PDA

View Full Version : A post mortem of Bangladesh vs Australia test series.


Miraz
April 20, 2006, 01:33 AM
At the end, I really see some great improvement from Bangladesh side. They have posted a real good fight in first test narrowly missing the win and in the second test they have fought up to fifth day. Its the flat wicket of Chittagong and poor show in the first innings that laid them down.

May be Bangladesh lost 2-0 in the series but they have really shown that they can be competetive in test cricket even against the topmost side of world cricket. The real find for this series is self confidence in test level which was lacking. Unfortunately Bangladesh do not have tests for the next 12 month to boost up the confidence they gained from the series.

Another finding is Rajin in the middle order who showede real guts to play test cricket, denied by the magic of warne in the second innings of second test but he has really played within his limits and put value on his wicket.

Shahriar Nafees was pleasnat to watch and this is for the first time any Bangladeshi batsman (apart from Zim series) became the highest run getter against top opposition. He is a real bright prospect, more consistent and talenetd. He puts value to his wicket and do not throw wicket like Ash or Aftab.


Mohammad rafiq again showed why he is respected so much by the media and the fans. Lone fighter with the ball and showed good enetertaining fight with bat in the second innings. A real fighter.

Shahadat is another find of the series. He was aggressive, brave and bowled whole heartedly in dull pitches. He looked much better tha Mashrafee. A lof of questions were asked regarding his includion ahead of Rasel but he answered all of them in style. He is a real fast bowling prospect for Bangladesh.

JO, Ashraful and Aftab's performance was the main negatives from this series. JO failed to capitalize on his experience and played like ODI which is unfortunate. Ashraful was simply rubbish, played stupid sort of strokes to get out. This is a real worry for Bangladesh as he is the most capable batsman of Bangladesh side, a match winner but his lack of application may cause his downfall and thats the worst news for Bangladesh cricket in future. Aftab failed to repay the faith of selectors and fans. Got out in crucial time playing rash shots.


Another downfall of the series is the poor captaincy of Bashar. He simply failed to cope the pressure in the sceond innings both with bat and in the field. His 'mid afternoon stroll' costed us the first match. He made some good decisons on the field but on an average he was well below par as a captain. He contributed with bat but could have done lot better.

In both the tests tail enders failed to show a good performnace and was always on a hurry to throw away wicket. Contribution from tail ender was a real lack for Bangladesh.

Khaled Masud was good behind the stumps but was very poor in front of that. We have expected a lot better effort from a very experienced player like him. His test career for the first time is under question due to poor show with the bat.

Mashrafee was below average in his performance and wasted new ball in the second test. Enamul bowled well in the first test but unfortunately missed the second on the other hand his replacement Razzak was very very ordinary at the test level.

My overall rating for the player will be

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : B-
Rajin Saleh : B+
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : B
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : D

At the end it was a good encouraging series for Bangladesh. Their test performance graph has taken a definite leap. Now its very important to keep that on.

For Australia it was a good learning experience and they were pushed to the corner in the first test but bounced back like the champion and snatched the win. They simply dominated the second test and won it comfortably. Apart from the hiccup from the first test they performed really really well.

In the aussie side Ponting was really excellent with his match winning century in the first test, Hayden failed to capitalize the opportunities. Pup was very ordinary, Martyn failed completely after a successful proteas series. Stuart Clark came down to the earth after high flying in South Africa, he was pretty ordinary. Brett Lee bowled with lot of hearts but was not that successful. He contributed more with bat than ball.

MacGill played lot better than Warne although Warne got five 'cheap' wickets in the second test.

Hussey was consistent as usual, showed good technique against both spin and pace.

Gilshrist showed his excellence at the very moment with his brilliant century in the first test that really gave aussies the breathing space otherwise the history might have been different.

The real champion was Gillespie, he bowled well, took early wickets to push Bangladesh in the backfoot and his fairytale 200 was simply unbeleivable. Gillespie cemented his place in the aussie line up thats for sure.

At the end, it was a good test series, much more comptetive that most of the cricket world have expectd.

Edited to add more analysis on the aussies

DotBall
April 20, 2006, 01:48 AM
Good analysis.

thebest
April 20, 2006, 01:49 AM
Overall Ok. But U missed Pilot missed runout of Gilly in the first innings, which is might won the match for us. To me he is D not C- and Rafiq should be A+

Spitfire_x86
April 20, 2006, 01:58 AM
My overall rating for the player will be

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : B-
Rajin Saleh : B+
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : B
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : D
Agree with the ratings.

cricket_pagla
April 20, 2006, 02:06 AM
My overall rating for the player will be

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : B-
Rajin Saleh : B+
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : B
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : D


i hav som chnge in ur grading/ranking...:mad:

Shahriar Nafees : A [ 4 som quality battin in 1st inns 1st test & 2nd inns 2nd tst]
Javed Omar : F [he's mess] [or i wanna giv W (withdraw)]
Habibul Bashar : B- [som resistence.. but not gud enuf]
Rajin Saleh : A- [4 fightin' 4 his wicket.. in both tests]
Ashraful : F [sorry.. i hav 2 kick em frm da team.. if i hav dat power] [or i wanna giv UW (unOfficial withdraw)]
Aftab : C- [try 2 play.. but every time out whn he not supposd 2 b... i recommend bak 2 ur natural play!]
Pilot : C [battin very poor!.. keepin' gud enuf]
Rafiq : A [only player... we can proud of in dis test.. start with a bang.. end in a similiar fashion.. he's a legend]
Mashrafee : C- [not comfortable in longer version game.. tho bowling som beuty in da 1st tst]
Shahadat : C+ [just 4 tryin'.. ur liking factor is high]
Enamul Jnr : B- [ but did gud in da 1st tst 1st inns.. tho in da 2nd inns.. he ws really down.. not in da syd.. in 2nd inn]
Razzaq : D- [nothin 4 em.. just pass mark]

jabbar
April 20, 2006, 02:11 AM
Rafique deserves an A+. Apart from a below standard (for him) bowling performance in 2nd test, he pleyed well in every other situation. MOS for me (instead of Gillespie).

Miraz
April 20, 2006, 02:16 AM
I want to clarify one thing, I took A as the maximum, thats why there is no A+ in the rating.

Spitfire_x86
April 20, 2006, 03:44 AM
I want to clarify one thing, I took A as the maximum, thats why there is no A+ in the rating.
Your grading is fine, even if A+ is the maximum. I think A+ should be reserved for perfect performance. Although SN and Rafique did very well, their performance throughout the test series wasn't perfect.

TAQATOO
April 20, 2006, 04:22 AM
What happened to u guys. Gone crazy or mad. Rating performances, ha. Performance of a bunch of loosers who never learn anything, who never use brains, who never knows how to occupy in the crease in a test cricket. After gillispe shown that much patients, you guys should be ashamed yourself of rating the players who never know how to play test cricket.
I was involved in a personal chanllenge with one of my friend that BD can't bat today till lunch and I won. Cauz its true like daylight that this bunch of idiots will never learn to play.
We can just hope and imagine. Grade their performance. Make some "ah" and "oh" but the real playing is far far away. Come on people, wake up. Its Bangladesh team. Stop dreaming.

cricket_pagla
April 20, 2006, 07:16 AM
What happened to u guys. Gone crazy or mad. Rating performances, ha. Performance of a bunch of loosers who never learn anything, who never use brains, who never knows how to occupy in the crease in a test cricket. ........


wat happnd 2 u?!.. apni ki bhujsen?!.. ai rating/grading keno diya hoise?!.. itz given performance based on dis recenty test series.. :cool:

Tigers_eye
April 20, 2006, 09:35 AM
Taqatoo,
Everyone has their own method of grading. A paper can be graded differently by different teacher, agree? Similarly, performance can be graded differently. You don't like it, no porblem, give grades what you think they should get. F's to everyone so be it. To justify your gradings a brief explanation would be fine too. Others have their opinion just leave at that.

Nice one Miraz bhai. Except Mash I agree with all of the grades. The wicket was too placid and after the 1st half of the 1st innings Australian team became very cautious of not playing rash shots. Hense if the opponent don't make mental mistakes in wicket like this Fast bowlers have nothing. I'd grade him c+ or B-.

Sauron
April 20, 2006, 10:14 AM
Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : B-
Rajin Saleh : B+
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : B
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : D

I think Bangladesh team in the second test disgraced themselves quite effectively. We did have some very positive gains from the first test, but we squandered almost all of it in the second test.

This is my rating of the players (I have highlighted the ones that are different from yours)-

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : C (Callous runout and defensive captaining)
Rajin Saleh : A (He tried his best)
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A+ (How much more does he have to do to get A+ ?)
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : A (He gave it his all. The pitch worked against him. To me, he was at par with Bret Lee. Bad luck for him that Aussie Batsmen don't throw their wickets).
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : F (Why does he get a D? He was an utter failure. Even Rajin bowled better than him)

Editorial: All players with an F next to their name in this list, need to be dropped from ODI team.

Sovik
April 20, 2006, 10:19 AM
My overall rating for the player will be

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : B-
Rajin Saleh : B+
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : B
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : D



Almost agree with you, but i think rajin saleh deserves A- and bashar C for his poor captaincy and the famous run out

Miraz
April 20, 2006, 10:34 AM
Well everybody is concerned about Bashar. We have to keep one thing in mind that he was involved in two century partnership in two tests and one of them pushed aussies to the corner and is a record for Bangladesh. He should get more trhan B- as a batsman but his captaincy let him down.

As a captain he could have done more, he tried something which worked but most of the time he has not tried enough. Giving Aftab a chance gifted him a wicket but he brought him too late. When anyone lead a bunch of young players who lacks in temperament Captaincy becomes a very difficult job. The only big mistake I find in Bashar is his stupid runout, thats really unacceptable in the context of the match. He was defensive when australia was 93/6, we need some more time and self confidence to see our captains become aggressive or proactive against top oppositions. This will happen automatically when we start winning matches.

Probably I have already overrated Shahadat, he has taken one wicket for 258 runs. His rating is basically for his courage and aggressiveness as fast bowler which is a new thing in Bangladesh cricket. (no way he can get more than B).

Sauron
April 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
Probably I have already overrated Shahadat, he has taken one wicket for 258 runs. His rating is basically for his courage and aggressiveness as fast bowler which is a new thing in Bangladesh cricket. (no way he can get more than B).

You are off in grading Shahadat. In my book, Shahadat gets a definite A.

He worked 110% at every delivery. Like I mentioned before, I believe that his performance was completely at par with Bret Lee. Gillespie got more wickets than Bret Lee but the fiercer bowler was Bret Lee. A few of Gillespie's wickets were actually Cheap Wickets (No quote needed).

If you have watched all 5 days of both test matches, you'd agree that Shahadat equalled Bret Lee in terms of quality, performance and intimidation of batsmen. Here is a comparison between Shahadat and Bret Lee's stats (and keep in mind the Batsmen they were bowling to).

- Similar run rate conceded.
- Shahadat got over-bowled.

T1- Inn1
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 14 2 48 1 3.42
Lee 19 5 68 0 3.57

T1- Inn2
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 20 5 67 0 3.35
Lee 8 0 47 1 5.87

T2- Inn1
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 33 3 143 0 4.33
Lee 9 2 36 0 4.00

al Furqaan
April 20, 2006, 12:24 PM
sauron bhai, i am the biggest fan of shahadat, but 1-258 from the series the best grade you can get is an B. and i would give him that. you can blame the pitch, but if that is the case, then the B is really curved up to an A, so then there is no real point to be given a B; its an A.

but, i am really impressed with shahadat, not that i didn't think he was incapable, but because i am glad that he didn't let me/us down. he's a gem that any sri lanka or indian would crave. shoot, pakis would crave him too, shoaib isn't gonna play forever.

with that being said, shahadat should have had figures that included 2 more wickets if catches were held and appeals upheld. also, if there were more aggressive field sets (rajib and mash had no slips!!!) then he could have a couple more wickets @ 50 a piece. far better than lee, and not too far behind gillespie.

here are my grades:

JO: C- (a relative grade, 19 is a good score for him)
SN: A- (had a duck)
Bashar: C- (his batting was a B, but his captaincy F really pissed me off)
rajin: B+ (3 solid scores, 2 50s)
ashraful: D- (nuff said)
aftab: D- (he doesn't deserve anything more than ash, they are almost identical)
mashud: C (batting was mostly poor)
rafiq: A (if there were plusses, he would get an A+)
masri: C (bowled well in T1, but was crap in T2)
shahadat: B (bowled better than masri in T2 and better than his figures suggest)
enamul: B- (bowled well, but needs a few more wickets to get a better grade)
razzaq: C- (did better than i expected which was a D or an F)

Miraz
April 20, 2006, 12:57 PM
You are off in grading Shahadat. In my book, Shahadat gets a definite A.

He worked 110% at every delivery. Like I mentioned before, I believe that his performance was completely at par with Bret Lee. Gillespie got more wickets than Bret Lee but the fiercer bowler was Bret Lee. A few of Gillespie's wickets were actually Cheap Wickets (No quote needed).

If you have watched all 5 days of both test matches, you'd agree that Shahadat equalled Bret Lee in terms of quality, performance and intimidation of batsmen. Here is a comparison between Shahadat and Bret Lee's stats (and keep in mind the Batsmen they were bowling to).

- Similar run rate conceded.
- Shahadat got over-bowled.

T1- Inn1
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 14 2 48 1 3.42
Lee 19 5 68 0 3.57

T1- Inn2
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 20 5 67 0 3.35
Lee 8 0 47 1 5.87

T2- Inn1
Overs Maiden Runs Wickets RR
Shahadat Hossain 33 3 143 0 4.33
Lee 9 2 36 0 4.00

In tests 1/258 is very very ordinary. He showed potential but again that has to be transformed into performances and he has to pick wicket for that. Lee was very ordinary in this series and he deserves a C, comparing with Lee does not make Shahadat a better bowler in this series.

I agree with you that all of us is impressed with Shahadat, I posted a similar post in an aussie forum where I mentioned Shahadat as one of the find of the seires. Cricket fans there simply mentioned him as a 'crap' for his 1/258. We need to understand that at the end of the day only performance is counted not the spirit.

sar2005
April 20, 2006, 01:12 PM
A very nice post mortem report. Yeah, if you want to see negetively, there were many hole to point. But one has to remember that we played against AUS, the number one. The boys showed good fight apart from some downfall. Let's hope that we take the most of it and utilize in future.

Test 1 - B+
Test 2 - C
Overall - B-

Rubu
April 20, 2006, 01:48 PM
I like shouron's rating much better. with Rajin A and rajjak F.

Sauron
April 20, 2006, 04:04 PM
I posted a similar post in an aussie forum where I mentioned Shahadat as one of the find of the seires. Cricket fans there simply mentioned him as a 'crap' for his 1/258. We need to understand that at the end of the day only performance is counted not the spirit.

First of all - Shahadat is not the find of this series. He performed very well against Sri Lanka a few months ago.

Secondly, you don't look at only 1/258. You also need to know how many overs he bowled. In the second test he bowled 33 overs (only Rafique bowled more than him).

Thirdly, his performance was very good considering the opponent, the pitch and the bowling support (or lack thereof) he got.

And last but not the least - did you actually watch him bowl? Given your comments, I am reluctant to believe that you actually watched the match ... seems like you are totally going by scorecard.

Oh, and one last thing - Aussie cricket fans are free to call Shahadat "crap" if they want to. To me, Shahadat and Rafique were our only two "real" bowlers in teh 2nd test.

Fazal
April 20, 2006, 04:14 PM
You cannot judge a young fast bowler simply looking at the stat or just watching one day.

For exmaple if some one see 1st days (1st test against Sri Lanka), versus the rest of the days, you will have complete different idea about Shahadat.

Asif of Pakistan didn't get any wicket against Australia (even he bowled well). But now see where he is now against England, India and Sri Lanka?

Now doubt Shahadat raised our expectation about him by his very good performance this year.

Miraz
April 20, 2006, 04:21 PM
First of all - Shahadat is not the find of this series. He performed very well against Sri Lanka a few months ago.

Secondly, you don't look at only 1/258. You also need to know how many overs he bowled. In the second test he bowled 33 overs (only Rafique bowled more than him).

Thirdly, his performance was very good considering the opponent, the pitch and the bowling support (or lack thereof) he got.

And last but not the least - did you actually watch him bowl? Given your comments, I am reluctant to believe that you actually watched the match ... seems like you are totally going by scorecard.

Oh, and one last thing - Aussie cricket fans are free to call Shahadat "crap" if they want to. To me, Shahadat and Rafique were our only two "real" bowlers in teh 2nd test.

First for your information I watched every ball of the two tests live. I took leave from my work for this match (fortunately easter holiday helped me). I slept for about 3-4 hour every day as game starts at 4:00 AM GMT.

Second, I don't want to make any further comment on Shahadat as I have already said a number of times. I am impressed a lot with this boy but I have rated him depending on his performance and contribution in this series. I know Shahadat bowled well against Sl (both home and away) still everybody was eagerly waitihng how he performs against aussies. His real aggressive intent as a bowler is a new thing in Bangladesh cricket thats why I mentioned him a real find for the series.

Thirdly, to my understanding if a bowler bowls more over he gets more opportunity to pick wickets and vice versa. Your perception might differ with me.

I mentioned aussie reference not to undermine Shahadat but to make you aware that at the end of the day performance is the most important thing in international cricket.

Hatebreed
April 20, 2006, 06:32 PM
I disagree with Sauron that just because Ashrafool flopped in the tests he should be dropped in the ODI series. Test cricket and One-day cricket are two different versions of the game and require two different approach.

In the test series, Ash was a bit unlucky in the 1st match, and the got out off silly shots in the 2nd. We know he has talent but lacks temperment, which is probably more important after Gillespie scored an unbeated doble-ton. The same goes for Aftab who was very tentative against Aussie spinners, got lucky serveral times and failed to impress overall.

However, they both showed signs of aggression which will be useful in the ODIs.

Anyway here are my gradings from the test series:

JO: D- (he scored what he scores most of the time, nothing earth-shattering. lacks improvement.)
SN: A- (Scored an brilliant century, but then fell for a duck followed by a good half century which should have been more)
Bashar: C- (good batting in general but silly dismissals, but weak captaincy, especially when we had the chance to beat Aus in the 1st match)
rajin: A (showed courage, occupied the creased and scored 3 solid innings inc. 2 50s.. he fielded well also)
ashraful: D- (unacceptable from a batsmen of his class)
aftab: D- (same as ash)
mashud: C (poor batting, but wicket keeping was decent altogether)
rafiq: A+ (bowled brilliantly, got us a breakthrough and went down with a good fight a true tiger)
masri: C- (he was decent in the 1st match but absolutely rubbish in the 2nd)
shahadat: A- (a very committed pacer, aggressive and energetic. he'll definitely shine with more exposure)
enamul: B- (bowled well in the 1st inning but failed to attack in the 2nd)
razzaq: D- (terrible.)

Sovik
April 20, 2006, 06:40 PM
shahadat bowled really well just didn't get wickets. he is a bowler with a big heart.

Hatebreed
April 20, 2006, 06:44 PM
It wasn't a great pitch to bowl in, but he never gave up. I really enjoyed his performance and hope to see more in future.

Sauron
April 20, 2006, 07:08 PM
First for your information I watched every ball of the two tests live.

Then we must have watched different maches. I must have been watching Irfan Pathan in the India-Eng ODI.

I disagree with Sauron that just because Ashrafool flopped in the tests he should be dropped in the ODI series. Test cricket and One-day cricket are two different versions of the game and require two different approach.


ভাইরে, আশরাফুলের সব খেলাতেই একই - একদিনের খেলাই হোক আর টেস্ট ম্যাচই হোক। প্রথম টেস্টে মাশরাফি আর শাহাদাত যখন বল করে জান কয়লা করে ফেলছে, তখন আশরাফুলের দাঁত ক্যালানো দেখে আমার অলরেডী মেজাজটা খারাপ হয়ে ছিলো। দ্বিতীয় টেস্টে ওয়ার্নের বলে আশরাফুলের অসাধারন লেগ-সাইড ফ্লিক দেখে আমার হৃদয়টা পাথর হয়ে গেছে।

আশরাফুলের দরকার এখন মোনালিসা'র সাথে একটা মিষ্টি মধুর ব্রেক। ক্রিকেট খেলে আর সময় নষ্ট করে লাভ কি?

CricTiger
April 20, 2006, 07:18 PM
I think Bangladesh team in the second test disgraced themselves quite effectively. We did have some very positive gains from the first test, but we squandered almost all of it in the second test.

This is my rating of the players (I have highlighted the ones that are different from yours)-

Shahriar Nafees : A
Javed Omar : F
Habibul Bashar : C (Callous runout and defensive captaining)
Rajin Saleh : A (He tried his best)
Ashraful : F
Aftab : C-
Pilot : C-
Rafiq : A+ (How much more does he have to do to get A+ ?)
Mashrafee : C
Shahadat : A (He gave it his all. The pitch worked against him. To me, he was at par with Bret Lee. Bad luck for him that Aussie Batsmen don't throw their wickets).
Enamul Jnr : B
Razzaq : F (Why does he get a D? He was an utter failure. Even Rajin bowled better than him)

Editorial: All players with an F next to their name in this list, need to be dropped from ODI team.

Better analysis. I do agree with you for your ODI formulas with the exception of ASH.:p

Hatebreed
April 20, 2006, 07:19 PM
I've also been hurt by his deteriorating performance but we have to realise this was test cricket against Australia. Ash still managed to those runs in his usual style but that approach is more effective in ODI. I'm hoping he'll get his form back in the one-day series, although it might not be an easy task after so much pressure piling on his shoulders (from fans and bad performance), on top of that a very tough opponent. Let's hope for the best!

Zunaid
April 20, 2006, 09:45 PM
While we engage in some bloody self-flagellation and wail forelornly at the full moon - do remember one thing. That was Australia and we are Bangladesh. Now, I too am tired of innings defeats after innings defeats - but then again after T1 this was a day 5 (even if there was rain) event.

So let us not be too quick to do run off the half the team over the cliff. We can only play with the cards we have.

Just ask yourselves honestly - what were your true expectations from this Test series and have we exceeded them.

Do excise yourselves of your personal animosity towards player x or player y while we all fire those neurons.

Miraz
April 21, 2006, 05:50 AM
I mentioned aussie reference not to undermine Shahadat but to make you aware that at the end of the day performance is the most important thing in international cricket.

After Chittagong test match Shahadat lost 10 places in ICC test ranking (he was 66th ranked now 76th). Its very harsh to Shahadat as he really bowled well & gave his 110% effort. Again we all should keep one thing in mind international cricket judges player based on performance & thats the case for Shahadat.

ICC test bowlers ranking (http://www.cricketratings.com/)

OZGOD
April 21, 2006, 09:27 AM
While we engage in some bloody self-flagellation and wail forelornly at the full moon - do remember one thing. That was Australia and we are Bangladesh. Now, I too am tired of innings defeats after innings defeats - but then again after T1 this was a day 5 (even if there was rain) event.

So let us not be too quick to do run off the half the team over the cliff. We can only play with the cards we have.

Just ask yourselves honestly - what were your true expectations from this Test series and have we exceeded them.

Do excise yourselves of your personal animosity towards player x or player y while we all fire those neurons.

Good post. It's all about small steps mate. You lot are infants in the Test world and it's all about managing expectations. The OZ just came from caning the Saffas 5-0 in a two three-Test series.

There are a lot of tiers in world Test cricket - you could argue that OZ are at a top tier by themselves, with India, Pakistan and England on the second tier just below them. The gap between tier 1 and 2 is not that great. These three teams are always competitive with OZ, but are probably not quite at the level of consistency that the OZ have displayed over time. The OZ came back to the pack after the Ashes defeat but are still on top IMO.

You could argue that the 2nd tier teams are generally competitive even away from home, except when they're playing in OZ (India being an exception, but they've dropped off in Tests since). An important characteristic of these teams is that they all have strong domestic competitions which constantly churn out an assembly line of players.

Then you have the third tier - SL, SA and NZ. These teams will generally fight hard for a few days but don't have the horsepower to compete over the full 15 sessions. They'll generally need luck, conditions, home ground advantage and a whole lot of things to go their way if they're to win. SA used to be in the 2nd tier and should probably still be based on their talent, but they've fallen away in Tests over the past few years, mainly because of their inability to win away from home (as with NZ and SL).

Then you have the fourth tier - WI, Zim and Bangladesh. As with tier 2 and 3, the gap between tier 3 and 4 is pretty big. These teams generally find it hard to win, either at home or away. Generally it's not an issue of talent - as these teams have lots of talented players - it's in terms of field professionalism, experience and mental strength that they are found wanting. Because they are not often in winning positions, they find it difficult to maintain their poise and composure on the occasions that they are. Also, the first class competitions that these teams draw talent from is generally not of a high standard - talented players tend to be plucked from relative obscurity, with little experience, and then have to learn their trade in the national team. But within their tier, it's very competitive.

Teams don't usually move up a tier overnight. It requires a long term plan. In the case of the OZ, the seeds of our success were sown way back in the 80s, after continued floggings by the WI. It required us to overhaul our team, the way our domestic comp was structured, the way we identified and encouraged talent, the way we treated promising young players, easing them into international cricket and making sure there were old heads in the team to provide guidance, and the way that we managed attrition due to age, loss of form and whatnot. Dav Whatmore is a good coach and did great things with SL, but he will need time and patience from administrators, your board and your fans.

It's nice to dream, and the 1st Test was almost a modern-day David-and-Goliath story, a fairytale nearly come true. While from a selfish point of view I wanted the OZ to win, as a fan of cricket in general I was cheering for Bangladesh. But realistically I'd hope this series has been very valuable for Bangladesh. The 2nd Test innings defeat shouldn't be taken too hard, as Bangladesh isn't the first team that the OZ have beaten by an innings. The Bangladesh team was always going to come down after a superlative performance in the 1st Test, and the OZ, with their pride wounded, were always going to come back very hard. I'd like to think that should Bangladesh be in a position to win a Test against a Tier 1, 2 or 3 team in the future, the learnings from the 1st Test would be far more valuable to the players than the 2nd Test debacle.

My 2c.

Miraz
April 21, 2006, 09:37 AM
Good post. It's all about small steps mate. You lot are infants in the Test world and it's all about managing expectations. The OZ just came from caning the Saffas 5-0 in a two three-Test series.

There are a lot of tiers in world Test cricket - you could argue that OZ are at a top tier by themselves, with India, Pakistan and England on the second tier just below them. The gap between tier 1 and 2 is not that great. These three teams are always competitive with OZ, but are probably not quite at the level of consistency that the OZ have displayed over time. The OZ came back to the pack after the Ashes defeat but are still on top IMO.

You could argue that the 2nd tier teams are generally competitive even away from home, except when they're playing in OZ (India being an exception, but they've dropped off in Tests since). An important characteristic of these teams is that they all have strong domestic competitions which constantly churn out an assembly line of players.

Then you have the third tier - SL, SA and NZ. These teams will generally fight hard for a few days but don't have the horsepower to compete over the full 15 sessions. They'll generally need luck, conditions, home ground advantage and a whole lot of things to go their way if they're to win. SA used to be in the 2nd tier and should probably still be based on their talent, but they've fallen away in Tests over the past few years, mainly because of their inability to win away from home (as with NZ and SL).

Then you have the fourth tier - WI, Zim and Bangladesh. As with tier 2 and 3, the gap between tier 3 and 4 is pretty big. These teams generally find it hard to win, either at home or away. Generally it's not an issue of talent - as these teams have lots of talented players - it's in terms of field professionalism, experience and mental strength that they are found wanting. Because they are not often in winning positions, they find it difficult to maintain their poise and composure on the occasions that they are. Also, the first class competitions that these teams draw talent from is generally not of a high standard - talented players tend to be plucked from relative obscurity, with little experience, and then have to learn their trade in the national team. But within their tier, it's very competitive.

Teams don't usually move up a tier overnight. It requires a long term plan. In the case of the OZ, the seeds of our success were sown way back in the 80s, after continued floggings by the WI. It required us to overhaul our team, the way our domestic comp was structured, the way we identified and encouraged talent, the way we treated promising young players, easing them into international cricket and making sure there were old heads in the team to provide guidance, and the way that we managed attrition due to age, loss of form and whatnot. Dav Whatmore is a good coach and did great things with SL, but he will need time and patience from administrators, your board and your fans.

It's nice to dream, and the 1st Test was almost a modern-day David-and-Goliath story, a fairytale nearly come true. While from a selfish point of view I wanted the OZ to win, as a fan of cricket in general I was cheering for Bangladesh. But realistically I'd hope this series has been very valuable for Bangladesh. The 2nd Test innings defeat shouldn't be taken too hard, as Bangladesh isn't the first team that the OZ have beaten by an innings. The Bangladesh team was always going to come down after a superlative performance in the 1st Test, and the OZ, with their pride wounded, were always going to come back very hard. I'd like to think that should Bangladesh be in a position to win a Test against a Tier 1, 2 or 3 team in the future, the learnings from the 1st Test would be far more valuable to the players than the 2nd Test debacle.

My 2c.

A very good post and an excellent analysis. I absoultely agree with you friend.

OZGOD
April 21, 2006, 09:59 AM
I reckon the next goals should be to get wins against Zim and WI home and away (they already have the home win against Zim), and maybe a home win against NZ, SA or SL. Or at the very least competitiveness over a five day period. This would be clear, tangible signs of progress and development of consistency. Unfortunately I don't believe you guys have any Tests in the next year, do you. :(

Obviously, things like improving the cricketing infrastructure that develops players should also be done along with whatever's done with the national team, to make the improvement sustainable in the long term - things like domestic comps, talent identification, etc. I don't think that's within the scope of a national coach's brief, but he should certainly be able to apply leverage to the appropriate people in your Cricket Union, who can then get the ball moving in other areas. I realise you may not have the resources to spend to do all this immediately - but success in sport lifts a nation's morale and mood, and could have impact on productivity (if you don't believe me, check out OZ or NZ economic figures when national sports teams are going well!).

sar2005
April 21, 2006, 09:59 AM
An excellent post OZGOD.A big thanks for writting an aussie's view on BD so nicely. Also the 4 tier you described, I don't think there is many in this forum who will disagree. With this post, this post mortem thread is really one of the best.
Great Stuff!!!

Miraz
April 21, 2006, 10:03 AM
I reckon the next goals should be to get wins against Zim and WI home and away (they already have the home win against Zim), and maybe a home win against NZ, SA or SL. Or at the very least competitiveness over a five day period. This would be clear, tangible signs of progress and development of consistency. Unfortunately I don't believe you guys have any Tests in the next year, do you. :(

Yap, unfortunately we don't have any test before WC. There is a slim chance of a test series with Pakistan as Zim vs Pak series is getting cancelled. Tests against NZ is still a possibility but no concrete news so far.

thebest
April 21, 2006, 10:18 AM
Good post. It's all about small steps mate. You lot are infants in the Test world and it's all about managing expectations. The OZ just came from caning the Saffas 5-0 in a two three-Test series.

There are a lot of tiers in world Test cricket - you could argue that OZ are at a top tier by themselves, with India, Pakistan and England on the second tier just below them. The gap between tier 1 and 2 is not that great. These three teams are always competitive with OZ, but are probably not quite at the level of consistency that the OZ have displayed over time. The OZ came back to the pack after the Ashes defeat but are still on top IMO.

You could argue that the 2nd tier teams are generally competitive even away from home, except when they're playing in OZ (India being an exception, but they've dropped off in Tests since). An important characteristic of these teams is that they all have strong domestic competitions which constantly churn out an assembly line of players.

Then you have the third tier - SL, SA and NZ. These teams will generally fight hard for a few days but don't have the horsepower to compete over the full 15 sessions. They'll generally need luck, conditions, home ground advantage and a whole lot of things to go their way if they're to win. SA used to be in the 2nd tier and should probably still be based on their talent, but they've fallen away in Tests over the past few years, mainly because of their inability to win away from home (as with NZ and SL).

Then you have the fourth tier - WI, Zim and Bangladesh. As with tier 2 and 3, the gap between tier 3 and 4 is pretty big. These teams generally find it hard to win, either at home or away. Generally it's not an issue of talent - as these teams have lots of talented players - it's in terms of field professionalism, experience and mental strength that they are found wanting. Because they are not often in winning positions, they find it difficult to maintain their poise and composure on the occasions that they are. Also, the first class competitions that these teams draw talent from is generally not of a high standard - talented players tend to be plucked from relative obscurity, with little experience, and then have to learn their trade in the national team. But within their tier, it's very competitive.

Teams don't usually move up a tier overnight. It requires a long term plan. In the case of the OZ, the seeds of our success were sown way back in the 80s, after continued floggings by the WI. It required us to overhaul our team, the way our domestic comp was structured, the way we identified and encouraged talent, the way we treated promising young players, easing them into international cricket and making sure there were old heads in the team to provide guidance, and the way that we managed attrition due to age, loss of form and whatnot. Dav Whatmore is a good coach and did great things with SL, but he will need time and patience from administrators, your board and your fans.

It's nice to dream, and the 1st Test was almost a modern-day David-and-Goliath story, a fairytale nearly come true. While from a selfish point of view I wanted the OZ to win, as a fan of cricket in general I was cheering for Bangladesh. But realistically I'd hope this series has been very valuable for Bangladesh. The 2nd Test innings defeat shouldn't be taken too hard, as Bangladesh isn't the first team that the OZ have beaten by an innings. The Bangladesh team was always going to come down after a superlative performance in the 1st Test, and the OZ, with their pride wounded, were always going to come back very hard. I'd like to think that should Bangladesh be in a position to win a Test against a Tier 1, 2 or 3 team in the future, the learnings from the 1st Test would be far more valuable to the players than the 2nd Test debacle.

My 2c.

One of the best analysis I ever read in a cricket forum. Thanx mate.

Miraz
April 22, 2006, 06:23 AM
I take the opportunity to say that this thread is mentioned in Cricinfo column by Andrew Miller.

Andrew Miller wrote

At banglacricket.com, the highly respected discussion forum, one recent thread led with a post-mortem of the series and a set of gradings for the players. The maiden centurion, Shahriar Nafees, picked up an A+ for his gutsy contributions, but his top-order colleagues, Mohammad Ashraful and Javed Omar, were both saddled with grossly unflattering Fs and demands to be dropped. To the neutral observer, their most serious crimes were that they allowed the occasion to get to them. Ashraful in particular, who scored that brilliant matchwinning century against the Aussies last summer, can't help but attract brickbats with every new failure.

Full story (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/bdeshvaus/content/story/245055.html)

OZGOD
April 22, 2006, 10:40 AM
Do any of your players play county cricket? Now that there are no Tests to be played, that's a good opportunity to play in a reasonably competitive circuit and refine things like temperament and technique. I feel someone like Ashraful - who's clearly your most talented batsman - as well as someone like Nafees and your other young bowler (forget his name) to get some valuable experience.

BanglaCool
April 22, 2006, 11:00 AM
Do any of your players play county cricket? Now that there are no Tests to be played, that's a good opportunity to play in a reasonably competitive circuit and refine things like temperament and technique. I feel someone like Ashraful - who's clearly your most talented batsman - as well as someone like Nafees and your other young bowler (forget his name) to get some valuable experience.
Until now, nobody in the county cared much about the talent or the names of Bangladesh cricket while opting for more obscure names from the neighbouring countries.

I really wish that some of the young players gets a chance in county cricket. Any exposure to foreign conditions and playing for your own pride and pocket will help them elevate the sense of responsibility, consequently, temperament.

Shaan
April 22, 2006, 12:35 PM
What happened to u guys. Gone crazy or mad. Rating performances, ha. Performance of a bunch of loosers who never learn anything, who never use brains, who never knows how to occupy in the crease in a test cricket. After gillispe shown that much patients, you guys should be ashamed yourself of rating the players who never know how to play test cricket.
I was involved in a personal chanllenge with one of my friend that BD can't bat today till lunch and I won. Cauz its true like daylight that this bunch of idiots will never learn to play.
We can just hope and imagine. Grade their performance. Make some "ah" and "oh" but the real playing is far far away. Come on people, wake up. Its Bangladesh team. Stop dreaming.

coommom dude don't be so pessimistics..

Shaan
April 22, 2006, 12:38 PM
really great analysis M:up:

sar2005
April 22, 2006, 04:08 PM
Congratulatins Miraz!! This was realy a good post mortem report and some nice comments by others.

I really found everything went fine for BD in test serries apart from the double hundreds by Gillespie. If someone else like Ponting, Hayden, Hussey or Gilchrist could have scored that double hundred, I am sure there have not been so frustration. This was the only black spot for BD in the whole test serries.

I really loved the lines from A.Miller in his article (which I quoted in another thread as well) -

quote
If they'd produced their second innings at Chittagong in the second innings at Fatullah, Bangladesh would have won that first Test at a canter; if they'd shown the same resolve in the first innings at Chittagong as in the first innings at Fatullah, then Gillespie's double-century would have come too slowly to enable the win.
unquote

So close but so far.............

Miraz
April 22, 2006, 04:29 PM
Congratulatins Miraz!! This was realy a good post mortem report and some nice comments by others.

I really found everything went fine for BD in test serries apart from the double hundreds by Gillespie. If someone else like Ponting, Hayden, Hussey or Gilchrist could have scored that double hundred, I am sure there have not been so frustration. This was the only black spot for BD in the whole test serries.

I really loved the lines from A.Miller in his article (which I quoted in another thread as well) -

quote
If they'd produced their second innings at Chittagong in the second innings at Fatullah, Bangladesh would have won that first Test at a canter; if they'd shown the same resolve in the first innings at Chittagong as in the first innings at Fatullah, then Gillespie's double-century would have come too slowly to enable the win.
unquote

So close but so far.............

Thanks friend for your kind words.

Exactly, double ton by anybody else would have been a very normal proposition. Anyway we need to do good in the ODI series to keep our performance graph in right direction.

TAQATOO
April 23, 2006, 04:04 AM
For me, each and every player got an F. Why ?
Simple math, they can't play cricket, rather then test cricket.
Why ? cauz they don't have any brain's. (If they do, they might learn from gilly atleast)

Miraz
April 23, 2006, 04:14 AM
For me, each and every player got an F. Why ?
Simple math, they can't play cricket, rather then test cricket.
Why ? cauz they don't have any brain's. (If they do, they might learn from gilly atleast)

Oh my god. Cricket???:-/ They were swimming :p It was a water polo match. Haven't you seen that :E