Making_Splinters wrote:yuppie wrote:Making_Splinters wrote:shankycricket wrote:I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.
As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?
Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.
No double standards there.
Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.
Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.
Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.
Banglandesh's promotion to Test status was purely a political move to change the voting balance at the ICC. If you look at the original comment responded to, it was regarding Bangladesh's current status as a Test team.
I don't know how you think Ireland would suddenly create a bigger league. Currently they can only manage a league of three teams, playing three day cricket to a low standard, with rather a large number of imports making up the numbers. Where are they going to find these extra quality cricketers to make up the numbers or be able to pay the proffesionals currently playing in England?
If we wanted to see where Irish cricket is actually at, they should only be able to select players playing in their own leagues. That'd prompt shut down any performance based arguments.
You are all quite incorrect with regards to Bangladesh.
Bangladesh DID have a multi-day domestic tournament in place before gaining test status. They started off with a 2-day league that goes back to at least the mid 1990s (and I suspect goes back farther) and they converted this 2-day league into a 3-day league ahead of becoming a full member (note that Warren Deutrom for a long time didn't seem to want to do this and wanted Irish full membership with NO multi-day domestic cricket).
And while I say that Bangladesh "started" off with a 2-day league, that misses the bigger picture which is that from the 1930s until 1971 The territory that is now Bangladesh was previously apart of test playing nations (India until 1947 and Pakistn until 1971) and East Bengal as it was then used to host first class cricket and even some Pakistani home test matches and a East Bengalis used to feature in first class cricket teams.
The promotion of Bangladesh is viewed as being purely political but that's not entirely true and I would wager that the promotion of Bangladesh was not even primarily political but rather the belated elevation of one of the few remaining non-full members with domestic multi-day cricket to the ranks of teams that play international multi-day cricket. Much as how Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe were promoted during earlier eras as one of the few teams to have domestic multi-day cricket.
Until Afghanistan out in place their 3-day league and prior to that before Kenya put in place their now aborted 2-day league (which was planned as a 3-day league) the ONLY nation on earth outside of the full members that had any regular domestic multi-day cricket after Bangladesh was promoted was....believe it or not......Argentina! With their annual one off North v South match.