[mwrkhan]

Mods, if this is in the wrong forum then please move it to where you think it appropriate.

A common counter argument posed whenever the question of withdrawing BD's test status comes up is that cricket needs to be spread worldwide and that removing BD or Zimbabwe's test status will undermine the global spread of the game. Sentiments voiced recently by Australia's cricket chief.

My questions to you are,

(i) How far do you want cricket to spread?

(ii) Do you want to see it become a global game like football?

(iii) Is it desirable?

Here is my take on the issue:

I consider test cricket to be the ultimate form of the game. It is the form of the game that provides the best assessment of a team's overall strength and weakness. It is a coveted status that any serious cricket playing nation wishes to achieve. In my opinion there are not that many "serious" cricket playing nations.

A serious cricket playing nation is one where the game is popular enough to be played and watched by a dedicated public. The size of the public need not be very large eg. NZ, but it should be reasonably sized i.e. there ought to be a "critical mass" of support that would enable the game to thrive.

On the horizon I can see only a few countries where this criteria is met. Nepal and Malaysia in Asia. The USA and Canada. Perhaps Kenya in Africa. Cricket is played in many other countries such as the UAE, Holland, Denmark, Uganda, Nigeria, PNG, Fiji etc. but the critical mass I alluded to does not exist in these countries yet. Cricket in North America is sustained by the sizeable expatriate minority, but then cricket in SA and Zim is also a minority sport.

Personally I would not like to see test status granted to more than say 15 countries. It would dilute the game and five test tours would be permanently a thing of the past (apart from England and Australia, how many 5 test series are played anymore?).

One day and 20 -20 cricket provides instant gratification and is necessary for revenue generation. This is the sort of cricket that can be spread more globally. I am not a big fan of either but I concede that without them cricket would suffer monetary insolvency. ODI status is one that can be granted to a much larger number of countries. Maybe 10 -15 beyond the 10 that play test cricket for a total of 20 -25.

Cricket is not like football or tennis. By it's very nature it does not quite lend itself to mass marketing. In the end I think this is what will prevent it from becoming a universal game. I don't think it should be the duty of the ICC to try and promote cricket in countries where there is clearly no interest for it.