It might have been a throw away comment at the end of a long and wide ranging interview, but ECB CEO Richard Gould’s comments about the prospects of England hosting Bangladesh in the near future were revealing. Appearing on The Final Word Podcast, Gould’s response to a question about whether the ECB were looking to rectify Bangladesh’s 15 year absence from the UK for a bilateral series against England, was less than enthusiastic.
“We have to make sure that the best are playing the best. Yes, we have to make sure that everybody gets the opportunity to play Test matches, but we also have to make sure we avoid mismatches – I’m not saying that (playing) Bangladesh would be a mismatch.”
Despite the faint whiff of backtracking, it’s hard not to feel despondent about Gould’s underlying assertion; namely that England do not have the space in their busy schedule to play a team that it essentially regards as inferior.
In 2024 Bangladesh played ten Tests, the most they have ever played in a calendar year and the twelve months contained notable achievements; they won three Tests away from home which encapsulated a series win in Pakistan, and ended the WTC cycle in seventh place. Sure, there were lows – Bangladesh’s recent three wicket loss at home against Zimbabwe a case in point – but isn’t that the case for all teams through the course of a year or so, particularly those still finding their feet in Test cricket?
Are Bangladesh considered good enough?
Ultimately the paradox at the heart of the ECB’s misguided position is this; England do not want to host Bangladesh because they are deemed not good enough, but Bangladesh will never be good enough if they don’t play in England. It’s a circle that no one in world cricket seems bothered about squaring.
In many respects the ECB have taken a backwards step in terms of supporting the development of Bangladesh and by extension other newer full member nations. In the early years of their elevation as a full member and as a much weaker team, Bangladesh toured England twice, in 2005 and 2010.
England have also lacked creativity in recent times, in terms of supporting “smaller” nations, compared to that earlier period. For example, in 2005 Bangladesh’s tour preceded the Ashes which neatly enabled a fifty over tri-series to take place, ensuring varied matches (including Bangladesh’s famous win over Australia at Cardiff) and a good level of interest throughout.
Indeed, although Gould’s comments centered on red ball cricket, the fact that Bangladesh haven’t played any white ball cricket in the UK since 2010, apart from global tournaments, really does seem like a huge anomaly. England regularly play two white ball series during the English summer, surely Bangladesh could have been squeezed in somewhere, performing at least as well as some other teams?
Bangladesh are at a disadvantage when it comes to trading on their reputation as a cricket power, as it’s still being built. Other countries who might reasonably be bracketed in a similar category to Bangladesh in terms of recent on-field performances, have the weight of history on their side. The rose-tinted affection that past West Indies teams command, means that regardless of their current health, reciprocal fixtures with England are a given.
Similarly, Pakistani cricket is entwined with the romance and fast-bowling prowess of Imran, Waqar and Wasim. And as a consequence of their tour during the “covid summer” of 2020 which helped to stave off financial disaster for the ECB, Pakistan matches against England, home and aware, are remarkably frequent. Even Sri Lanka are able to draw on their World Cup winning exploits as a bargaining chip.
Bangladesh has a fervent UK following
However, Bangladesh can point towards a vibrant British-Bangladeshi cricket culture. The fervour of UK based Bangladesh fans has previously been recognised by the ECB, albeit at arms length. The 2019 World Cup was a vivid demonstration of how Bangladesh fans could be relied upon to not only sell out venues, but to also create atmosphere.
Earlier in the Final World interview, Gould discusses the need to ensure the English game is more inclusive and that South Asian communities are appropriately engaged. Bangladesh’s unending hiatus from touring the UK is a direct contradiction of the ECB’s inclusivity aspirations. In this context, a British-Bangladeshi cricket fan could be excused for thinking the English game is wholly exclusive.
As ever, the intransigence of the Bangladesh Cricket Board also invites culpability. The BCB’s list of priorities does not seem to include the need for Bangladesh to tour England. They have yet to really acknowledge, let alone harness the strength of support for Bangladesh outside of the country itself. Their main concern appears to be maintaining an uneasy alliance with India – who to their credit have played regularly against Bangladesh’s men and women in recent years.
Of course, everything is nominally governed by the Future Tours Programme – interestingly the upcoming England v Zimbabwe Test doesn’t appear in the original FTP. Indeed Gould and the ECB are keen to highlight how the unique financial arrangements to facilitate the hosting of Zimbabwe – essentially the ECB are bankrolling the tour – is indicative of England being “good citizens”. But if the approach to Bangladesh is anything to go by, this doesn’t seem to be a long-term strategy.
The current version of the FTP ends in 2027 and although it seems that the next World Test Cycle will avoid a mooted two-tier structure, the new FTP will in all likelihood consolidate the current status quo where “smaller” nations infrequently play against the “big” three. Test cricket will undoubtedly shrink further, leaving those fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of Bangladesh in whites at Lord’s back in 2010, with little else but memories of the past.
