Nine an over

[Matt the Shrimp]

You know that Zimbabwean cricket is bad when Cricinfo comes up with a pearler like this:

<span style='color:blue'>There was little sign of unrest, although the police who led one supporter away early on in the New Zealand innings decided on a punishment cruel even by their standards. They escorted him back into the ground. </span>

Ouch.

Here&#39;s the article in full:

Cricinfo Comment - And the slaughter continued

The match was delayed by rain, so only 44 overs are being played per side. Nevertheless, the Kiwis still managed to post 397/5 in their 44 overs, a run rate of 9.02 an over, second only to the 398 that Sri Lanka posted against Kenya, with 6 more overs at their disposal in which to score the runs.

The only question left for Zimbabwe is how long they have got left at Test level (although knowing the spineless ICC, that may be some time).

It is not without irony that, at a time when in cricketing terms Australia &amp; England are inseperably close in ability and are providing breathtaking cricket of the highest quality, New Zealand &amp; Zimbabwe should be playing out the most one-sided &#39;Test&#39; match-up in history with the latter providing cricket that would shame a county&#39;s 2nd XI.

It is not without shame, however, that the ICC are doing absolutely nothing to stop the debasing of the definition of &quot;Test cricket&quot;, which ought surely to be the &quot;gold standard&quot; in terms of the quality and level of the cricket on display.

Matt

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Aug. 24 2005,15:40)]You know that Zimbabwean cricket is bad when Cricinfo comes up with a pearler like this:

<span style='color:blue'>There was little sign of unrest, although the police who led one supporter away early on in the New Zealand innings decided on a punishment cruel even by their standards. They escorted him back into the ground. </span>

Ouch.  

Here's the article in full:

Cricinfo Comment - And the slaughter continued

The match was delayed by rain, so only 44 overs are being played per side.  Nevertheless, the Kiwis still managed to post 397/5 in their 44 overs, a run rate of 9.02 an over, second only to the 398 that Sri Lanka posted against Kenya, with 6 more overs at their disposal in which to score the runs.

The only question left for Zimbabwe is how long they have got left at Test level (although knowing the spineless ICC, that may be some time).

It is not without irony that, at a time when in cricketing terms Australia & England are inseperably close in ability and are providing breathtaking cricket of the highest quality, New Zealand & Zimbabwe should be playing out the most one-sided 'Test' match-up in history with the latter providing cricket that would shame a county's 2nd XI.

It is not without shame, however, that the ICC are doing absolutely nothing to stop the debasing of the definition of "Test cricket", which ought surely to be the "gold standard" in terms of the quality and level of the cricket on display.

Matt

Having been granted test status I don't think you can then withdraw it on the grounds that they aren't very good at the moment. However given Mugabe's regime and the sacking of the rebels I think Zimbabwe should have been suspended on political (but not playing) grounds.

I think the poor standard of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (forget them beating the Aussies in a one-dayer: England's test series with them only a couple of months ago was genuinely one-sided) is a real issue in world cricket, but one that can only be resolved by developing cricket in those countries.

In the short term I'd like to see their exposure to test cricket reduced and a greater emphasis on (and more ICC funding for) A team tours and improving the standard of their domestic cricket, but without the draconian measure of cutting them off from test cricket entirely. Countries have ebbs and flows of fortunes; it wasn't too long ago England were considered bottom of the pile. Indeed, I fear that the West Indies' cricket is heading that way.

ps If anyone is debasing the gold standard of test cricket, I'd say it was yourself for claiming that their recent NZ-Zim game was test status when it was clearly an ODI!

 

[canveyshrimper]

Agree with pretty much all you said. However there must be some middle ground to allow teams / countries to develop.

If you look back in to the depths of Wisden, whenever a new nation has been granted test status, it has normally taken a long time for that nation to find their feet so to speak.

NZ used to take some terrible poundings in the 50&#39;s and they did not beat England in a test until the early 80&#39;s. Similarly the same was the case with both India &amp; Pakiston, though it has to be said they were both different prospects on their home pitches.

More recently when Sri Lanka took test status, they had a few good batsmen, but no bowling strength. Now the Sri Lankans are greatly respected by all countries.

It also has to be said that Zimbabwe with the Flowers, Streak, Goodwin, Johnson, Strang etc were a competitive team. They maybe did not win many games but you always knew that you were in a game. David Lloyd&#39;s unfortunate &quot;We flipping murdered them&quot; was testimony to this. Unfortunately the poloitical situation in Zimbabwe has neutered the team, and their performances now are nothing short of pitiful.

The case of Bangladesh is different, they have a huge population and a generally good structure of first class cricket, and it is worth while remembering that they are under 19 world champions. Therefore I think that Bangladesh should be allowed to retain their status, but Zimbabwe should have theirs reduced, and play the up and coming nations like Kenya, and probably the lower test nations such as Bangladesh. This will hopefully help in the development of players in general, and also give them more competitive cricket rather than being steam rollered in two days by the likes of the Kiwis.

Test cricket as demonstrated by England v Australia is dramatic, heart stopping and hard fought, and i hope that the up and coming nations can help in the future of test cricket, but it will be in the long term.