View Single Post
Old September 4, 2008, 12:23 PM
bujhee kom's Avatar
bujhee kom bujhee kom is offline
Cricket Savant
Join Date: June 27, 2007
Location: Dhaka Mental Hospital
Favorite Player: Jahanara Alam, Zuccarello
Posts: 25,000

sorry for posting this long cut/paste!
these are the 52 comments by readers at cricinfo in response to tony greg's harsh criticism about BD and ZIMB!
good or bad, i thought some of you guys might like to read them!

Comments from cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

When a cricket intellect like Tony greig says Bd and zim should be relegated to status B, it is explicitly understandable why still cricket is the less popular sports in the world. We have only 10 countries playing test cricket and few more those are playing the one dayers and such a shame it is that still some of the rigid personnels like Tony are thinking to minimize the number and keep it between only 8 countires! Well how about west Idies mr. Tony greig??I dont remember when was the last time West Indies won a series or a test match?? Why dont you suggest to relegate WI as well? What i feel is that Bd and Zim are lacking in confidence and the habit of winning a game is just not happening for them. It is not easy for the players to get beaten pretty often and fight with the depression along with the constant pressure of int cricket. So I beg to mr. Tony if you can't come up with any good ideas on how to overcome these problems just do not discourage the globalisation of cricket.
Posted by Anandacool on September 03 2008, 20:32 PM GMT

I would like to draw a parallel with hockey. Now India failed to qualify for the Olympics and its performance in recent years are not encouraging. Does it mean India will not be allowed to play top teams in the world? Come on Tony be bighearted; teams in their infancy or facing political turmoil need the big brother supportand not discarded What the toppers can do is to send their A/ junior teams to play against them, by this way they can also rest their key players and unearth new talent.
Posted by vinchester on September 03 2008, 11:27 AM GMT

Maybe a solution would be to let them play at test level, but at the same time make them play against A teams from Aus/Ind/Eng/SA. A lot of international players (or players of that quality) play in A teams, so it will give these teams a chance to play competitive international cricket, which will actually improve their game. If ICC really wants to improve cricket, they should include A games in FTP program (with first class status) and should be interwoven logically with test level FTP programme. But I guess there will not be enough miney to justify efforts, so few people will be bothered to think about it
Posted by tusharkardile on September 03 2008, 09:21 AM GMT

I think the situation is like "Two goats surrounded by eight lions". I know its harsh but thats the truth.
Posted by Firefox87 on September 03 2008, 01:23 AM GMT

I really have to make some points about the comparison of New Zealand and Bangladesh in the early years. Before NZ achieved their first win they had played 43 tests. But they drew 22 of them and lost 21 of them. The win came against a good team. Whereas Bangladesh has so far played 53 tests and lost 47 of them. One win came against a team that disintegrated into pieces due to politics. Against top teams they managed to earn two draws - one due to rain. There is no way NZ were this bad. They weren't remotely close to being this bad. This day and age you have so many tools to analyze yourself. You get to play on flat pancakes. Those days cricket was played on uncovered pitches. I find it delusional to say that NZ took 20 odd years to win the Test. They played much less tests in that period than Bangladesh has played in the last 8 years. It is not about years. It is about number of matches. Anyway you look at it Bangladesh has been the worst.
Posted by Vkarthik on September 02 2008, 16:12 PM GMT

I noticed on the scorecard from Bangladesh's last match against Australia (that is Australia minus Ponting, Symonds, Lee, Hayden - more like Australia 'A' really) their 'best' batsman Mohammad Ashraful scored 5 from 16 balls, which made very little impact on his tailender average of 23 from 126 matches.Do you think it made him a better player? Do you think if he plays another 126 matches he might get that average up to 25? Opener Mehrab Hossain jnr made an 8 ball duck, will he learn anything from it to improve his game? I notice a lot of readers have commented that Bangladesh have beaten Australia,Pakistan and India, if they had actually watched these matches they would realise it was more a result of those teams playing badly than any sudden miraculous performance from Bangladesh. If they continue to average 20-25 ODIs per year they will no doubt beat a major team every few years, I just wonder if there will be any paying spectators there to see it.
Posted by BigRedCandle on September 02 2008, 15:08 PM GMT

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe must play more first class matches and should prove themselves that they have the eligibility to be a good Test-playing nation. Globalising is fine, but they need to prove themselves. Winning or losing is part of the game. But we don't want a team to play Test cricket at the higher level which always loses. 'Consistency' is what required at the moment. They can prove this only by more playing more first class matches then international test matches.
Posted by SenthilKumaranV on September 02 2008, 15:07 PM GMT

I would like to put the question wether this kind of topic is in the spirit of the game. Cricket is a gentlemen's sport, and it is best to keep it that way. Picking on Bangladesh and Zimbabwe does nobody any favours.
Posted by PakeeZPunsiha on September 02 2008, 11:59 AM GMT

the issue should be looked from a pragmatic point of view. there are two objective confronting, i) Globalization of the game and ii) Maintaining standard of top class cricket (i.e. internationals). We need to create a balance. In my opinion bangladesh and zimbabwe is alright for ODIs but not for Test cricket. however office bearers are required to take effective steps to arrange first class matches between these two countries and state/province teams of eshtablished test playing nations. In the name of globalisation, We should not encourage awarding test status to a team which is incapable to beat 1st class state/province teams on regular basis. BD and ZIM should play at least 100 1st class match in next 5 to 7 years and prove their worth of test playing nation. Moreover we should not think of globalising TEST cricket, it is impossible. However I must confess the passion for cricket in bangladesh is unbelievable and no less than India or Pakistan.
Posted by sampad on September 02 2008, 09:07 AM GMT

People seemed to become very annoyed with Tony's comment on Bangladesh cricket. I myself being a Bangladeshi and a big supporter of them would like to say that Tony was not all that wrong, to some extent he is right. At least some criterion to be set for the minnows like Bangladesh at int level to achieve. You got to compete at international level lose or win doesn't matter. 9 out of 10 matches if you find some team within 15/20 overs have already lost the match then what is there to watch in a game? Talking about talent?? What is the use of talent which last for 1 series or at best one calender year sometimes 1 or 2 matches only?? People talk about BAN WC performance. Being a full member losing to Ireland was equally shameful.
Posted by KIAZIZ on September 02 2008, 07:36 AM GMT

While the world is throwing away the shackles of Colonialism, some people want to keep cricket as the preserve of a few. This is why cricket (a great game in its own rights) will never be a globalised game. The ICC want China to take up the game - but at the same time there are pundits who don't want Zimbabwe and Bangladesh playing cricket. In soccer, all the countries have to qualify to play in the World Cup, the main reason why England failed to play in the Euro Cup. In cricket a privileged few are exempted, these few have the votes to change the rules etc, while the rest have togo through a ladder-like process taking years to qualify. Open up the game, let us have the ICC trophy (1990 version) to get all non-Test Playing countries to fight it out to qualify. The Regional qualifying system has Japan in Group 5 but not Malaysia What sort of logic is this? Sivasubramaniam from Singapore
Posted by Subra on September 02 2008, 06:55 AM GMT

Tony Greig is absolutely right in his views. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be stripped of international status.
Posted by Ameya_Bhujbal on September 02 2008, 06:50 AM GMT

i am totaly disagree with this . bangladesh much much better team than what tony greg said. bangladesh team they just cant doing their best at this time because of of their lack of confidence . i think tony greg doesnt like bangladesh team because he think this team always will lose . but bd team prove they could beat any team in the world if they try their best.i think what tony greg should do is whenever bangladesh team play aginst major teams he should nt be in the comentators . i think than he not gonna make comment like that aginst some other country
Posted by siponus2007 on September 02 2008, 06:17 AM GMT

Lack of real talent in bangla / zimbabwe, that makes these two teams non intl teams. if they had atleast one player with a talent like Gilly, Sachin, Wasim, Rhodes, Jsurya, Lara. that would have been interesting too see these countries matches. They are going no where. only Ind,Eng,SA & Aus will dominate the cricket. Pak & WI loosing the track.
Posted by taxi11 on September 02 2008, 04:26 AM GMT

Tony is the best critic i hav ever seen, he speaks great about srilanka and disgraces other countries.
Posted by arogyajanani on September 02 2008, 04:15 AM GMT

This is simply a frustrating comment. During last world cup, what Bangladesh did that everybody knew it. England were almost dying to get 149 against Bangladesh. So time will make them stronger day by day. Just wait & see.
Posted by Akhtarul on September 02 2008, 03:36 AM GMT

Its true both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have not too much strength to perform against good teams. I think here should play ICC his role to improve the cricket in both and other cricket playing countries. Kenya was good team but now no news about this team. If ICC will his role to improve the level of cricket then results can be positive.Bangladesh is have realy good and tlented youngster but need to groom these yongster and same issue is with Zimbabwe have some politicals crises but cricket should be seprate from politics. ICC need to creat events between these teams frequently and if have some free schudule of any big teams also should include then in this way small teams exposure will be expand. you creat events and include the four smal teams Bangladesh, Kenya,Zimbabwe, Irland and if any test playing team is free in these days should be call to play with them. I hope it will help to increase the exposure of youngster non test playing team and Bangladesh also.
Posted by Trust2haroon on September 02 2008, 02:04 AM GMT

I would like to ask you, is cricket only for cricketor? or only for busniess? or only for win? I will say, not only cricket but also all games for peoples intertenment. There are no doubt that cricket runs in every youngster's blood only but also all people over there in Bangladesh. So must be ICC and all people who love cricket should respect bangladeshi cricket. And should give us all kind of facalities. thank you
Posted by cairo on September 02 2008, 00:22 AM GMT

I completely disagree with Tony! If stripping off teams of international status is a solution then New Zealand should have been stripped off long ago. But did anyone talked about that then? This mentality of elitism has cost cricket the failure to spread over. If you are constantly under criticism and threats to be boycotted from international cricket, you will hardly be competitive. This has been a ploy of stronger teams to demoralize weaker teams to gain advantage in matches in the past and whenever Bangladesh or Zimbabwe or Kenya plays badly, some of you guys shout. But when South Africa or India or England gets bundled out for 54, you don't scream, do you? Also the Umpires seem to favor (or are afraid of ) bigger names like Australia, India, South Africa when they play weaker teams. How will these teams improve if you are constantly pulling their legs? Stop pulling these so-called minor teams and see in 5 years what happens!
Posted by CanberraSparkle on September 02 2008, 00:13 AM GMT

As it presently sits Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are not up the standard of international cricket, and I do not believe that their matches are worthy of international accreditation. This may sound harsh, but I by no means wish to see them barred from any international cricket altogether, however its about in what level can they be competitive. This should be in a comprehensive 'A' competition. Maybe even to the extent of the test season but still a reasonable amount of matches. The likes of Australia, England and especially the asian countries who have a whirlpool of players, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would easily fit into such a competition or A regime - and they would still be playing against high quality of second tare cricketers the main nations produce, most of whom have played some international cricket. If they prove their worth, they move up, and we dont lose them altogether - this would also keep test cricket at a high standard, and put special regard for batsmen who average 50.00.
Posted by jamesflett on September 01 2008, 23:34 PM GMT

It really surprises me that a team like India known to play spinners very well has faltered repeatedly against bowlers like Mendis and Murali.Batsmen like Yuvraj Singh who have played international cricket or so long just cannot come to terms with the spin and cannot read the ball off the hand or even the pitch. I have couple of questions: Do these guys not work hard enough? Why can't they have someone throw finger spun balls at them in the nets from close up and learn how to play it? Secondly don't you feel that over the past decade we are seeing less and less batsmen using their feet to get to the pitch of the ball and then wait for the short one? Prime examples of such batsmen are Azhar, Sidhu, Dean Jones, and Malik. Do you think the current breed are scared of stepping out? Or is it at the primary level that coaches have stopped encouraging youngsters from using feet against spinners?
Posted by enigma30 on September 01 2008, 22:12 PM GMT

Sorry to be harsh in my comments, though people from this part of the world is generally very submissive & soft but surely not stupid. 1.Cricket was a game mostly played by the so called civilised & higher class lords, elites and mostly whites in the initial days. Even selection of captain was also guided by this criterion not by playing standard. Still some people possessess that attitude. 2.Why football is a universal game because it never suffered that status quo. Brazil didnt refuse to play Venezuala or Australia to play polynesian little known countries.Thats why after being thrashed for decades now Venezuala stood on its own. 3.Dont make cricket colonised. Colonialism once destroyed the world glamour & now when cricket is going out of that mentality some people is trying to revive the past.You want to lose ashraful,taibu,mortaza, and many who are blooming. 4.Dont forget srilanka started in 1975 and were taken guarranted till 1995.Now they produce mendis, murali & many. THINK
Posted by nadir5703 on September 01 2008, 22:12 PM GMT

Just compare the facilities between Bangladesh and other developed Cricket countries. I think the ICC must let Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to play more than 3 ODI against Top ranked teams to give them an extra confident, also think about England county league games, there is no Bangladeshi players but players from other countries, so if England help Bangladesh by bringing some players In England then it will be really useful.
Posted by Young-tigers on September 01 2008, 21:11 PM GMT

A couple of really incendiary comments by Greig. They seem innocent enough, and in today's politically correct world, are not deliberately racist. But, the fact that he states that two countries where cricket HAS taken hold in spite of the decades of being ignored by the Anglo-faction, should be relegated, and the ICC which votes (please note the irony of this - they VOTE) is run by a FACTION that doesn't make DECISIONS that are for the good of cricket. For heaven's sake, Tony, as you get rid of your old fashioned views on tattoos and rings, kindly also relegate to the dustbin your scarcely concealed old fashioned belief that the world needs to be governed by a certain group of people who have the infinite wisdom to make wise decisions for the "better of cricket". As the world order has changed, and more opportunities have been created for the erstwhile "have nots", the game has gotten far more interesting and popular, and barely more commercial. Live with it. And enjoy its fruits.
Posted by Homosapien on September 01 2008, 20:53 PM GMT

Its really for old people like Tony Greg and Geofrey Boycott that cricket is not reached a more popular level. They still want to keep in the 70's. Cricket should grow. And if you do not encourage teams like Bangladesh then why other teams will come up? Bangladesh is giving their best. You do not think that Australia will beat USA in baseball regularly! Do you Mr. Greg? But still Australian or South African team participate in World league of baseball and Olympics. We have to be progressive here if you want to move forward with cricket. Remember Zimbabwe team before 2003 World cup? They were regularly threatening other teams in almost every match. There were classy players like Streak, Flower brothers, Neil Johnson, Henry Olonga etc. If there was not this whole Mugabe thing then i think they would probably be a team like New Zealand or West Indies by this time. And The Tigers are still growing. That us a very young talented team which is definitely developing.
Posted by urdho on September 01 2008, 20:46 PM GMT

Cricket can never be a global game if you keep shutting out other teams no matter what the reasons are. ICC needs to be serious and make cricket global . If this game is played among a lucky few it will die a sad death in the modern world. This world is no longer a place where the lucky few enjoy all the loot (its the economy stupid).
Posted by izak on September 01 2008, 19:00 PM GMT

In the recent days, we have heard cricketers and even officials talking about taking cricket to a higher level and also make it a part of the Olympics. At the moment, we only have ten test playing nations. While we plan for globalizing cricket, its absurd to take off two teams from the international arena. I feel gutted when i see the dismal performances of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Looking back, we do have to praise the performances of the Zimbabwean team and the rare share of glory for the Bangladeshis. I firmly believe the lack of infrastructure and proper administering is the cause of their incessant failure. I think, the ICC should concentrate more on developing the game in inferior nations instead of relaxing on the mound of money they earn. They should take help from the FIFA and carry out projects for the betterment of the game.By the way, what is Tony Greig's contribution to these poor nations? He should rather lend a helping hand instead of making such remarks.
Posted by I.K.Hassan on September 01 2008, 18:08 PM GMT

I totally disagree with this stupid and meanigless topic and discussion. First of all, you forgot all the big wins of Bangladesh against big teams in the recent years. Second, please have a look at all the performances in the recent years of age category teams of BD (like under 19, 18) and A teams with the corresponding teams of the other countries. You will understand how foolish this topic is!!!. Third, they are having defeats quite often now a days with big teams ..that is true..but that does not mean that they will not come back soon. Think about Srillanka who made their first Test victory after 20 years of their test status!!! Zimbabwe's current situation is totally different now. They have lot of issues with politics and other stuffs. But they had been doing good before that. so finally, last comment is ..any good cricket fan or collumist can not make such a stupid topic in front of every body..because good cricket fan tries to help or encoureage others rather than bashing other
Posted by Riyadh2009 on September 01 2008, 17:58 PM GMT

Well, it is interesting that when teams like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe lost (cheaply?)to a 'big' team, some critics, like ordinary people, want to relegate them at once. But they hardly comment on their famous wins against the big teams and talk about their potentials. What the 'big critics' have done so far to help the younger teams like B'desh or Zimbabwe (except criticizing them)?
Posted by G.F.Hamim on September 01 2008, 17:25 PM GMT

What has happened to countries that did do well like Kenya and Scotland? They are like outcasts and no one ever plays them. Steve Tikolo who in my opinion would make a fine test player never got a chance. This attitude of ignoring "minnows" has to go. The idea perhaps is to choose two "emerging teams" from an emerging team competition and give them status for a period of 4 years during which they play top teams. Every team has to play every other team before facing each other again. e.g England cannot play Australia twice without playing Kenya (atleast in a tri-series if not a bilateral series). Now the emerging teams only get to play top teams during the world cup where they have no chance. This way the emerging teams will have about 100 games experience by the time they come to the world cup. The last two teams in the world cup should get relegated to the emerging team competition where they have to qualify again (In 2007 that would have been India & Pakistan!).
Posted by kalyanbk on September 01 2008, 17:20 PM GMT

I see so may series when tony greig commentates in Bangladesh match seems to be he doesnt like Bangladesh team at all. He doesn't like improving team so why tony greig go there for commentary . now tony is comparing bangladesh team to zimbabwe . what i can tell you if zimbabwe play against bangladesh, now zimbabwe never gonna beat bangladesh . because bangladesh is way way stronger than zimbawe . i can bet that .i beleive nobody is gonna agree with tony greig . i would rather tell tony greig too just don't be a commentator in bangladesh match that will keep him quiet. bangladesh won 40 odi match 6 win against major team that shows if bangladesh try they could beat any team in the world , and also they could play much much better than that . just we have to be patient.
Posted by siponus2007 on September 01 2008, 17:14 PM GMT

What will happen if you demote 2 countries? Some people have no spirit for the game. Zimbabwe have produced very good players in the past. People who would like to trample one these countries suffer from an superiority complex and must have an inflated ego. If cricket is a gentlemen's sport, then the people who want to demote these countries can no way be classified as gentlemen.
Posted by PakeeZPunsiha on September 01 2008, 17:11 PM GMT

Lets face the fact.First,We don't have any right to decide which match will count as international . This is totally waste of our time to discuss (ICC can decide that)Second, If Bangladesh match doesn't count count then other match we should count as below standard level specially while Bangladesh defeated Australia , Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and even South Africa . Every team has time of thier difficulties . Look at West Indies. Should we ask West Indies not to play World Cup any more because of their performace or should we ask South Africa to sto play because of bad performance against England. We all know it is a big stupidity to think that West Indies and South Africa should not play cricket any more . What about Pakistan or even India ? Bangladesh defeated both countries in world cup but they they are off course better team than Bangladesh (no doubt about that) but we all need time people and some times need little extra. Lets face the fact and respect every body.
Posted by shihank on September 01 2008, 17:00 PM GMT

I really wonder why teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are being given chances to play International Cricket. Over the years they havent improved a bit. Although Bangladesh have beaten India in the World Cup does mean that they would achieve this feat in every World Cup game? Look at their performances, other then beating India in one game and beating teams like Australia and South Africa. There should be some amount of consistency and teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe there is not. Even before a match between good teams like Australia, India and South Africa v/s Bangladesh and Zimbabwe we tend to make our result right before the match that whats going to be the result. I mean sorry don't want to demoralise any team but this is how it goes.
Posted by shirazsurani on September 01 2008, 16:55 PM GMT

I think at this level Bangladesh could beat any team if they try hard. But the problem is a lack of confidence. Since 2004 they never got beat up by any weak cricket country ,except ireland in world cup . because they had confidence that they could beat those country . bangladesh team are developing and they are cricket is developing too . all bangladesh have to do is be confident and try their best .
Posted by siponus2007 on September 01 2008, 16:51 PM GMT

I don't think cricket needs to be expanded as a desperate measure. No need to fast track globalising. Infact globalising will hurt the game more than help. We will get to see more meaningless matches like Bangladesh matches who keep breaking their own record for consecutive losses both in one dayers and Tests. Problem with Bangladesh is they are not even half good as B team of regular countries. Instead of worrying about having more matches against top countries they should play more A tours with full team. It is pointless to increase the matches and let everyone break world records. International cricket should not be used as a learning platform. Everything should be learnt at first class level. Bangladesh is learning for 8 years and getting nowhere. I don't see them going anywhere atleast for few more years. Tough decisions have to be taken. They pull off occasional ODI win and they go gaga over for 5 years losing sight of the fact that is 1 in 100. It has to stop.
Posted by Vkarthik on September 01 2008, 16:24 PM GMT

I disagree. The BLACKCAPS, played their first Test in 1929-30. It took the team until 1955-56 to win a Test. Sri Lanka first played international cricket in 1975, and were later awarded Test status in 1981, The Sri Lankan team transformed themselves from the underdog status to a major cricketing nation during the 1990s. The team went on to take 1996 Cricket World Cup beating Australia in the finals. In Sri Lanka's first four World Cups they were knocked out in the first round and got eight place in the fifth. If these teams were declined the opportunity to play international cricket back then, the cricketing world would have been robbed of the likes of Fleming, Vettori, Murali, Jayawardene, Vass and the list goes on. Bangladesh has the passion and we have all seen the heart and determination of the young team. I really do believe that they will become one of the top dogs of international cricket in the future. Let's not cheat the cricketing world of Bangladesh talent! Bangladesh
Posted by Guyanese4life on September 01 2008, 16:20 PM GMT

It is very difficult to support Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as International teams. They are no more than an average side in UK or other cricket playing countries. Those who support these teams to stay in international arena must remember that each time they are badly hammered by an International team their players are demorolaized they know they are doing their best but it is not good enough not even close to be good enough. In their last ODI they were belted by Australia by 180 runs. Do you really think that after playing ODI's for 18 plus years there should be in the same arena as Australia. Yes Australia had an off day once but that is not going to happen again.Who would have an interest in watching them where would they get sponsors for their series. Bangladesh in test matches are so helpless that it seems they are begging the match to even extend into four days just count the number of tests that got finished in three days. I request ICC to have mercy on them Remove them from tests.
Posted by esesjay on September 01 2008, 15:52 PM GMT

As far as globalising the game is concerned, with talks of Olympics proposal and all, you aren't really gonna get new countries that will jump Bangladesh or Zimbabwe from the word 'go'. I think what we need to look at is that this game have been developed and fine-tuned over centuries, without being properly globalised. So between experienced countries and newer countries, there has bound to be a major conflict of status quo. Now, Bangladesh caught the hype after the '96 Wills World Cup and today cricket runs in every youngster's blood over there. I think time needs to be given to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (with the whole Mugabe saga) to build a cricketing infrastructure. From personal experience I can say that there is a massive difference between playing for our little club in Dhaka and South Sydney Juniors, where we had a coach, a manager and proper equips. We just gotta give it some time...
Posted by IzzySez on September 01 2008, 15:41 PM GMT

With the popularity of cricket declining and with the presence of even games like softball and baseball making its way to the Olympics, the last thing one should do is rip off two more teams from the list. A 19th century idea in a 21st century world where globalization is the survival key for any sport; with that attitude this game is going no where.
Posted by nezraal on September 01 2008, 15:07 PM GMT

The glacial slowness of development of teams will be with us forever if we keep out all but the best.We've done it this way with little result for nearly 150 years,how about a new approach ? Let's get cricket into the Olympics soon and top athletes all over the world will be drawn to our sport.So some people are afraid of change, tough, things change wehther we like it or not,let's try try to work the change to our good. Keep Tests as the highest form of the game,globalize and strengthen it with T20 and the Olympics.
Posted by Dogevpr2 on September 01 2008, 14:28 PM GMT

I don't doubt that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh ever give anything less than 100% but let's face it, what has been achieved? Zimbabwe defeated Australia in 1983 in their ODI debut, yet 25 years later that seems unlikely to be repeated in our lifetimes. Bangladesh played their first ODI in 1986, yet just 8 months ago New Zealand beat them in only six overs. I think we have to face the fact they aren't getting any better. I see very little entertainment value in watching these teams bowled out in 35 overs in a ODI or 65 overs in a Test when the opposition can play badly and still win with ease.
Posted by BigRedCandle on September 01 2008, 14:05 PM GMT

Tricky topic this. Bangladesh are improving, make no mistake. I do believe that they just need more time and exposure. There aren't enough teams to make two leagues. Unless you make it five and five. They should play more matches against the A teams of top Test nations in four-day cricket I think.
Posted by SexyDT on September 01 2008, 11:47 AM GMT

No, I don't agree. If they are not allowed to play with good teams, how could they improve their performance? Playing with the same team or a lower-ranked team will not help their cause. Rather, good teams should play with them on a regular basis. It will help them to find out new talents by providing opportunities to new players for playing against teams like Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans are going through problems these days but that doesn't mean that they hadn't performed well in the past. How could we forget the names like Johnson, Flower brothers and Heath Streak. So, it is wise to let them play with standard teams like Australia, South Africa and so on. We should not forget that Bangladesh have beaten teams like India, Pakistan, South Africa in the big events like the World Cup and also beaten Australia as well.
Posted by waserossi on September 01 2008, 11:38 AM GMT

I agree Bangladesh haven't played so well in the last one year, but remember they beat two more Test teams in the last World Cup than India,and one more than Pakistan. They need more nurturing, more opportunities to play four-day matches against first-class teams. If India want to help, they can let the Bangladesh players play in Ranji. Shunning them won't help. I think they need more help in developing a professional cricket structure in Bangladesh.
Posted by nahazzzz on September 01 2008, 11:13 AM GMT

No team right now is playing with Pakistan. If you see the ranking in ODIs, Pakistan have played an equal number of matches to Bangladesh and if this continues at some point of time they may find themselves playing lesser matches than Bangladesh. This is not the way to treat former world champions, while India get many opportunities and this is why they rank third.
Posted by TahirHaji on September 01 2008, 11:11 AM GMT

No I don't agree with d proposal of demoting Bangladesh, Zimbabwe but I think ICC should increase their matches with top teams so that they can increase their level of performance and this they had shown many times. Their matches must be held at the places where the crowds are going to stadiums, like in India. This will help a lot, because playing in front of a large crowd is a great feeling. I'm sure if such a system can be designed these team will raise their level of performance and can compete with the top teams.
Posted by Dheeru007 on September 01 2008, 11:00 AM GMT

I really would like to know that are we gonna expand cricket globally or keep it in a circle? If a country like New Zealand had the advantage of winning a test after a long time then whats wrong with Bangladesh or Zimbabwe? Everyone is thinking of cricket in Olympics but this sort of comments will really damage those motives..............
Posted by tiger1984 on September 01 2008, 10:55 AM GMT

I would like to know what people mean by 'B' team? When ICC has given Bangladesh and Zimbabwe test status, it means that those teams are capable of playing in this level. It took Newzealand 26 years to win their first test match and Bangladesh is only playing test matches for past few years. Still teams like India and Newzealand gets bowled out for 100 runs. There are many occassions in last few years where these teams have failed and they should be ashamed of their performance despite having the so called star 'A' status. Bangladesh has even beaten Australia, Pakistan and India in the world cup. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are still a very young team and they have shown good potential and surely will do good in the long run. So called cricket pundits should keep their ideas to themselves and better come with some construcive ideas to help Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
Posted by e5198 on September 01 2008, 08:29 AM GMT

Bangladesh & Zimbabwe are getting less chance of playing International match than other cricketing nations. So Tony Grieg's this comment is not acceptable. Few days back England beat South Africa by 10 wickets, Sri Lanka beat India by a big margin. But this result doesn't show actually what these teams are actually capable of. In last year's World Cup, England were almost dieing to get 149 against Bangladesh. So this sort of comment is very insulting. Surely GOD will reply him. Akhtar09.
Posted by Akhtarul on September 01 2008, 06:59 AM GMT

I completely disagree. Remember in the 90s when the England team was all about fun. They surrendered so easily that the opposite teams always took it for granted that easy wins were in the offing. And earlier, the New Zealand team, who took quite some time to win their first Test. Interestingly nobody questioned them. Cricket is a fashion for 150 million people in Bangladesh. Are you are trying to ignore them?
Posted by Rezaul on September 01 2008, 05:58 AM GMT

Yes, I agree Bangladesh,Zimbabwe games should be relegated to "B" team status.A separate tournament should be there every year for the "B" teams. The champions only should be allowed to participate in the internationals. Besides, there should be regular matches amongst the "B" teams as per calendar decided by the ICC during the whole year to make the players fit and improve their performance. This will enable the "B" teams to raise their performance standard to a certain minimum level to become eligible to play in the internationals. ICC should seriously think about this proposal.
Posted by Ataul on September 01 2008, 05:12 AM GMT

God bless Ingrid Newkirk, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand & Mitch Landrieu!