The 11th Test team

With England playing against the Associates tomorrow, some of the players from the Associates think that these sought of fixtures should become regular fixtures against the Test playing nations.

The ICC side are itching to show the strength of Associate and Affiliate cricket and feel that a good game will maintain pressure on the ICC to provide greater opportunities for the non-Test nations. Rankin, for example, has argued this current experiment could be continued. "There is room for an Associate team playing Test cricket. A Combined ICC team is more than capable of playing against the best sides in the world," he said. It's an intriguing thought.

Would an Associate Test team cause too many problems ie, home venues,players being missed by their own countries, getting them all together or would it be a good thing to do?

Would fans attend?

Could they become the 11th Test team and would they be competitive?

Personally I can not see it working as a Test team, just way too many problems to overcome.

As a fixture now and again against Test nations I think would be better.

I don't think it would really be viable to give them Test status - there wouldn't be enough interest and it would conflict with the global development of associate and affiliate countries.

However, I feel that tomorrow's match is a good idea - in particular I think that Porterfield, Dockrell, Rankin, Hamid Hassan and Mohammad Nabi are very good players and it will be interesting to see how they get on in the longer form of the game against a top team.

I think it's a terrible idea. I'm not surprised that Rankin thinks it could work, here is a proud irishman whose stated ambition is to play for England...

I'll expand a bit more on this tomorrow, as it's bedtime (with no cricket on I can catch up on some sleep!).

Just read that Trescothick said that Rankin was the best fast bowler he faced last season.

I post a lot on the golf board and would suggest an analogy with the International Presidents Cup Team where the sum of the parts is bi-annually considerably less than the whole.
No unity, no home course advantage, no home crowd to speak of, no team spirit and no wins. Well, hardly.

To expand briefly on why this is a terrible idea:
- It is patronising and condescending in the extreme to the associate nations, and in particular those who are striving to improve to the best possible level.
- As Shelsey points out, it is surely at odds with developing the game in associate and affiliate nations; you aim to play for your country at the highest level possible, therefore to help your country to get to the highest possible level. If there is this "free pass" for the best affiliate/associate players to play test cricket they won't bother giving their all to their country (as seen with Rankin and Morgan before him).
- Who selects the side? politics would be involved (and already was for this one-off); I can't see a way around this.
- No home support.
- We saw with the ICC "rest of the world" experiment that combined sides don't work unless they have something to play for: in this case it is to prove they are capable of playing at this level, if they have a spot at this level then that goes out the window. As kwini puts succintly.
- Finances: who pays the players? Why should (e.g.) Cricket Ireland pay their (contracted) players to play for a combined 11? Does the ICC then have to centrally pay the players? I reckon the money could be better spent...

There are probably many other reasons. Rankin is of course keen to show he belongs to test cricket. He doesn't. He is about 8th or 9th on the list of England seamers and is deluded if he honestly thinks he can play test cricket for England. Ireland should tell him where to go.

I think we are all agreed for a change

How dull. Do you think if I said "the USA should play regular test matches against Oman" we could stimulate some debate?

Agreed, mine was just a throw-away comment.

But give your suggestion a try anyway

Mike Selig wrote:How dull. Do you think if I said "the USA should play regular test matches against Oman" we could stimulate some debate?

This debate seems to go round in circles. Pundits will constantly say 'lets have 2 divisions for Test cricket - the top 8 play each other and the next 8 play each other'. The thing is that this already exists in the form of the Intercontinental Cup (Ireland, UAE, Afghanistan, Netherlands, Scotland, Kenya, Namibia, Canada) and they don't count as full Test matches because it would distort the stats too much and could not be comparable to a match between full Test match teams.

The issue of whether you could have 'promotion' is more complicated. In theory I think you should but in practice the difference between being a Full Member and an Associate is so big that that would not really be practical - Test sides have a FC structure, fully professional players, at least 2 or 3 different grounds to play on, get a much larger portion of funding from the ICC and qualify automatically for World Cups and World Twenty20s. In my opinion this is too much stuff to implement in a short time or take away from an existing Test nation.

Matches like this should be arranged at least twice a year as warm up games for a Test series, the players are desperate to play at the top level and this is the fairest way to do it at the moment.

Maybe after a few such matches we'll find out that Afghanistan, Ireland or whoever, has got a decent group of players and then a full 4 or 5 day warm up match can be arranged between one of these nations and one country involved in a forthcoming Test series ie. whoever plays India or Pakistan plays agaist Afghansitan beforehand, or Ireland or Holland before playing England etc.

Or maybe we'll find that each associate nation has only 1 or 2 players that would get anywhere near the standard shown by the weak Test nations and then everyone will finally realise the gulf in quality between decent showings in ODIs and 20/20 and the all round ability needed for Test staus.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:How dull. Do you think if I said "the USA should play regular test matches against Oman" we could stimulate some debate?

This debate seems to go round in circles. Pundits will constantly say 'lets have 2 divisions for Test cricket - the top 8 play each other and the next 8 play each other'. The thing is that this already exists in the form of the Intercontinental Cup (Ireland, UAE, Afghanistan, Netherlands, Scotland, Kenya, Namibia, Canada) and they don't count as full Test matches because it would distort the stats too much and could not be comparable to a match between full Test match teams.

The issue of whether you could have 'promotion' is more complicated. In theory I think you should but in practice the difference between being a Full Member and an Associate is so big that that would not really be practical - Test sides have a FC structure, fully professional players, at least 2 or 3 different grounds to play on, get a much larger portion of funding from the ICC and qualify automatically for World Cups and World Twenty20s. In my opinion this is too much stuff to implement in a short time or take away from an existing Test nation.

I don't see that football matches between (say) China and Saudi Arabia are given lesser status than those between Brazil and Spain? Why should that be the case for cricket matches?

I agree with your second point: if you keep on giving more money, more opportunities and more support to the teams who were better (although not always so, certainly the USA were a better cricket side in the mid-1800s than England) then they will probably stay better. Whether this is a good state of affairs is arguable at the very least. Whether any side should automatically qualify for a "World cup" based not on ranking but historical importance is barely even arguable.

I am an irish cricket fan and here is a question for peeps...
Ireland already play 4day international games against other associate nations in the intercontinential cup...wud it really bring the game into disrepute if these were over 5days? Also if ireland played zimbabwe or bangledesh over 5days wud the same thing also be true?

atletico86 wrote:I am an irish cricket fan and here is a question for peeps...
Ireland already play 4day international games against other associate nations in the intercontinential cup...wud it really bring the game into disrepute if these were over 5days? Also if ireland played zimbabwe or bangledesh over 5days wud the same thing also be true?

Now don't be silly. Ireland don't deserve to play test matches. It has thus been decided by those who matter. Hence it is so.

atletico86 wrote:I am an irish cricket fan and here is a question for peeps...
Ireland already play 4day international games against other associate nations in the intercontinential cup...wud it really bring the game into disrepute if these were over 5days? Also if ireland played zimbabwe or bangledesh over 5days wud the same thing also be true?

Whether it's over 4 or 5 days, it doesn't really matter, the only real arguement about that would be whether there is any point in scheduling a fifth days play when mathces are highly unlikely to last that long anyway, much the same could also be said for a lot of Test series ATM though, as there is clearly a large gulf in class between the best few teams and the rest.
As for what Mike Selig has to say on the subject, he's already shown that he thinks there is no difference between what's needed to compete in ODIs or 20/20 and a full Test series and that Ireland are already capable of such a series, even though the infrastructure of Irish cricket is nowhere near that of any of the top dozen counties and they could barely get a team together that would compete at county level anyway, never mind Test level.

ReallyReal wrote:
As for what Mike Selig has to say on the subject, he's already shown that he thinks there is no difference between what's needed to compete in ODIs or 20/20 and a full Test series and that Ireland are already capable of such a series, even though the infrastructure of Irish cricket is nowhere near that of any of the top dozen counties and they could barely get a team together that would compete at county level anyway, never mind Test level.

When did I ever say any of that? I have always said that any team should be allowed to play a test match against any other willing team. That there should be a genuine pathway for teams to reach the level required to compete at the top level, via 3 divisions of "test" matches with promotion and relegation. And that over the course of 5 days Ireland would certainly give Bangladesh a run for their money.

If you think the infrastructure of Ireland isn't anywhere near that of the top dozen counties then I'm afraid you know nothing, so any further debate isn't worth it.

Mike Selig wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:
As for what Mike Selig has to say on the subject, he's already shown that he thinks there is no difference between what's needed to compete in ODIs or 20/20 and a full Test series and that Ireland are already capable of such a series, even though the infrastructure of Irish cricket is nowhere near that of any of the top dozen counties and they could barely get a team together that would compete at county level anyway, never mind Test level.

When did I ever say any of that? I have always said that any team should be allowed to play a test match against any other willing team. That there should be a genuine pathway for teams to reach the level required to compete at the top level, via 3 divisions of "test" matches with promotion and relegation. And that over the course of 5 days Ireland would certainly give Bangladesh a run for their money.

If you think the infrastructure of Ireland isn't anywhere near that of the top dozen counties then I'm afraid you know nothing, so any further debate isn't worth it.

You've claimed in your own article that Ireland are already fit for Test status, you've also claimed that 20/20s are just as hard for players as Test matches and now you're saying Ireland does have infrastucture comparable to the best counties, are you living in some kind of dream world. as you clearly know as much about cricket as I do about the inside of a black hole?

Sorry, where have I said "fit for test status" in the sense that you mean? I mean they, along with any other cricket playing country, should be allowed to play test matches against any other willing country. I personally think "test status" should be abolished (Peter Roebuck agreed with me BTW). I don't think Ireland should play regular test matches against the top test playing countries, but they should be given the chance to make the grade.

Do you know anything about the cricket infrastructure in Ireland? I would suggest not, or else you know a lot about the inside of a black hole...

ah Mike's in a diplomatic mood again I see

on a more serious note, I don't get the argument that having several levels of test cricket would distort statistics. Take rugby Union for example, and that Japanese guy who's top try scorer. Does anyone rank him the best player of all time? Of course not. Similarily if someone came along and averaged 100 in third division cricket no one would rank him above Bradman, rightfully so.

The whole point of Test match status is; or was before the political farce of awarding it to Bangldesh; to give countries who have a solid cricketing structure and who continuously produce players of a high standard, the opportunity to play against others who are strong enough to test them.
If any country wants to play a 5 day game, they can, heck they could probaly play a 10 day match if both sides agreed to it, but it still wouldn't make it a Test match.
Even the Olympics has come round to this way of thinking, now every competitor has to reach some kind of mark before they are allowed to enter competition and just like in cricket, it's supposed to prevent farcical situations where one competitor is clearly out of their depth.

Ireland can still become a Test nation, but they won't be allowed to become one until they have a proper league stucture in place and they've proven they're up to the task on the field of play and they're still a distance from either goal.
As for the infrastructure of Irish cricket, just how many clubs are there, do they have enough kids playing to make sure there will be a continuous supply of adult players, are the facilities available up to scratch?
For each of the top counties, these things are a given, heck there are around a couple of dozen small clubs within 8 miles radius of where I live, some of them have a team for every age group, 3 or 4 adult sides and decent enough facilities and Wigan isn't what would be regarded as a cricketing town.

Realistically RR you are right, just a shame for top players (of associates) around the world who will never get to play the highest form of the game.

Mike Selig wrote:I don't see that football matches between (say) China and Saudi Arabia are given lesser status than those between Brazil and Spain? Why should that be the case for cricket matches?

I think that the gulf in class in football is much smaller (partly due to the simplicity of the game compared to cricket, partly because it's played over a shorter time, partly because it spread through different means (i.e. not through the Empire)). To illustrate this in football New Zealand, the 119th ranked team, were able to draw with Italy, the 9th ranked side.
Meanwhile, in Test cricket Bangladesh (ranked 9th) have never beaten any of the top 6 and have only 3 wins over numbers 7-10. It is conceivable that Ireland, Afghanistan and possibly the Netherlands would within a few years be able to compete at Bangladesh's level but for the vast majority of nations the gap is gigantic between Test nations and those not playing Test cricket - in fact I can't imagine that the sides in the lower levels of the pyramid like Germany and Norway would manage a total of 50 very often against a Test bowling attack.

Also, Test cricket has a lot of statistical heritage - how would statisticians deal with somebody like Ryan ten Doeschate averaging over 50 against the minnows but not playing against the others.

Think you may have hit the nail on the head there, Shelsey, particularly regarding the heritage of the game, some of the old timers in particular would see it as somewhat tainted.

atletico86 wrote:I am an irish cricket fan

Welcome to the cricket boards atletico Can see the logic of scheduling 5 days for matches if in Ireland....

Guys, can I apologise for a couple of my earlier posts which were unnecessarily abrupt and offensive towards reallyreal? I really didn't mean to offend but some of this is really a sore topic with me. I'm honestly sorry, some of what I said was really not on.

I genuinely believe that the system in Ireland (as far as I know, which I suggest is probably a lot more than many others) is actually very similar to that in a county. I also genuinely think that:
- the name "test" has become a stigma rather than an aspiration (and the late PM Roebuck agrees): it is now viewed as a question of status/class rather than level which is surely wrong.
- with the same level of funding as Bangladesh, Ireland (and a couple of other leading associate nations) could do just as well, if not better.
- that there should be a well-defined and known pathway for accessing the very top of the game. Personally I would love to see 3 divisions of "test" cricket with promotion and relegation. For those worried about the impact of statistics, simply only consider those stats from the relevant divisions.
- that to be a world cup, every country in the world should have the opportunity (at least in theory) of qualifying every time (this is currently not the case).

When I say that T20 can be as challenging as test cricket, I am being slightly tongue in cheek, but I do feel people big up the challenges of test cricket, whilst ignoring those (different, but as challenging) of T20.

Hope this clears things up somewhat.

Once again, reallyreal, I unreservedly apologise for some of the stuff (namely that you knew nothing) I said to you. It was unwarranted and stupid. Sorry.

Mike Selig wrote:- that to be a world cup, every country in the world should have the opportunity (at least in theory) of qualifying every time (this is currently not the case).

This annoys me although as far as I can see the process for 2015 is still up in the air even though part of it has started. For the 2007 and 2011 events the World Cricket League ladder meant that a lot of teams had a chance to qualify. However, in 2015 the plan is to use the new Associates OneDay League rankings - I don't think it's yet decided whether that will guarantee qualification for 2 teams (with the others coming from a tournament qualified for through the WCL) or 4 (with no chance for those teams outside of the top 8 associates). Either way it is much better than the ridiculous 10-team World Cup which was proposed and hastily scrapped.

Shelsey ur argument is futile, look at rugby, which has a similar amount of so-called 'traditional' playing nations....ireland & argentina, currently ranked 6th & 7th in the world respectively have never beaten new zealand, the side currently ranked no1. Yet in rugby everyone can play against every1 if thy so wish, and there is no complaints about it.

I think people are missing both mine and Mike Selig's argument...we never say that ireland should be scheduled to play a test match in the future tours program against australia, england or any other of the powerhouses. We simply state that a country like ireland shud be allowed to play bangledesh or zimbabwe of thy so wish, teams of a similar level.IF this was to happen there would be an even contest between the sides as when ireland and zimbabwe played a 4day in 2010, the teams drew. There shud not be any class structure as the one which currently is in operation.
A slight throw-away point is that Cricket Ireland are in the midst of trying organise South Africa A to tour Ireland and play a couple of 4day matchs

Currently one of the main statuates to become a full member is that the country must have a 1st class competition. Anything other a basic competition will never happen in ireland due to simple demographics....if u look at any other of the major sports in ireland, thy have never been able to support a fully irish-only league...The FAI tried it but it failed miserably and now the league is semi-pro. And the domestic rugby teams play in a league consisting of Welsh, scottish & italian teams. Gaelic games are amateur.

Finally to incorperate a class system (test & associate) between teams solely due to stats is complete tripe and disgusting if it was true. Statisticians shud not govern the future of a sport.

Also ReallyReal i think our preformances at the last world cup showed we r competitive with test nations, on only one occasion were we outplayed. We do not play test nations reguraly, as test nations do not have to. On the odd occasion they do we are almost always competitive. We also produce players which are good enuf to be considered nr test selection, eg 3 'irish' players have played for the england lions since 2007.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:- that to be a world cup, every country in the world should have the opportunity (at least in theory) of qualifying every time (this is currently not the case).

This annoys me although as far as I can see the process for 2015 is still up in the air even though part of it has started. For the 2007 and 2011 events the World Cricket League ladder meant that a lot of teams had a chance to qualify. However, in 2015 the plan is to use the new Associates OneDay League rankings - I don't think it's yet decided whether that will guarantee qualification for 2 teams (with the others coming from a tournament qualified for through the WCL) or 4 (with no chance for those teams outside of the top 8 associates). Either way it is much better than the ridiculous 10-team World Cup which was proposed and hastily scrapped.

The 2015 WC is such a mess it's barely worth talking about. Anyone wishing to know the full story is welcome to PM me, but the general gist is that the ICC sponsors weren't thrilled with India's early elimination in 2007, and so people spent a long time devising ways to avoid that (and a potential early elimination for England). Eventually they decided that the best way to maximise exposure for the top teams was a 10-team round-robin tournament, they then thought no one would care, but Ireland did, and with the support from quite a few associates threatened to take it to CAS. What happened next is unsure, but we can guess that the ICC took legal advice who admitted that they (the ICC) didn't have a leg to stand on, so they backtracked. Of course, should anyone take the ICC to CAS they would probably win, as the qualification system has been changed so many times since it was originally announced, but given the main associates will probably qualify this is unlikely. As punishment for the fuss kicked up, the T20 WC is now reduced to 12 countries (of which 10 are of course the full members, regardless of how good they are) despite the ICC having made a lot of noise about T20 being the best way to develop cricket worldwide etc.

The short of it: the qualification systems are ever-changing, and a general mess. The 10 full members, regardless of ranking (let's just remind ourselves that when the 2015 WC was originally reduced to the 10 full members, Ireland were ranked above Zimbabwe), continue to get a free pass. I think the plan as it currently stands is that the top 2 placed countries in the intercontinental cup get through automatically, and that there will be a qualification tournament for 8 other countries (exactly how they'll be determined is fairly anyone's guess) of which the top 2 will qualify.

Transparent? you make your own mind up.

An excellent showing of the combined associate side today in the field (certainly I can't ever remember Bangladesh reducing England to 160odd for 8, can you?).

For information, the structure in Ireland is actually very similar to that of a county, although numbers are smaller.

In Ireland, cricket is localised to 5 provinces, with a total of 147 clubs and 335 teams. In 3 of the 5 provinces cricket is well developped (117 clubs and 292 teams between the 3 of them, but more importantly junior leagues from U11 to U19, and also importantly 59 schools affiliated), whilst it is still in its early stages elsewhere. Participation numbers in Ireland are estimated at around 25,000.

Compare the situation with Kent, where cricket is localised to 16 districts, split up inside 4 regions. It is difficult to get hold of precise numbers, but it is probably around 100 per region, so of course 400 clubs which is significantly more. However the number of clubs per district (25 on average) is actually fairly close to the number of clubs per province in Ireland, with similar participation numbers. At the junior level, district competitions are run for U10 to U14, and club competitions for U15 to U19.

Both Ireland and Kent have of course all age group sides, and an accademy. Ireland also have fully contracted players (although again fewer than Kent due to ressources).

Other lesser ranked associate nations (e.g. Denmark, Italy) are run much similar to minor counties are in England.

I agree with Shelsey to an extent about the difference in quality, and I think a more apt comparison is with rugby, which has a similar "empire" heritage, but unlike cricket has actively tried and to some extent succeeded to move away from it, and develop the game more globally.

I also think people can be a little ignorant about the general standard and situation of other cricketing nations (this is something I have to deal with on a regular basis when I talk to English people in particular - "what, France have a cricket team?" (yes, it's about the same as the British handball side) "but you know, you teach them in English right?" (erm yeah of course we do, you teach Handball in Danish right?)). Whilst the standard isn't great, it is better than I would suggest most people on this board have ever played: to give a comparison, France (ranked 45th) are approximately the standard of a good middlesex premier league club, and would give Cambridge Uni a run for their money (although probably lose).

Moreover, a lot of associate countries have produced first class players: Ireland of course, but also Holland (RTD - although he's not actually very dutch - and Tom Cooper - ditto - but also Dan Van Bunge, Alex Kervezee), Denmark (Amjad Khan being the most famous, but Ole Mortensen and Freddie Klokker both played for Derbyshire), Guernsey (Tim Ravenscroft and another, more to follow as they have a link with Sussex), Jersey (Ryan Driver, I'd be very surprised if Ben Stevens and/or Ed Farley didn't play for a county at some point). Heck even in France we have 4 players who could make the cut if they worked sufficiently hard and were given the opportunity (it is too late for at least 2 of them).

The standard ain't that bad guys, as the current side are showing against England (albeit not so much with the bat).

Here is an article worth a read. It agrees with a lot of the points I was trying to make, but in a clearer and more detailed way:

http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES5/articles/000001/000188.shtml

It really does show the desparation and predicament of top Associate players who wish/want to play at an higher level when they make these calls.

These passages I found to be pertinent,

Cricket, it seems, is different: not only do the men who run the global game see nothing wrong with forcing many young players to abandon their own country if they wish to play Test cricket, the acknowledged pinnacle of the game, but they put regulations in place which make it easy for a country like England to pick up players from the leading Associates, and much harder for such players to return to their sporting roots if they should wish to do so.

An Associate/Affiliate Test team would reinforce that iniquitous situation, letting the existing Full members off the hook by enabling them to claim that they had opened a side door to the Test arena for a fortunate few. But if you were a Boyd Rankin or a George Dockrell, would you rather play for a nondescript Associate/Affiliate XI, or for Ireland? More to the point, wouldn’t you want to play for England if Ireland were to be perpetually denied Test status?

So an Associate/Affiliate Test side would not be better than nothing; it would probably make an expansion of the number of Test-playing countries even more unlikely than it is at present.