Associates to get a shot at Test cricket

[Samuels]

This is superb news for the Associates...
The winner of the next ICC Intercontinental Cup will get a go at Test cricket! A very good decision by ICC. I hope they give a thought to demoting a team like Zimbabwe (sorry folks, I loved Zimbabwe back in the day but these days they are just not test level). Meanwhile, Irishmen would be licking their lips.

ICC news : Associates to get a shot at Test cricket | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Karachi]

Was just about to post this. So ... it seems that No.10 is shown its value in the new ICC structure.

 

[grkrama]

Meanwhile, Irishmen would be licking their lips.

while dutch watch them smugly

 

[blockerdave]

good news but not sure why they kick it back to 2018?

also, what happens? is that the intercontinental winners teams only tests? what if they win one or either series, will they get a chance to play other teams?

 

[karolkarol]

Good news? Are you joking? This is disastrous. Ireland were pushing for full test status by 2020 and have been palmed off with this watered down nonsense. We have proved time and time again (20/20 hit and giggle aside) that we can hold our own with other bigger test playing nations despite our best players defecting to play for Big Brother. In addition we have managed to get together a half decent domestic structure and seen some young Irish based players trickle into the squad.

If only we were afforded a tenth of the opportunity and ICC cash given to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh over the years, I have no doubt Irish cricket would be in as good if not better state than both of those.

Instead, in 4 years time we will have the opportunity to qualify to play the worst test country on a rolling basis; excuse me if I don't go jumping up and down for joy. This is not a good thing for the associates, this is the test nations circling the wagons.

 

[ZealousDamsel]

I've always felt the ICC don't really 'like' associate teams and just let them enter one day competitions as a token gesture. Why not let likes of Ireland get a go at test cricket? Bangladesh were whipping boys when they first entered the scene.

 

[PokerAce]

I think everyone will welcome this. However why only one test series. What happens after that?

Simple, break down ICC to a two tier test series league. Each league has 10 teams, with bottom two getting relegated. It cannot be done on a yearly basis, so one season could run upto three years. Where in every team plays each other, once away once home. I am sure over three years this could be easily managed. At the end of three years, once all matches are played, the team with most points is the champion.

At the end of three years bottom two from the top league (whoever they may be, including India, Aus, Eng, no big three nonsesne), get relegated and top two from bottom tier are promoted. That way if you are good enough, you could stay, in the top tier for as long you want.

THis is also very objective and open and fair. No one really knows how someone works out that B'Desh can play Test cricket while Holland, Ireland cannot.

 

[Ohm]

Finally they've something superb to celebrate. A great outcome on first day of ICC meetings is all I can say.

 

[nightprowler10]

Good news? Are you joking? This is disastrous. Ireland were pushing for full test status by 2020 and have been palmed off with this watered down nonsense. We have proved time and time again (20/20 hit and giggle aside) that we can hold our own with other bigger test playing nations despite our best players defecting to play for Big Brother. In addition we have managed to get together a half decent domestic structure and seen some young Irish based players trickle into the squad.

If only we were afforded a tenth of the opportunity and ICC cash given to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh over the years, I have no doubt Irish cricket would be in as good if not better state than both of those.

Instead, in 4 years time we will have the opportunity to qualify to play the worst test country on a rolling basis; excuse me if I don't go jumping up and down for joy. This is not a good thing for the associates, this is the test nations circling the wagons.

Interesting point of view. I can get behind this idea if there's some kind of temporary Test status in store for Ireland if they beat the 10th ranked team in a Test series.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Interesting point of view. I can get behind this idea if there's some kind of temporary Test status in store for Ireland if they beat the 10th ranked team in a Test series.

No, there isn't. Apparently "a shot at test cricket" now means four "test matches" every five years against Zimbabwe; who are, lets be honest; not a lot better than the teams that play in the intercontinental cup; and when compared to Afghanistan and Ireland, clearly worse. I'm going to crosspost something that I did on another forum; because I think that it describes what a sham this thing is for fans of associate nations.

Seeing that shit being reported as "giving associates a shot at test cricket" really annoys me. I think that it would be really cool if one day Scotland got a shit to play test cricket. However; "playing test cricket", to me and for most people; means doing it regularly and getting a shot against the people who've been doing it for years (England, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan etc). Playing two home and two away "tests" every five years against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is not "giving associates a shot at test cricket"; its barely above what they already play in the Intercontinental Cup!

The ICC must be the only international sporting body to try and explicitly exclude nations from having a chance to play their sport. When you look at Rugby Union, and even league, you see international bodies that try to encourage development; and national boards that support this. In cricket; you have the ICC that is more worried with protecting the revenues of the BCCI than spreading cricket as an international sport; and national boards that would rather exclude smaller nations from major international competitions because it gets them more money by guaranteeing India vs Pakistan and England vs Australia. The fact that the Irish and the Dutch: both have beaten England twice in major ICC competitions in the last 8 years: and the former have beaten Pakistan once and almost won an ODI series 2-0 against them last year; aren't allowed to play test match cricket is a joke - they've done more to earn it than Bangladesh ever did!

I don't see why we can't have a similar approach to Rugby Union on this. If a game of cricket is played for five days on a pitch cleared by the ICC as good enough for international cricket; with three neutral umpires; then why shouldn't it be called a "test match"? That would allow more countries a shot at multi day cricket; which everyone agrees is the best form of the game and needs to be protected. The argument you always here is "but the record books!!!"; but I doubt that Bradman would be seen as any less of a player if some English player got high stats from "test matches" against Jersey; because they'd be seen as a bit of a joke. The Ashes wouldn't be devalued because Ireland and Scotland could play test matches against each other: it'd actually strengthen international cricket because it would open up the prime form of the game to new nations.

 

[karolkarol]

Superb post @IceAgeComing

 

[Dipak]

Why don't they play against West Indies. They have been poor in tests, but much better than the likes of BD and Zim. That will ensure the associates get more competition, whilst still having a chance to win.

 

[karolkarol]

On reflection this decision is obviously a BCCI initiative to ensure India don't get humiliated away from home on Irish green tops

 

[grkrama]

On reflection this decision is obviously a BCCI initiative to ensure India don't get humiliated away from home on Irish green tops

ya right more likely protecting the little brother of the big three

 

[War]

I don't mind this. The lack of relegation for the test team that probably looses this encounter to the associate isn't ideal, but given the small dynamics of world cricket, its probably fair.

You compared to football leagues where your legacy/history doesn't matter: If you play poor, have bad development strategy etc you get relegated for eg for English football former European champions & major teams like Nottingham forest, leeds United have not been seen in the premier league for years.