Bangladesh tour of England, May-July 2010

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

^^ Where you talking about pakistan all rounders?:sarcasm

 

[khalek]

I am happy for Mashrafe, he's the only player I actually like from the team. Hope he can carry on with this bowling form.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

The game is well balanced.

7 overs 14 runs and 1 wicket

 

[AkshayS]

Bangladesh is set to come back to winning mode.

Tamim is playing good, great, have him as FC captain, Jahurul has been positive and some really nice bowling by Bangladesh there.

 

[McLOVIN]

Bangladesh is set to come back to winning mode.

Tamim is playing good, great, have him as FC captain, Jahurul has been positive and some really nice bowling by Bangladesh there.

Anything other then 9-10 wicket win or 150+ runs wont count as a comeback.

Tamim. Finally stopped being so arrogant and played accordingly. He realized he is good, but that doesn't mean he has to go swing at everything and ruin his good form. SR 80. No wonder that's the only guy from the team that coach likes the most.

Jahurul scoring 40s a lot. If he steps it up. Rahim is in trouble if he keeps dropping catches. Jahurul is a good keeper, even though he is just a part timer. And he puts pressure on Imrul Kayes too. Because he is also an opener. I don't wanna jinx him, but ..

Screw opportunity, they need more funding. The amount of money Bangladesh gets for being a Test Nation could be put to better use developing the associates that actually show promise.

ICC doesn't pay to "improve" Bdesh cricket. That was 10 years ago, when they were still developing.

 

[pcfan123]

I never said that, I said the money Bangla gets for being a Test nation, that money could be put to better use on Ireland.

Bangla had their chance

 

[McLOVIN]

Umm that makes no sense? It's not like "Bangla" getting the money from somebody else, and it should go somewhere else instead of their cricket. It's their own money. They could do w/e they want with it. Why would they give it to Ireland? For better or worse is not the question.

It'd make sense if ICC or someone else was giving money to Bdesh, and they took it away and gave it to Ireland. But that's not the case.

 

[pcfan123]

The ICC does give money to Test nations, you are mistaken.

 

[McLOVIN]

In that case, it's still THEIR money. ICC should have enough money for Irl. It's not like they dont have the money, nor Bdesh is taking the money that was suppose to be Irl's.

 

[pcfan123]

I think you are missing my point still, its not as if the ICC can just mint money, what they can do is redirect funding, which is what I suggested.

 

[AkshayS]

Anything other then 9-10 wicket win or 150+ runs wont count as a comeback.

they won and that was enough for the day.

 

[Owzat]

I never said that, I said the money Bangla gets for being a Test nation, that money could be put to better use on Ireland.

Yup, fund them in mercenaries

 

[khalek]

It would be interesting to know whether the Bangladeshi players ran on the field and took the stumps off after winning the game :laugh

 

[angryangy]

To be fair, Bangladesh are a long way improved from 10 years ago. They're at the point now that their batting is comparable to Sri Lanka in the late 80s, even if their bowling is still largely pre-Test cricket. Economically, Bangladesh Cricket is in a stable and improving position, so one wouldn't expect to see setbacks like in Zimbabwe. What's done is done; they did come into the game too early, but Bangladesh shouldn't lose Test status based on the last ten years, rather, on what they can do in the next ten. If there's no potential for an average bowling attack in the next ten years, then let them go.

The element that people tend to focus on with Ireland is their record of producing legitimate first class quality cricketers. However, the weakness of the system is that they are still dependent on expatriates; about a third of all Ireland's ODI players originally hail from stronger cricket systems. In some sense, it is probably to Ireland's greater advantage that the country is an attractive residence for players who can raise the standard. However, on the long term, they need to demonstrate that their best players are not mere flukes.

 

[Owzat]

I can't see the ICC reversing Test status, they'd be better accepting there are too many Test sides and sides like Bangladesh will only slowly improve if they are constantly getting thrashed.

They need to play sides like New Zealand, Zimbabwe, West Indies and maybe even Ireland, Holland and Scotland to improve. They may still lose a lot of games, but it is like me playing John Higgins at snooker. I wouldn't learn a lot from playing him that I couldn't from watching him on TV, I'd be better off playing someone of my own standard or thereabouts.

When Bangladesh do play non-Test nations and lose, it does nothing to prove they are worth Test status. Sure they beat England recently, but when England weren't playing well and even then only just. If they were heading towards being good enough to merit Test status they would surely have not gone so long without winning a match in any form of cricket. Their record in Tests is attrocious, after 10 years they are still losing way too many, they should at least be drawing more - especially if, as you claim, bowling is their major weakness

Want to make a comparison with Sri Lanka? To give it a bit of substance I'll include last 11 series of Bangladesh against 11 series of Sri Lanka up to around the 10 year mark after their debut. Sri Lanka showed more fight much quicker than you give credit for,

Bangladesh (07/08 New Zealand - 2010 England)

Series : P10 W1 D0 L9 (Lost 90.00%)
Tests : P22 W2 D01 L19 (Won/Drew 13.64%)

Sri Lanka (85/86 India - 1991 England

Series : P10 W1 D3 L6 (Lost 60.00%)
Tests : P24 W2 D12 L10 (Won/Drew 58.33%)

A longer period for Sri Lanka, so Bangladesh at least have the benefit of more regular cricket. Bangladesh's only series win came over a much weakened West Indies side, not that West Indies are world beaters when at full strength these days.

Bangladesh's 35th Test was their first Test win, Sri Lanka's 14th produced their first victory. And to produce one last comparison, Bangladesh after all 68 of their Tests vs Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe after 68 Tests

Tests 1-68

Bangladesh : P68 W3 D6 L59 (Lost 86.76%)
Sri Lanka : P68 W9 D28 L31 (Lost 45.59%)
Zimbabwe : P68 W7 D23 L38 (Lost 55.88%)

Why lost percentage? It is simply to show that while Bangladesh might not be expected to win lots of Tests, they should at the very least be competitive after 10 years and not losing huge percentages of Tests. Their loss percentage for the last 11 series is 86.36% so less than half a percent different to their overall Test record ie little sign of improvement

While I acknowledge the volume of cricket at the moment makes a straight comparison difficult, it probably favours Bangladesh as they play more and get more regular (TV) income. They are by far the weakest of the three most recent Test additions, South Africa excepted as they were banned not recent debutants.

I guess the biggest advantage Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka had was they had a good bowler or two and some decent batsmen. Spread over bigger periods (92-04 and 82-97) they had longer for stars to come through. But even then the difference isn't massive, countered by the volume of matches and therefore experience. Zimbabwe had played 68 Tests in only a period of a couple of years more, Sri Lanka maybe profitting from five extra years, but for Sri Lanka half of their first 68 Tests came in the last six years of that 15 year period.

Even without comparison, Bangladesh should not be losing over 80% of their Tests - still or overall. Maybe it is a reflection of the impact of too much ODI and T20 cricket, but it's the same for everyone. The best hope I have for Bangladesh is they stick with the young side/players they have, but the batsmen need to apply themselves more and the bowlers either need to improve or they need to find a top wicket taking threat from somewhere. Are they any closer to being a competitive Test side than they were on debut? I fear not. They made 400 exactly in their first ever Test innings, how many times have they done that since? Having India 236/6 in reply they looked like they might even gain a 1st innings lead, they didn't quite manage it and got skittled for 91.

And for their three Tests wins, none is terribly convincing. A win over a Zimbabwe side about to desist as a Test playing side with all its troubles, and two over a depleted West Indies side. Sri Lanka's first win was over India, Zimbabwe's over Pakistan, a Pakistan side including Saaed Anwar, Aamir Sohail, Salim Malik, Rashid Latif, Inzamam Ul Haq, Wasim Akram and Aqib Javed so far from a depleted side.

HowSTAT! Match Scorecard