Cricinfo is running a poll on the future of test cricket focussing largely on the viability of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe retaining test status and whether some form of two tiered approach would be in the interests of the game.

The timing of this survey is interesting following so closely on the heels of what has been one of the most riveting test series in modern times; however the performances of Bangladesh, and of late Zimbabwe, perhaps entitle the debate to be rekindled.

I say ‘perhaps’ because personally I’m tiring of this old chestnut; not least because it is a redundant argument. The ICC has shown neither the desire nor the steel to disrobe either nation of their test status for reasons of performance. After all, if genocide is not a good enough reason, getting flogged inside 2 days of a test is hardly likely to cut it.

The poll may well succeed in gauging the public intolerance shown towards Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as test playing nations however, it is worth remembering that neither side is alone in having less than auspicious starts to test cricket.

When New Zealand played their first test way back in 1929 against England, they would be notching up hefty defeats and weather affected draws for 26 years and 45 tests before chalking up their first win. In Sri Lanka’s first 58 test matches spanning almost 15 years, they recorded a modest 4 victories.

In Bangladesh’s case, the numbers look similar at first glance to both New Zealand’s and Sri Lanka’s embryonic stage with one major difference. Bangladesh’s solitary win in their 39 completed tests to date have spanned a comparatively miserly 5 years.

I accept the game is in a professional era but I do not accept an expectation that Bangladesh should be regularly competitive and frequently victorious against the established nations after only 5 years. There is scarcely enough time in 5 years for the playing squad to cope with the elevation to test cricket let alone develop an infrastructure and domestic competition capable of identifying future talent likely to shine in the international arena.

In Zimbabwe’s case the circumstances are entirely different and the progress that was being made has been halted for largely non cricketing issues. In their test history to date Zimbabwe have been successful in producing genuine world class players, many of whose morality rather than perceived lack of talent has ceased the development of the test side.

Bangladesh has the population and inherent affinity with the game to eventually emerge as a cricketing force to be contended with in as little as the next half decade. Should they succeed in this, it can be argued they would be more successful newcomers than both New Zealand, and in the modern era Sri Lanka in developing a test team from scratch. With the socioeconomic challenges facing Bangladesh this would be a feat to be praised.

As for Zimbabwe, to focus on their merit as a test nation without reference to their wider political and potentially disastrous (think Pol Pot) problems, seems to me at least to be a fickle and blinkered argument.

Zimbabwe needs attention, but not focussed on the talents of the players.

And in closing, do I believe test cricket should have a 2 tier system? No. The one sided wins and 2 and 3 day tests will surely continue but it is by stretching that the ‘minor’ countries will eventually succeed not by a systematic dilution of the game. And when victory comes their way as it surely will, victory will taste all the sweeter for having risen above the bottom without concessions to the rigours of test cricket.