Should Zimbabwe and Bangladesh retain Test status?

“The strongest principle of growth lies in the human choice.” George Eliot.


At this moment, the world cricketing authorities have the choice whether or not to
allow Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to maintain their Test status. Both countries have
struggled to adapt to Test level, while pressure mounts on the International Cricket
Council to take action. Should these fledgling cricketing nations be allowed time to
blossom, or will staying at the highest level stunt their growth?

The reasons for the precarious position of each country’s cricket differ, with
Bangladesh’s problems more straightforward than Zimbabwe’s. “My mum would
have scored runs and taken wickets against the Bangladeshis,” blasted ex-England player Geoffrey Boycott. “She’d have wanted to bat and bowl at both ends!” (Boycott, 2005) Bangladesh simply don’t have enough top quality players to compete at Test level. Given Test status in November 2000, they’ve won once in 40 Tests – against a depleted Zimbabwe side.

Scyld Berry bemoans Tests against Bangladesh lacking “tension and drama, which are…the essence of sport.” (Berry, 2005) Here lies the root of the problem. Test matches involving Bangladesh can spiral into farce, such as when they lost an incredible seven wickets for seven runs against West Indies in 2002. The value of Test cricket is denigrated when matches deteriorate from contests into practice games. For instance, when England met Bangladesh this summer Mike Atherton believes “Marcus Trescothick deliberately gave his wicket away.” It would “be considered bad form” (Atherton, 2005) to score too many runs against such poor opposition claims the ex-England captain.

This makes a mockery of cricket, as ex-Australia bowler Dennis Lillee argues:
“players see matches against Bangladesh as nothing more than an opportunity to get
some easy runs and easy wickets.” (Lillee, 2003) This leads to false averages being created - Ian Bell’s was 297 after playing Bangladesh!

Repeated heavy defeats for both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe reinforce the
argument they should be stripped of Test status; as Boycott explains “it destroys
morale and talent to keep getting hammered.” (Boycott, 2005) They may grow in stature quicker if allowed time to improve outside of the Test stage. This would lead to Tests again becoming tests of ability for players rather than tests of patience for spectators.

The test for Zimbabwean cricket is merely to survive. The sport has been the victim of
political interference to such an extent that the very existence of high-level cricket in
the country is under threat.

However, when Zimbabwe were granted Test status in 1992, they were a
revelation. They drew their first Test match, against India, becoming the first new
member of the Test-playing community to avoid defeat in their inaugural match. Soon
to follow was their first Test win, coming against Pakistan in their eleventh match.
This compares extremely favourably with other Test nations, such as New Zealand
who took 45 Tests and 26 years to achieve a win. Also, world-class players were
coming through their ranks, with Andy Flower reaching number one in the batting
rankings and Heath Streak four in the bowling. Potential for the future was also there
with rising prospect Tatenda Taibu.

Nevertheless, their impressive start is now irrelevant. They haven’t won
against anyone, except Bangladesh, since 2001. But this isn’t the main issue. Political
subplots have punctured the heart of Zimbabwean cricket. Under the leadership of
Peter Chingoka, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union has been hit with allegations of racism.
In 2003 players Andy Flower and Henry Olonga wore black armbands in a World
Cup match to mourn “the death of democracy in our beloved country.” (Flower, 2003)

This highlighted the appalling racism in Zimbabwean cricket, and human rights
record of Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. This has caused huge
controversy over fixtures with Zimbabwe. England refused to play them in Harare in
the 2003 World Cup, while ECB spokesman Des Wilson asked “Can we tour this
country knowing what we do about its stance on human rights and the suffering of its
people?” (Wilson, 2004)

Comparisons can be drawn with South Africa’s 20 year exclusion from world
cricket from 1970-1991 because of racist political policies. Then, “the battle cry of
apartheid’s apologists was ‘Keep politics out of sport!’” (Marqusee, 1994, p184)
This naive outlook has allowed Zimbabwean cricket to continue where South Africa
wasn’t.

However, this may soon change. Chingoka has been accused of mismanaging
the team’s finances, with players currently owed around US$200,000. Subsequently,
37 players have been on strike since November, demanding their money and
Chingoka’s dismissal. Captain Taibu retired (aged 22!) in November and is adamant
that without change “there will be no cricket to talk about in this country.” (Taibu, 2005)

Taibu’s plea for change has indeed been answered, but has had detrimental
effects. An interim board made up of government officials headed by Chingoka has
taken control of Zimbabwe Cricket, removing all white and Asian members from
office. Spokesman for the striking players Clive Field summed up this takeover: “I
think we’re stuffed,” (Field, 2006) he stated, giving voice to the views of many worldwide.

The ICC has made no comment over Zimbabwe or Bangladesh’s status, except
that a “review of the structure of international cricket is ongoing.” (Richardson, 2004) Meanwhile, cases for the defence have grown. “World cricket needs more countries playing, not fewer,” argued Zimbabwe’s Convenor of Selectors Steve Mangongo, “it would be retrogressive to kick Zimbabwe out of Test cricket.” (Mangongo, 2004) He appeals for the need to globalise cricket in order to stop its stagnation. This is a key objective, as decreasing the number of Test teams would undoubtedly hinder the spread of world cricket, especially in the affected countries.

In Bangladesh, where cricket is enormously popular, removal of Test status
would see a downturn in interest and therefore the possibility of future improvement,
as fewer youngsters would play the game. This is why ex-Australia captain Steve
Waugh believes “Bangladesh need to keep developing.” (Waugh, 2005) This can only be achieved by maintaining Test status. It is only short-term that poor performances are a problem. Other countries were given far longer than five years to establish themselves.

This would also be true for Zimbabwe, if matters weren’t complicated by
politics. “They should not mix sport and politics” (Mugabe, 2004) said Robert Mugabe. His government now runs Zimbabwe Cricket, claiming “We are prepared to be chucked out of Test status…We are not bothered.” (Mashingaidze, 2006) The ICC declared suspension from Test status would occur if “the integrity of the international game” (Mani, 2006) is in jeopardy. Next move ICC.