A Nation’s Pride at Stake: Bangladesh Cricket Faces an Uncertain Test Future Amid ICC Reforms

Cricket in Bangladesh is more than a game; it is a national unifier, a point of pride, and a sanctuary for a people often left disheartened by the volatility of politics. In times of upheaval, cricket offers Bangladeshis a rare chance for jubilation, a momentary escape from the frustrations of daily life. But troubling clouds are gathering over the future of Bangladesh cricket—a future that now seems vulnerable to decisions being shaped beyond its borders.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has proposed a sweeping structural overhaul that could relegate Bangladesh from the core of international Test cricket. At the heart of this restructuring plan, led by cricket’s financial giants India, England, and Australia, are provisions that could potentially exile Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from top-tier Test matches. The proposal would establish a two-tier system where only the top eight nations play in the primary league, while the remaining nations compete in the Intercontinental Cup alongside Associate nations, effectively demoting Bangladesh to a lower rung of competition.

The implications are staggering. If accepted, the proposal could mean that Bangladesh will be locked out of Test cricket for as long as eight years, relegated to four-day matches against lesser-known cricketing nations. After eight years, Bangladesh would have to top the second-tier standings to even have a chance to face the bottom team in the top tier—a gauntlet that diminishes the progress they have made over the last fourteen years since earning Test status. It is a proposition that risks squandering the promising talents of Bangladeshi players like Mominul Haque, Sohag Gazi, Nasir Hossain, Mushfiqur Rahim, Shakib Al Hasan, and Tamim Iqbal, all of whom have shown resilience and capability in the longer format.

Bangladesh has, admittedly, struggled to achieve consistent Test success over the years. However, recent tours in Sri Lanka and New Zealand displayed promising growth and competitive spirit that reflect the nation’s growing understanding of the nuances of Test cricket. Relegating Bangladesh at this point seems not only premature but unjust, especially when some other countries, which dominate solely on home turf, continue to secure their places in the top tier despite weak overseas performances. 

Moreover, the financial justification behind the proposal also deserves scrutiny. Although India, England, and Australia undoubtedly bring substantial revenue to world cricket, Bangladesh’s fanbase offers a significant contribution, bringing in sizable viewership and engagement. The enthusiasm for cricket in Bangladesh often exceeds that in established cricket nations like New Zealand and the West Indies. To tag Bangladesh as a “minnow” and deny them the opportunity to compete regularly against the top teams is to stunt the very growth the ICC claims to foster.

This proposal has rightly provoked concern and opposition from other cricket boards, including South Africa, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Yet, dishearteningly, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has not rallied behind its fans or players with the same vigour. Instead, the BCB directors have surprisingly backed the proposal, citing potential financial benefits as the justification. The decision has left fans, players, and even former Bangladeshi cricketers feeling betrayed. In their vote, the BCB appears more a business entity than a steward of Bangladeshi cricket’s legacy and future. 

This shift in stance is particularly dismaying given the high hopes placed on BCB President Nazmul Hassan Papon, who until now has been a strong advocate for Bangladesh cricket. But with the board’s endorsement of the ICC proposal, it seems the weight of immediate financial gains has overshadowed the long-term vision needed to protect the nation’s Test aspirations. The decision feels detached from the very fans whose loyalty and passion are the lifeblood of Bangladeshi cricket. It dismisses the dreams of young players who aspire to wear the Test whites and disregards the countless supporters who invest their emotions, time, and hopes in every match.

With the ICC meeting in Dubai only days away, the BCB still has an opportunity to reconsider its stance and advocate for Bangladesh’s rightful place in world cricket. While nations like South Africa and Pakistan stand in solidarity, the primary responsibility lies with the BCB itself. The board must recognize that Bangladesh’s Test future is not just about financials—it’s about the spirit, pride, and unity of a cricket-loving nation. To preserve these values, the BCB should adopt a more strategic and assertive stance, one that not only protects Bangladesh’s future in Test cricket but also respects the undying loyalty of its fans. 

As Bangladesh faces this critical juncture, the message to the BCB is clear: think beyond short-term gains and embrace the long-term vision for a nation where cricket is both a unifier and a point of pride. Let the voices of the fans echo in Dubai, for they are the heartbeat of Bangladesh cricket.

Thank You
Faisal Caesar

Pakistan’s Twilight Triumph: A Masterclass in Tactical Brilliance and Aggressive Cricket

For four days and a session, the Test match in Sharjah seemed destined to be forgotten—a laborious, slow-moving contest that did little to uplift the reputation of Test cricket. But as the sun set on the final day, Pakistan transformed the drudgery into a spectacular coup, orchestrating one of the most thrilling final-session chases in modern cricket. 

Their effort was not just a fightback but a tactical masterpiece, an emphatic statement that controlled aggression, strategic intent, and fearless execution could upend even the most stubborn opposition. Pakistan’s successful pursuit of 302 in 57.3 overs, at an astonishing run rate of 5.25, was the second-fastest chase of a 200-plus target in Test history. But beyond the numbers, it was the psychological dismantling of Sri Lanka that stood out. 

This was a match that demanded something extraordinary from both sides if a result was to emerge. Pakistan answered that call with purpose and precision. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, faltered through excessive caution and tactical naivety. 

Sri Lanka’s Defensive Mentality: The Seeds of Defeat

Pakistan’s road to victory was paved in part by Sri Lanka’s own missteps. Entering the final day with a lead of 220 and five wickets in hand, Sri Lanka had an opportunity to push for a declaration that would put Pakistan under immense pressure. Instead, they batted with painstaking sluggishness, adding just 19 runs in 16.4 overs. Their scoring rate was reminiscent of an era long past, but in the modern game, such passivity is often a recipe for disaster. 

Their approach seemed dictated by the fear of losing rather than the ambition to win. Even when it became apparent that Pakistan would have a realistic shot at victory, Sri Lanka remained locked in their ultra-defensive mindset. They assumed that mere survival would see them through, but cricket does not reward stagnation—it rewards initiative. 

With 59 overs left in two sessions, Sri Lanka should still have been firm favourites. Even if they could not force a win, a draw seemed the most likely outcome. But as Pakistan’s batsmen took charge with a clarity of purpose, Sri Lanka continued to withdraw into their shell, failing to seize even the most fleeting moments of control. By the time they realized the enormity of the threat, it was too late. 

The Tactical Shift: Pakistan’s Intent and Ingenuity

The pivotal moment of the day arrived just before tea, when Pakistan made a bold, unconventional move—sending Sarfraz Ahmed in at No. 5. It was a decision rooted in tactical awareness, recognizing that aggression was the only way forward. 

Sarfraz’s approach against Rangana Herath was a masterclass in counter-strategy. Herath, bowling from over the wicket, persisted with a defensive line—pitching the ball wide outside leg stump in an effort to stifle scoring opportunities. Most batsmen would have been content to pad the ball away, playing into the spinner’s hands. Sarfraz, however, refused to be shackled. 

He took guard near the wide-ball indicators, opening up new scoring angles. With a packed leg-side field, he repeatedly lofted the ball inside-out through covers, forcing Mathews into a reactive field change. The moment Mathews adjusted his field, Sarfraz responded by slogging Herath over midwicket. His relentless attack culminated in a 15-run over—suddenly, Pakistan had the upper hand. 

Meanwhile, Azhar Ali was accumulating with methodical brilliance. Where Sarfraz was unorthodox and explosive, Azhar was calculated and precise. He played the seamers with control, swept Herath off his defensive lines, and exploited the spread-out field to rotate strike effortlessly. His half-century came off just 79 balls, a crucial marker in a chase that demanded both composure and urgency. 

The 89-run stand between Azhar and Sarfraz, coming at a run-a-ball, set the tone for the final assault. When Sarfraz eventually fell, gloving a leg-side delivery from Shaminda Eranga, Sri Lanka had a chance to claw their way back. But Mathews, inexplicably, remained defensive—even with a new batsman at the crease. 

Misbah and Azhar: The Final Assault

By the time Misbah-ul-Haq walked in, Pakistan needed 116 runs from 22.2 overs—an equation that would typically invite caution. But this was no ordinary chase. Pakistan refused to slow down, seizing every scoring opportunity with remarkable efficiency. 

A defining moment arrived in the 40th over, bowled by Suranga Lakmal. Azhar jumped outside leg and drove fiercely, forcing a diving save from the deep-cover fielder. The next three balls were deftly placed to deep point and deep midwicket, before Misbah pulled one to the fine-leg boundary. The over leaked 12 runs, and Sri Lanka’s fragile grip on the match was slipping away. 

Even as Azhar and Misbah executed sweeps and reverse-sweeps at will, Mathews persisted with his defensive field. It was a baffling decision—Herath was proving ineffective, yet the Sri Lankan captain refused to turn to his offspinner, Dilruwan Perera. The absence of a tactical shift only made Pakistan’s job easier. 

Sri Lanka’s Last Stand: A Desperate Attempt to Stall 

As the game edged towards its climax, Sri Lanka resorted to time-wasting tactics, a sign of their growing desperation. Eranga required prolonged medical attention after brushing against Misbah’s helmet, and when Lakmal slipped while fielding, umpire Richard Kettleborough had to intervene, instructing the physio to remain off the field. 

But these disruptions did little to alter Pakistan’s momentum. With 30 required from 30 balls, the equation had been reduced to a simple exercise in finishing. Azhar, having held the innings together with masterful composure, brought up his century in spectacular style—swiping a delivery to the midwicket boundary. The 100-run stand between him and Misbah had come off just 111 balls, epitomizing the calculated aggression that had defined Pakistan’s chase. 

Even when Pakistan required just 17 runs off four overs, Sri Lanka refused to bring their fielders up. It was a clear admission of defeat—the match had already slipped through their fingers. 

The Foundations of Victory: A Story of Two Approaches

Pakistan’s final-session heroics were made possible by the foundation laid in the afternoon session. Ahmed Shehzad and Khurram Manzoor had signaled their intent early, attacking from the outset and forcing Mathews to spread his field. Though their approach was risky, leading to their dismissals, it sent an important message—Pakistan would not be bogged down. 

Azhar and Younis Khan then ensured stability, adding 49 runs in measured fashion. When Younis fell, Pakistan made another statement by promoting Sarfraz—a move that turned the game on its head. 

In contrast, Sri Lanka lacked urgency throughout. Their brief burst of counterattacking cricket came from Prasanna Jayawardene in the morning session, when 62 runs were added in 14 overs. But the moment wickets fell, they reverted to survival mode. 

By the end of the match, the difference was clear. Sri Lanka had batted for 273.4 overs and managed just enough runs to lose. Pakistan needed only 166.4 overs to surpass them. The contrast in intent and execution was stark. 

A Game of Sight and Insight

As darkness crept over Sharjah, Sri Lanka’s players, with their captain at the helm, feebly protested that they could not see the ball. In reality, it was never about vision—it was about insight. 

Pakistan had seen the opportunity and seized it with ruthless clarity. Sri Lanka had let the moment pass them by. 

In the grand tapestry of Test cricket, this was not just a thrilling chase but a lesson in adaptability. The teams that dare, that read the situation correctly, that take calculated risks—those are the teams that triumph. And on this day, Pakistan stood tall as the masters of the moment.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

The ICC’s Power Shift: A Death Knell for Cricket’s Global Integrity?

The upcoming ICC Board Meeting in Dubai on January 28-29 is set to witness a seismic shift in the governance of world cricket. A draft proposal, set forth by the ICC, seeks to reshape the structure of the game in a manner that consolidates power in the hands of three cricketing giants—India (BCCI), Australia (CA), and England (ECB). If ratified, this proposal will usher in a new era where the essence of the sport risks being subordinated to financial interests and the will of an elite oligarchy.

The Core Proposals: A Blueprint for Hegemony

The proposed changes aim to alter the ICC’s existing framework in a manner that raises serious concerns about the future of cricket’s equitable development. The key aspects of the draft include:

1. Formation of an Executive Committee (ExCo): This committee would hold overriding power over all other ICC committees, with permanent seats reserved for BCCI, CA, and ECB. Such a structure effectively places decision-making in the hands of three cricket boards, sidelining the interests of the broader cricketing fraternity.

2. Test Cricket’s Promotion and Relegation System: While ostensibly a means to enhance competition, this system conveniently exempts India, Australia, and England from the risk of relegation. Such preferential treatment contradicts the principles of meritocracy and fairness.

3. Decoupling of the ICC from the Future Tours Programme (FTP): Previously, the FTP ensured that all Test-playing nations had scheduled series against one another, compelling top teams to play against lower-ranked sides. The dissolution of this structure in favour of bilateral agreements will leave lower-ranked teams—especially Bangladesh and Zimbabwe—at the mercy of the 'Big Three’s' willingness to schedule matches.

4. New Financial Model of Revenue Distribution: It is anticipated that a disproportionate share of ICC-generated revenue will be allocated to the 'Big Three,' further widening the financial disparity between cricket’s elite and its developing nations.

5. Control Over Key ICC Positions: The proposal ensures that pivotal roles—such as the ICC Chairman and heads of the ExCo and Finance & Commercial Affairs Committee—are nominated by the BCCI, CA, and ECB. This effectively eliminates independent governance, reducing the ICC to a vehicle for the ambitions of these three boards.

6. Revival of the Champions Trophy: The reinstatement of this limited-overs tournament in 2017 and 2021 comes at the cost of the World Test Championship, a move that suggests an inclination towards commercial viability over the sustenance of Test cricket.

The Decline of Inclusivity in World Cricket

This proposed overhaul signifies a shift from a democratic, inclusive structure to a plutocracy where financial and political clout dictate the direction of the sport. The ICC, once envisioned as a guardian of cricket’s global interests, is poised to become a business consortium where the wealthiest dictate terms, relegating the remaining cricketing nations to mere spectators in their own game.

One of the most concerning ramifications of this proposal is the dismantling of the FTP. Historically, the FTP ensured that all nations, regardless of their commercial appeal, had opportunities to compete against one another. For teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, it served as a crucial mechanism to gain exposure against top-tier opposition. Without this structure, these teams are likely to be marginalized, with fewer fixtures against cricket’s heavyweights.

Bangladesh’s struggles in securing high-profile series illustrate the looming issue. Despite the team’s notable progress, Bangladesh has not played a Test match in India for over fourteen years and last toured Australia for a Test series in 2003. The dissolution of the FTP would only exacerbate this exclusion, depriving developing cricketing nations of the experience necessary for their growth.

A Flawed Business Strategy Masquerading as Reform

Supporters of this proposal may argue that cricket, like any other global sport, must align with commercial realities. Sponsors and broadcasters, they claim, are more invested in marquee matchups, and the game must adapt accordingly. However, this logic is fundamentally flawed.

Cricket’s essence is not confined to a few nations; it is a global passion that transcends borders. The game thrives on its diversity, and restricting its exposure to a select few will only serve to shrink its global footprint. If teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, or even Afghanistan are denied the opportunity to face elite teams, how will they ever bridge the gap? The very competitiveness that makes cricket compelling will be eroded, resulting in a monotonous and predictable landscape where only a handful of teams dominate.

Moreover, the argument that financially smaller nations contribute little to the game’s commercial value overlooks a crucial fact: cricket’s largest fan bases do not exist in isolation. They include passionate supporters from nations considered ‘lower-ranked’ in terms of cricketing strength. Dismissing these countries from the game’s mainstream on the pretext of commercial viability not only alienates millions of fans but also stifles the potential for cricket’s global expansion.

An Uncertain Future: The Need for Equitable Governance

As the ICC Board convenes in Dubai, the question that looms large is whether cricket’s administrators will prioritize the sport’s holistic growth over self-serving financial gain. The proposed model, if implemented, would mark the most drastic shift in cricket governance since the sport’s inception.

While change is inevitable and often necessary, not all change is progressive. A fair and equitable approach would have been to refine the FTP system, ensuring that all cricketing nations have access to a structured calendar that includes fixtures against top teams. True cricketing excellence is nurtured through competition, and without inclusivity, the game will stagnate.

Cricket belongs to its players and fans, not to a select group of financial powerhouses. The ICC must remember its responsibility—not as a mere business entity but as the custodian of a sport cherished by millions worldwide. The fate of cricket’s inclusivity and integrity hinges on the decisions made in Dubai. If the proposed draft is approved, it will be a dark day for the game’s future, one where the pursuit of power and profit eclipses the very spirit of cricket.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Winter of Discontent: Bangladesh’s Political Deadlock Casts a Shadow Over National Spirit and Cricket

 

Winter in Bangladesh has always been a season of celebration, its charm woven through a lively tapestry of festivals, cultural gatherings, and traditions. Yet, this year, the winter landscape seems muted, shrouded in a mood that is more sombre than celebratory. The usual rhythm of the season has been disrupted, leaving a pervasive air of melancholy among the people. The culprit behind this subdued atmosphere is not the season itself, but an ongoing political deadlock that has gripped the nation in its hold.

The roots of this disquiet trace back to last year, when a prolonged dispute between two of Bangladesh’s most prominent political parties began. Centred on the contentious issue of caretaker government oversight during elections, this standoff has hardened into a stalemate, fueled by the unyielding stances and rivalries of both sides. Their inability to find common ground has ignited waves of unrest, affecting the lives of Bangladeshis from all walks of life and casting a pall over daily routines and national festivities alike.

Frequent strikes, protests, clashes with law enforcement, and acts of vandalism are not only disrupting public life but also sowing anxiety and uncertainty across the nation. Beyond the toll on the collective psyche, this discord is severely impacting crucial sectors—business, education, and finance—and eroding confidence in Bangladesh’s stability. Not even the nation's beloved cricket, often a symbol of unity and pride, has escaped unscathed.

This year, Bangladesh is set to host two major cricket tournaments—the Asia Cup and the ICC World Twenty20—events that could spotlight the country's hospitality and passion for the sport. However, the persistent political unrest is casting a shadow over these aspirations. Last year, the ICC raised concerns about Bangladesh’s capacity to host, citing incomplete construction of critical venues. Although the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) managed to assure the ICC of its preparedness, the simmering instability threatens to undermine these efforts.

This apprehension was validated when the West Indies Under-19 team cut their tour short after an explosive device detonated near their hotel. The incident stoked fears internationally, leading some voices to question Bangladesh’s readiness. Pakistan, in particular, vocalized concerns about safety, a stance that carries a layer of irony, considering Bangladesh’s own reservations about touring Pakistan in recent years due to security issues.

Yet, despite past tensions, Pakistan has agreed to participate in the Asia Cup, marking a hopeful turn. To assuage these security concerns, the BCB has pledged extensive measures, bolstered by support from Sri Lanka's security team, which has expressed confidence in the arrangements.

Amidst these diplomatic and logistical preparations, a sense of underlying unease remains. The peaceful New Zealand tour last year, conducted during a similarly tense period, offers some reassurance, but it’s no guarantee against future volatility. For Bangladesh, successfully hosting these tournaments represents more than just a sporting milestone; it’s a moment for the country to reassert its resilience, to celebrate amidst adversity, and to reclaim its place on the world stage.

The opposition leader, Begum Khaleda Zia, has extended her support for the events, a rare gesture of unity. Yet, these words of encouragement must be more than symbolic. The time has come for Bangladesh’s leaders to put aside political squabbles for the greater good. Cricket in Bangladesh transcends mere sport—it’s a unifying force, a source of pride, and a beacon of hope. Allowing political ambitions to eclipse this shared passion would be a disservice to the nation's spirit.

In this critical moment, as winter wanes, let wisdom prevail. Bangladesh has much to gain if stability and peace can guide the way forward, allowing the people, once more, to reclaim the joy and rhythm that define their winter season.

Thank You
Faisal Caesar

Franck Ribéry and the Stolen Crown: Why the French Maestro Deserved the Ballon d’Or

The 2013 Ballon d’Or will forever remain one of football’s most contested decisions—a moment where collective achievement bowed before individual spectacle. At the heart of that debate stood Franck Ribéry, the mercurial French winger who orchestrated Bayern Munich’s most glorious season in living memory. While Cristiano Ronaldo ultimately lifted the trophy, the moral and footballing argument belonged—many still insist—to Ribéry.

The Architect of a Historic Treble

Football’s highest individual honour is meant to crown the player who defined the year. In 2013, that definition was simple: domination in both performance and success, embodied by Bayern Munich’s breathtaking treble. Ribéry was not merely part of that machine—he was its spark, its creative conscience, its aesthetic pulse.

Every movement of Bayern’s symphonic attack bore Ribéry’s signature—his instinctive dribbles, his vision threading impossible passes, his relentless work rate. He assisted Arjen Robben’s decisive goal in the Champions League final, scored in the UEFA Super Cup, and illuminated every stage of Europe’s grand theatre. Bayern didn’t just win—they conquered, with Ribéry their brightest star.

The Measure of Greatness: Trophies and Impact

In an age increasingly obsessed with statistics, Ribéry’s brilliance was measured not in numbers but in influence. His game was a masterclass in artistry and intent—a reminder that football’s beauty lies in orchestration as much as execution. He was crowned UEFA’s Best Player in Europe for 2012–13, an award grounded in merit, not marketing.

While Ronaldo’s 66 goals were extraordinary, they could not disguise Real Madrid’s barren season. Messi, though sublime, was injured and overshadowed. Ribéry, by contrast, lifted every major club trophy available—the Bundesliga, DFB-Pokal, and Champions League—alongside both UEFA and FIFA Club World Cups. If football rewards the best player on the best team, there should have been no contest.

A Question of Fairness: The Ballon d’Or Controversy

Yet, the 2013 Ballon d’Or was tainted by procedural shadows. Originally, the voting was to close on November 15. Then, inexplicably, FIFA extended the deadline by two weeks—the first such instance in the award’s history—citing insufficient votes. In that brief window, Cristiano Ronaldo scored a dramatic hat-trick to send Portugal to the World Cup. The timing, critics argued, was too convenient; even UEFA president Michel Platini quipped that FIFA had done it “to please Ronaldo.”

After the ceremony, murmurs turned into accusations. Coaches from several nations—including Albania, Kuwait, and Fiji—alleged their votes were misrepresented. Some claimed fraud; others disbelief. Whether or not the results were manipulated, the damage was done: the legitimacy of football’s highest individual honour stood in question.

The Legacy of a Forgotten Winner

Ribéry finished third that year, behind Messi and Ronaldo. Yet history, viewed without bias, may judge differently. He represented football in its purest form—team before self, creation before glory. His performances were poetry in motion: dynamic, disciplined, devastating.

The 2013 Ballon d’Or should have been a coronation of that ideal—a triumph of artistry and collective greatness over celebrity and metrics. Instead, it became a parable of what modern football too often forgets: that the game’s greatest beauty lies not in who scores most, but in who makes victory inevitable.

Conclusion: The Ballon d’Or That Should Have Been

Franck Ribéry may never hold the golden sphere that eluded him, but he holds something more enduring—the respect of purists who understand football as both art and craft. His 2013 season remains a monument to the collective ideal, where brilliance served the team, not the ego. In that sense, he was the true winner of the Ballon d’Or, even without the trophy.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar