Should games against teams like Bangladesh be rated as tests?

[Dry Rot]

The argument goes that it gives these lesser cricketing countries invaluable experience and exposure, but does it just devalue Test cricket and test stats?

Cracking a ton against a good milk churn state side IMHO counts more than one against one of these countries.

[Sockeye Salmon]

This has been a hobby horse of mine for ages.


Sockeye Salmon - super administrator - could sort out world cricket in an instant.


Promotion/relegation of the test playing nations!

Eg. I don't know the current world ratings, so I'll guess.

Div 1
Australia
India
England
South Africa
New Zealand

Div 2
Pakistan
West Indies
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe

You could include a Div 3 if you want out of Kenya, Canada, Netherlands etc.


3 tests home and away against the other 4 teams in your group over a two year cycle.

Ladder is firstly based on series wins and no of test wins as the tie-breaker. Series wins reduces (not eliminates) the effects of weather on results.

After two years a world champion is declared and two teams are promoted/relegated. Two teams rather than one to mix up the divisions a bit more from one 2-year cycle to the next.

Using the above Div 1.

We still play 6 tests every summer. The first year might be SA & Eng. We would then go straight to NZ for 3 away tests. 3 more away tests in India in September.

2nd year we play home tests against NZ & India before playing 3 more in SA. 3 tests in Eng completes the cycle.

[Sunshine]

In 3 or 4 years time the Bangers will be a solid team. I'm all for them being eased into Test cricket. With the decline of the West Indies and the Zimbos test cricket needs to support the Bangers as much as possible.

[The Coon Dog]

Yeah, providing all nations get an equal crack at each other.

Where it annoys me is that Sri Lanka seems to play the Bango's frequently & Murali seems to take 10 wickets per match. Bet Warnie wishes he played against them as often as Murali.