Less glamour, more competition

The article identifies a problem without really proposing concrete solutions or identifying the reason for the problem. B'desh has a population of around 159m, a little less than Pakistan and about 8 times that of SL. So why is B'desh so weak? It isn't due to lack of interest in, or passion for, the game. The reason is mainly poverty: B'desh is the poorest of the current Test nations, with per capita GNP of US$470 (World Bank 2006). Compare this to Pak $690; Ind $720; SL $1,160; SA $4,960; and Guyana $1,010, the poorest WI nation. B'desh teams playing in the Indian Ranji Trophy, improved coaching & commonsense prevailing over the ICL will only be partial, imperfect solutions & will not succeed without general economic development, income distribution between the boards of Test nations and enhanced income generation from cricket in B'desh itself. With such limited resources, it's hard to prioritise cricket over schools, healthcare and disaster relief - what nation would?

redneck, what you call beauty, I call stupidity. The current system ignores top class players in countries that actually have many or can produce many such players and then worry that there are not enough good teams around. As for your question at the end, IPL team obviously. Even for those who value a world cup win higher, have a world cup once in four years like football, but what I am saying is replace these day-in and day-out tri-series or Test series with proper club league tournaments.

spot on vinchester! my thoughts exactly. the icl being outlawed by the bcci is only damaging the game. they should at least attempt a truce for the greater good!!! the likes of shane bond and others deserve to be playing test cricket! iplfan you raise a good point that i never thought of before, however the beauty of international cricket is that you sellect the best XI out of those fifty world class players and play them against the best XI of another nation. there is far more passion and pride involved when your country is playing as opposed to a franchise team whos owner chose your city for its marketing potential and can up stumps and move somewhere else anytime! eg the nba in the america, seatle moved to oklahoma. put it this way would you rather see you country (full of home grown players) win the world cup or your favorite ipl team (full of players chasing money) win a domestic comp???

Ian 's article should set the ICC thinking at least on 2 counts. The ICC should bring in changes, so that the test teams are constantly evaluated , facing a risk of a drop if their form dips . Side by side the new emerging top teams can be promoted to test teams. There should be a cut off period, agreed by all, as well as the no. of teams to be demoted./promoted. Side by side it is high time Icc tekes up the ICL seriously, Let us be realistic . Last year it was the Lahore team, now it is the Decca team and I am sure this will not end here. Very soon you will have Others SRi lanka, NEW Zealand , you name it.Let us sit across the table and resolve their genuine greivances, ultimately it will be good for the game.

Why should there be a distinction where the Test teams play Test teams and Associates play Associates? Surely the development of lesser sides would be better served by having a fluid international championship where every team plays the sides ranked close to them; that way we could see how close each team really is to Test quality.

redneck, the difference is not in teams being privately owned. Difference is that there are no artificial limits on how many players a region can produce. If Australia can produce 50 world-class players, there is no reason why only 11 of them should get a chance to play at the highest level. And that model will also encourage smaller countries to produce more top quality players. Kenya or Zimbabwe or Ireland need to produce just one top quality player and if he becomes a star playing for say, Mumbai and Melbourne, interest in those countries will automatically pick up. In the current model, it is a catch-22 situation. Unless there is interest, those countries cannot produce a decent team and unless there is a decent team, there won't be enough interest.

I guess this is one of the best articles among recent Cricinfo posts. While their beginning can be compared to that of SriLanka, the rest of the curve is exponentially inverse, except for the 3 wins (agains Aus, Ind, SA). While Ian strips the Bangaldeshi performances, I'd love to see him do an analysis of one of my favorite teams - Kenya. Of course, Kenya have been lot less successful than Bangladesh on paper, but, I think they have won important matches, at crucial junctures. I don't know why Kenya has not been given Test status. I think we all would accept that the present Kenyan side is much better than the (2004 & after) Zimbabwean side. If Zimbabwe are given test status (remember, Zimbabwe withdrew from the test status, the ICC did NOT issue a final decision), I think Kenya ought to be given an year or two to prove its worth.

Your comparison of Srilanka and Bangladesh's cricket development is highly flawed. In the first 14 years as an ODI nation, Bangladesh played less than 30 games in total. Bangladesh ODI cricket essentially started from 1999 onwards. The present decline in playing standards is frustrating for all concerned in Bangladesh cricket, not least their fanatical supporters. It was correctly pointed that the absence of proper player development is one of the prime reasons for this. But as they showed in the last world cup, the team has no shortage of skills. With time the rewards for persevering will show. The worst thing ICC could do is pull the plug on the developing teams. Its cricket's only chance for globalizing the game.

as usual a good, thought provoking article ian!there is a intercontinental cup currently being played amongst "the best of the rest" home and away fixtures over a two year period. why shouldnt zimbabwe and bangladesh be put into that with the top two teams progressing through to test status for a whole cycle of the FTP or a test championship?(if the icc can make it happen?)if the 2 promoted teams fail to show any improvement then send them back to the intercontinental cup. at least this would allow the best ten teams in the world to play test cricket, and add incentive for nations such as bangledesh and zimbabwe to get their act together or face being religated. it would also offer a incentive for 'would be' test hopefuls such as kenya, ireland & canada etc giving them a maped out path to test cricket if they are good enough??? clubVclub cricket is not the answer! just because it works for india doesnt mean it will work for aus etc. what difference do teams being privatly owned make?

The best way to tackle is issue is having more privately owned franchises. Australia can have its own privately owned domestic league with about 6 franchises. England has their own EPL. IPL should open up franchises in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. In the near future, there is potential for starting 4 franchises in USA. Other than that, IPL can have a minor league franchise for each of the major franchises where second and third level players work their way up into the major leagues (similar to MLB in US). These minor league teams can have their own tournament each year. This will ensure more opportunities for star players and also that the player pool grows in future. The present mode of nation vs nation where some nations don't generate enough revenue to pay their players adequately can't sustain itself. Why can't these clubs play test cricket once T20 games are over? Why does it have to be nation vs nation for Test cricket? This way a club can have exclusive rights to players.