Mohammad Ashraful's career sums up Bangladesh's performance over the last decade: plenty of promise but not much success due to dodgy technique and temperament © BCB Media

From Daniel Stone, United Kingdom

Bangladesh's Test match status has been debated ever since they were awarded full membership by the ICC a little over 11 years ago. Bangladesh played their first Test match in November 2000, and since then have won just three of 72 matches, with a staggering 62 losses. Even those three wins were not much to cheer about, as they came against Zimbabwe and a severely weakened West Indies team.

The team has shown some signs of improvement in ODI cricket over the last few years with a few surprise victories – the 4-0 drubbing of New Zealand at home last October, for example – but in 2011, it has been clear that they are actually taking backward steps.

Bangladesh are too reliant on their world-class allrounder, Shakib Al Hasan, and Tamim Iqbal, one of Wisden’s five cricketers of 2010. Talented youngsters like Mahmudullah and Nasir Hossain have shown encouraging signs, but Bangladesh just don't have enough star players to compete with the more established teams.

Mohammad Ashraful's career sums up Bangladesh's performance over the last decade. He showed plenty of promise and was obviously very talented, but he couldn't kick on after a good start due to dodgy technique and temperament. Their 2011 World Cup campaign resulted in them being bowled out for under 100 twice, including an embarrassing 58 all out in Mirpur against an average West Indies attack.

If Bangladesh are severely struggling in their favoured format, then it doesn't bode well for their Test future. There are many areas of concern, but their main problem is the batting. Tamim, seemingly, has tried to emulate Virender Sehwag by scoring run-a-ball centuries and he has been reasonably successful in his short international career to date. Consistency is where he and his team-mates falter.

The batsmen might produce the odd wonder innings but more often than not they fall early in their innings. This is why most of their batting averages are down in the 20s. The batsmen fail to knuckle down and grind out an innings, and this lack of fight is very disappointing to cricket fans around the world. It's as if they don't want to be out there in the middle.

However, it isn't just the batting that is sub-standard. Their bowling also lacks the firepower that is needed for Test cricket. The seam attack is virtually non-existent and five-wicket hauls are as rare as wins. Shakib is a highly skilled spinner, but that he outshines his team-mates even in this aspect is not something to be celebrated.

These cricketers obviously have plenty of talent but during their international careers, they haven't converted that promise into match-winning performances, meaning Bangladesh remain at the bottom of the ladder. That Zimbabwe are showing signs of improvement on their return to Test cricket only heightens the challenge that Bangladesh face. While most countries around them are improving, they appear to be in steady decline.

It is a very sad situation that Bangladeshi cricket is in. Many cricket fans have been willing them to do well over the past decade, but many have now lost faith in the subcontinent outfit. It is likely that they are going nowhere.

From Tim Wigmore, United Kingdom

Bangladesh will be better served with more five-day matches against the likes of Ireland, and lesser against Australia © AFP

Bangladesh’s predictable capitulations appear to help neither them, judging by their lack of improvement, nor their opponents. But the answer is not what many say – revoking their undoubtedly premature Test status. In fact, it is admitting more teams to the Test arena.

Imagine two scenarios. In the first, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They play two Tests, so fulfilling commitments of the Future Tours programme, and though they briefly threaten to get a draw in their first, they are ultimately thrashed 2-0. England learn little as a weak side are ruthlessly demolished in alien conditions. And the degree to which Bangladesh benefit is highly dubious. Are their players any better playing the swinging ball at the end of the series than at the start?

In the second, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They have a healthy amount of warm-up games to develop in English conditions and are able to put in a respectable performance in the one Test they play. After the series has finished, Bangladesh head to Ireland for three tightly fought Test matches. Both sides benefit much in their development from playing five-day games. Bangladesh are able to hone their technique against the swinging ball to prepare for challenges to come, though Ireland, with Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan both scoring prolifically, edge the series 2-1.

The Tests, though clearly not of the highest quality, offer much more intrigue than minnows being thrashed over a series. Most importantly, they enable both Bangladesh and Ireland to improve as cricket sides.

Cricket is a global game. When countries show ambition and tangible progress, they should be rewarded with a chance to play Test cricket. What this does not mean is they should be forced to play two-game series in India or Australia, which help no one. The Test championship should be used to give series greater context – and, ideally, lead to an increase in five-match series.

But one-off Tests have a place too. Games between touring sides and counties, states, islands or provinces have long since been devalued. So why not use one-off Tests as warm-ups for bigger series ahead? Ireland touring Australia would be an exercise in futility, but what would be wrong with Australia playing a Test there as a warm-up before an Ashes series? Similarly, teams could play Bangladesh before full Test series in India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka; and Zimbabwe (politics permitting) before ones in South Africa.

Established countries would benefit from more competitive clashes than they tend to receive against local sides, while emerging nations would have these to look forward to; if they earned the right, they would play full-length series.

Bangladesh have already played seven Tests in 2010. Though they have shown signs of improvement, they ultimately lost all seven comfortably. A structure much more conducive to their development would be for them to have played a few one-off Tests against established Test sides, then a three-game series against, say, Ireland.

It is incredible that one of the best limited-overs batsmen in the world comes from a country that doesn’t even play Test cricket. Seeing Morgan help England to victory against Ireland invariably leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

And the case of Joyce – flirted with by England for six months, thereby preventing him playing in the 2007 World Cup for Ireland, then ditched and unable to play for Ireland for another four years – is in many ways even worse. There is obviously a limit to the degree Ireland can improve when their best players are constantly picked to play for England. If Ireland played Tests, Joyce and Morgan would have no incentive to move across the Irish Sea.

Carefully managed, there is no reason why not just Bangladesh, but also Ireland, Zimbabwe and even more sides in the future, should not play Tests. Just because they would be unlikely to beat Australia, it would be wrong to limit Tests to eight sides. If they were given sensible programmes conducive to their development – as Bangladesh have not been – then the number of games between minnows and established Test nations would actually decrease. Furthermore, sides are more likely to be able to compete with better teams in solitary Tests than over a series.

Effectively, the only difference would be that the established Test nations would play one-off Tests against emerging nations, rather than be compelled to play two-game ones – so their schedules would actually be freed.

Those nations that have improved should be given incentive to continue doing so: the example of Kenya, whose cricket has declined alarmingly since reaching the World Cup semi-finals in 2003, proves what can happen without such encouragement. But a carefully worked programme would ultimately lead to more interesting Tests, reducing the percentage that are hopelessly one-sided, showcasing the best Test cricket has to offer and allowing emerging nations a genuine platform to improve. As it is, Bangladesh play the best far too often, while Ireland play them far too little. A happy medium should be established, that gives more countries the chance to play Test cricket. A sport with global pretensions must encourage the expansion of its best format.

From Dhasaradhy Jagannathan, United States of America

The 'New Scoreboard Cricket' is a fantastic game that records scores meticulously. Sometimes, scores are settled as well and that is when human ego clouds the shining sun, the game itself. The arrogant "I am bigger than the game because I govern those who play them" statement is made rather powerfully, in contrast to the politically correct "The game is bigger than individuals" statement captains regularly say.

If the game was bigger than individuals, players would not be punished for just playing the game. A Ten year term is only a little short of a fourteen year life sentence handed for a murder.

For something as challenging to the game as tampering the condition of the ball or making a racist remark against an opponent, a ten year ban was not handed by the governing body of the game. But, challenge to the authority of the individuals who run the game and a sledgehammer comes down and crushes those who play the game. The BCCI does not like the ICL, which is understandable. Nobody likes competition. But it is the insecure who would want it killed.

Champions, on the other hand try to rise above it. By arm twisting the ICC to crack the whip on ICL and instruct all the members of ICC to shun the ICL, the individuals who represent BCCI won. Unfortunately, the game lost. Cricketers can now be punished for playing the game and desiring to compete against the best. The Ten players who have been banned by BCB did not bring disrepute to the game. They merely wanted to play it. They have a lesson to learn - The desire to play the game is not important. It is important to play the game for the individuals in BCB and the BCCI.

The desire to play the game alongside some of the best international players can now cost the dream of representing your country. If you dream of scoring big, be sure you represent the right bunch of individuals. Big scores are not important if they came on a game you played for another set of individuals, Mr.Habibul Bashar.

Some things are more important than the game and the score with the administrators is definitely one of them. Your scores when you played for the nation hardly matters when they want to settle scores with you. Welcome to the new scoreboard of the game. A few individuals are more important than this game.