tournament not as an end in themselves. If they'd approached things like that in the first years of their development rather than just throwing together random teams of youngsters and seeing who stuck they might have been showing signs of improvement.

too late to go back, but now they need to be scheduling tests better. they had no practice for this tour. ok, a tour of zimbabwe isn't big stuff for a lot of teams but given how far bangladesh are behind surely it should be a big deal for them and practice and preperation should have been extensive rather than minimal.

as simo says, they need to sort things out at board level. people need to be worrying about their FC competition and fighting for tour schedules that will give them the best possible chance to prepare.

 

[Owzat]

Disagree.

It would be pretty easy to bring an eleventh team into a World Test Championship kind of thing. They would then have to play ten three-Test series, five at home, five away, in the four year cycle for the WTC, and would have plenty of time for extra non-WTC tours so that series like the Ashes could continue unfettered. Funnily enough, that's actually the next article I planned to write.

They should have considered long and hard before bring Bangladesh into the fold, they aren't benefitting, the existing teams aren't and to be blunt there is a certain degree of "tiering" already with Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka the more common series involving the two weakest sides.

I honestly think that Ireland would be the equals of Bangladesh on home soil, and possibly Zimbabwe too, because of their discipline. If they could get Boyd Rankin back to spearhead their bowling attack (Rankin, Johnston, Murtagh, Dockrell) then they would be able to carve through the Bangladeshi batsmen if they continue to play half-assed swishes at straight balls

It is not whether Ireland could be equals of Bangladesh, or Zimbabwe, there are already too many teams and fixtures. Ireland would also be treated as a team the big guns "have to play", and they'd rather play the bigger money draws of the Ashes, and other closer contests (on paper).

The best come only way forward is tiers, get Ireland involved and others like Holland, Afghanistan, but at a level they can easily cope with and gain promotion to pit themselves against the top sides. What is stopping Ireland gaining Test status? The facts I've mentioned, too many games, too little impact by the last two sides to gain Test status, that sides don't want to play them etc. As the set up exists now the boards agree the schedule including how many Tests, ODIs etc, and that will continue on and on.

Your belief as to how great Ireland would be is only looking at it from a very narrow angle, not seeing the bigger picture. Ireland playing Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would not raise a lot of interest, I doubt there'd be any more money in it if played as two teams in an elite XI as the structure is now, possibly more in two tiers with potential promotion at stake to generate an interest that bottom of the pile vs near the bottom wouldn't

----------

I think the FTP hinders them, I think those awful stats are in part due to playing too many tests in the first 5 or so years. they should have been expected to be beaten at that point and test series should have been played sporadically for no reason other than to gauge the quality of their FC tournament not as an end in themselves. If they'd approached things like that in the first years of their development rather than just throwing together random teams of youngsters and seeing who stuck they might have been showing signs of improvement.

too late to go back, but now they need to be scheduling tests better. they had no practice for this tour. ok, a tour of zimbabwe isn't big stuff for a lot of teams but given how far bangladesh are behind surely it should be a big deal for them and practice and preperation should have been extensive rather than minimal.

as simo says, they need to sort things out at board level. people need to be worrying about their FC competition and fighting for tour schedules that will give them the best possible chance to prepare.

Wasn't it you started the tour thread half expecting to be the only person in it.................? They need to play sides around their level consistently and they'll improve, getting beat all the time has done them no favours at all.

Three Test wins in 78 Tests is shocking, at least if they played say Zimbabwe, West Indies, Holland, New Zealand, Ireland and Afghanistan it might be a bit of a contest

 

[Aislabie]

Can't disagree enough with the tiering idea.

These teams struggle already with losing players - Ireland losing Morgan, Joyce (for a while) and Rankin, Zimbabwe losing Ervine, Ballance, and about a million others because there is little reason to stay on their native shores.

My idea, on the other hand, means that these countries need to play a minimum of thirty Tests in four years. In the last four years, every single top-eight Test nation has played more than thirty Tests. England, Australia and India have played over forty.

My point is, this structure would not congest the schedule any more than it is already congested. To, say, Australia, Ireland would not be "just another team they have to play", but an equally valid opportunity for points as South Africa, and to be treated as such. Meanwhile, the lowlier cricketing nations would be scrambling for points to try to avoid the playoff for their status.

It all seems pretty win-win to me.

And my "belief as to how great Ireland would be" is not narrow at all. Think how much more interest there would be in the sport! Especially if Ireland were competitive. Gaelic sport will always have a major following, as will rugby, but cricket would establish itself as the front runner behind them, or even possibly establish parity. Your answer would solve nothing other than widening further the gulf between the haves and the have-nots.

----------

And you see, I am not even saying that Ireland would be instantly successful. I'm saying that on home soil they'd give Bangladesh a damned good game, and I'm saying it with valid reasons.

Firstly, Bangladeshi batsmen struggle against the swinging ball. In overcast conditions in Dublin, the Irish batsmen could exploit just this.

Secondly, the batsmen, especially Ed Joyce and Gary Wilson, are prepared to graft, and all down to number nine are competent. This grit and application seems to be absent in all but a few Bangladeshis.

Thirdly, many of the Irish players play county cricket, while the best exposure that Bangladeshi youngsters get is in their feeble domestic league.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Wasn't it you started the tour thread half expecting to be the only person in it.................? They need to play sides around their level consistently and they'll improve, getting beat all the time has done them no favours at all.

Three Test wins in 78 Tests is shocking, at least if they played say Zimbabwe, West Indies, Holland, New Zealand, Ireland and Afghanistan it might be a bit of a contest

yep, which is exactly why it's a bad idea, as I've said many times, the weaker teams constantly playing each other would see interest drop off and make no money. you never address this owzat, you just keep touting tiering.

plus, tiering is the ultimate in short term thinking. ok, you want two tiers, how does it work beyond that? is it a relegation and promotion system, if so, what happens at the end of the cycle? do we put india or england or australia in to a 2-4 year cycle only splaying bangladesh and the west indies? or is the tiering system an exclusive club, in which case what we're really doing is making the second tier FC cricket. we already have that in the form of A sides and tour games, which absolutely no one watches. what impetus do bangladesh have to improve if the highest level of cricket they play is completely ignored? and what would happen to NZ for example? at no point have they been in the top teams (maybe for a period in the 80s when there was no south africa, sri lanka were just new on the scene and they had hadlee and crowe), they have still provided excellent entertainment but you are consigning them eternity in this lower tier.

Further more, I asked you to explain how tiering would have made cricket this year more competitive? australia and india was a rout, pakistan v south africa was a rout, west indies v zimbabwe was a rout. however NZ v england, two teams you have seperated by this tier system was very close. bangladesh are actually the only team outside that series that have avoided being white washed in 2013.

unless you want to go a step further and explain how it would work it seems inherently flawed in theory and practice.

 

[Aislabie]

Exactly. I, like you, fail to see the logic in tiering Test cricket.

If you restrict Test cricket to the top 8, then how can you hope to develop the game? If you open Test cricket to the top 16, but devalue half of it, how can the format survive? If you have promotion and relegation, how do you expect to attract crowds to a Canada v New Zealand Test match?