The case for a larger Test pool

From Tim Wigmore, United Kingdom

Bangladesh’s predictable capitulations appear to help neither them, judging by their lack of improvement, nor their opponents. But the answer is not what many say – revoking their undoubtedly premature Test status. In fact, it is admitting more teams to the Test arena.

Imagine two scenarios. In the first, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They play two Tests, so fulfilling commitments of the Future Tours programme, and though they briefly threaten to get a draw in their first, they are ultimately thrashed 2-0. England learn little as a weak side are ruthlessly demolished in alien conditions. And the degree to which Bangladesh benefit is highly dubious. Are their players any better playing the swinging ball at the end of the series than at the start?

In the second, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They have a healthy amount of warm-up games to develop in English conditions and are able to put in a respectable performance in the one Test they play. After the series has finished, Bangladesh head to Ireland for three tightly fought Test matches. Both sides benefit much in their development from playing five-day games. Bangladesh are able to hone their technique against the swinging ball to prepare for challenges to come, though Ireland, with Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan both scoring prolifically, edge the series 2-1.

The Tests, though clearly not of the highest quality, offer much more intrigue than minnows being thrashed over a series. Most importantly, they enable both Bangladesh and Ireland to improve as cricket sides.

Cricket is a global game. When countries show ambition and tangible progress, they should be rewarded with a chance to play Test cricket. What this does not mean is they should be forced to play two-game series in India or Australia, which help no one. The Test championship should be used to give series greater context – and, ideally, lead to an increase in five-match series.

But one-off Tests have a place too. Games between touring sides and counties, states, islands or provinces have long since been devalued. So why not use one-off Tests as warm-ups for bigger series ahead? Ireland touring Australia would be an exercise in futility, but what would be wrong with Australia playing a Test there as a warm-up before an Ashes series? Similarly, teams could play Bangladesh before full Test series in India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka; and Zimbabwe (politics permitting) before ones in South Africa.

Established countries would benefit from more competitive clashes than they tend to receive against local sides, while emerging nations would have these to look forward to; if they earned the right, they would play full-length series.

Bangladesh have already played seven Tests in 2010. Though they have shown signs of improvement, they ultimately lost all seven comfortably. A structure much more conducive to their development would be for them to have played a few one-off Tests against established Test sides, then a three-game series against, say, Ireland.

It is incredible that one of the best limited-overs batsmen in the world comes from a country that doesn’t even play Test cricket. Seeing Morgan help England to victory against Ireland invariably leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

And the case of Joyce – flirted with by England for six months, thereby preventing him playing in the 2007 World Cup for Ireland, then ditched and unable to play for Ireland for another four years – is in many ways even worse. There is obviously a limit to the degree Ireland can improve when their best players are constantly picked to play for England. If Ireland played Tests, Joyce and Morgan would have no incentive to move across the Irish Sea.

Carefully managed, there is no reason why not just Bangladesh, but also Ireland, Zimbabwe and even more sides in the future, should not play Tests. Just because they would be unlikely to beat Australia, it would be wrong to limit Tests to eight sides. If they were given sensible programmes conducive to their development – as Bangladesh have not been – then the number of games between minnows and established Test nations would actually decrease. Furthermore, sides are more likely to be able to compete with better teams in solitary Tests than over a series.

Effectively, the only difference would be that the established Test nations would play one-off Tests against emerging nations, rather than be compelled to play two-game ones – so their schedules would actually be freed.

Those nations that have improved should be given incentive to continue doing so: the example of Kenya, whose cricket has declined alarmingly since reaching the World Cup semi-finals in 2003, proves what can happen without such encouragement. But a carefully worked programme would ultimately lead to more interesting Tests, reducing the percentage that are hopelessly one-sided, showcasing the best Test cricket has to offer and allowing emerging nations a genuine platform to improve. As it is, Bangladesh play the best far too often, while Ireland play them far too little. A happy medium should be established, that gives more countries the chance to play Test cricket. A sport with global pretensions must encourage the expansion of its best format.