PDA

View Full Version : Shomman jonok porajoy


Tigers_eye
June 20, 2007, 03:36 PM
I don't know what this really means. I picked up this term at BC. shomman jonok porajoy. But what I gather from here and there is those who have a low strike rate falls in this category. Yes? No? KM, JO and to an extent Sakib has been accused of these.

So I ask members to clarify this term to me. Thank you.

Addition to this, Ash's comment of trying to extend to five days in each of the test falls into this category? Isn't playing like that is attesting "shomman jonok porajoy"?

I want to know what members think of the above comment.

Omio
June 20, 2007, 03:41 PM
Our level is not good enough to say that -amra jitbo,
thats why, all our captain recite this line, may b different way.

Rubu
June 20, 2007, 03:45 PM
Well, if you look at my sig, you would know what I think about it. But here is what the definition of it from my point of view.

In simple words, not going for the win from any situation but try to make the scorecard look good is a shonman jonok porajoy. Be it a target of 8 an over for 20 overs, if you don't try it, that is honorable defeat.

now, going back to ash's comment about 5th day. You have to keep in mind one thing and that is very important, in test there is a 3rd option called draw. A draw is not a defeat and there is nothing wrong with playing for draw.

specially when you know the actual strength of Bangladesh team compared to SL. Now, if you can take it to 5th day, you can look forward to a draw. If Ash says that from this point of view, I'm all with him.

sadi
June 20, 2007, 03:55 PM
If someone doesn't know how to walk, there is no point teaching him how to run. Let him learn how to walk first and he will run eventually. If we can take the games to the day 5, there is a very good chance we will be in the driving seat because our batsmen are shot makers by nature. Just tell them to stay in wickets for 2 days. Runs will come.

Tigers_eye
June 20, 2007, 03:56 PM
Ah! we are sprinters in ODIs I see.

Thank you Rubu.
You better add ODI some where in your signature. :)

I would like to say from now on in a tournament group matches where RRR is important we don't fault our players of playing sedately when the top order collapses.

FaridpurChicago
June 20, 2007, 03:57 PM
Well, if you look at my sig, you would know what I think about it...

I do agree on your signature.
I do agree with your finishing sentences. Taking to 5th day doesn't mean shomman jonok porajoy only, it may mean draw as well. And there's nothing wrong in looking for a draw in test. In fact the greatest of all time Mr Gavasker played half of his test matches looking for a draw.

My concern is what Khaled Masud is looking for. His approach is Shomman jonok porajoy and this approach leads us to a horrible porajoy. He scored 7 in 50+ balls. If he can hold like this then I had no question. But what happens is, he scores 15 and gets out.

Please don't compare him with other slow hitters. JO, Rajin is perfect looking at our strength and necessity of staying longer in the middle.

SS
June 20, 2007, 04:00 PM
If someone doesn't know how to walk, there is no point teaching him how to run. Let him learn how to walk first and he will run eventually. If we can take the games to the day 5, there is a very good chance we will be in the driving seat because our batsmen are shot makers by nature. Just tell them to stay in wickets for 2 days. Runs will come.
I wish your words/hope/dream turn into reality. Unfortunately, our batsmen can't stay in wickets more than 20-40 mins :(

ammark
June 20, 2007, 04:07 PM
I think we'll be better served if the parameters of shommanjonok porajoy are defined. Here are a few hypothetical scenarios:

i. Chasing an impossibly high score of 340+ out of 50 overs, BD team decides to aim for a shommanjonok porajoy by trying to bat out the full 50 overs.

ii. In test matches, after 2 and half days of bowling our hearts out, we're made to start our first innings... and the target is to avoid follow on. Inevitably we manage to surpass the follow on requirement by a little bit especially thanks to lower order batting, after a top order collapse.

iii. After having batted first innings, put on a good score in 4 sessions... the next 7 sessions are spent bowling the opposition. 2nd innings arrives, by which time opposition has amassed a big enough total to take the lead.... Bangladesh team decides to chase, but is too tired and inevitably theres a batting order collapse again.
- Bangladesh team decides that they will try to take 6 wickets before the opposition chases down the total on the 4th and 5th days. Thus some shommanjonok way of losing but making the opposition work for it.

....feel free to add more.

Rubu
June 20, 2007, 04:11 PM
Ah! we are sprinters in ODIs I see.

Thank you Rubu.
You better add ODI some where in your signature. :)

Nope!

My sig is for both test and ODI. We should not play for defeat of any sort in any form of the game. We should target Win in ODI and draw in test. Then, when we progress more in test, we should target win there as well.

Tigers_eye
June 20, 2007, 04:36 PM
trying to survive for 4+ days is simple as trying to have a face saving loss. Isn't that what all this means?

selina
June 20, 2007, 06:31 PM
trying to survive for 4+ days is simple as trying to have a face saving loss. Isn't that what all this means?

Well we all have different perspectives,so maybe that's what it means to you. But that is not the way I interpret it. To me when Ash says he wants to surivive for 4+ days he doesn't automatically mean he's playing for a shommano jonok porajoy.
He is trying to say that in order to win the batsmen need to be batting for that many days, only then will they have a good chance of winnng. If the batsmen can't survive for 4+ days then their chances will get slimmer and slimmer.

Therefore you see, Ash is only trying to complete the first step to a test win, he's not looking for a loss. he's just trying to take it step by step. And he knows our batsmen are weak in that area and he's making there job clear to them. "If you bat out for atleast 4 days we may just win." I don't think he's trying to say "OK, our target is only to bat for atleast 4 days, forget about the rest."

It's like a recipe, if you forget one single instruction, the entire dish will be ruined. Just like in cricket, if you hurry and just try to win without any small targets and goal the whole match will be "borbad'.

Anyways best of luck to Ash an co.:)

Trigger_Tiger
June 20, 2007, 06:37 PM
I don't know what this really means. I picked up this term at BC. shomman jonok porajoy. But what I gather from here and there is those who have a low strike rate falls in this category. Yes? No? KM, JO and to an extent Sakib has been accused of these.

So I ask members to clarify this term to me. Thank you.

Addition to this, Ash's comment of trying to extend to five days in each of the test falls into this category? Isn't playing like that is attesting "shomman jonok porajoy"?

I want to know what members think of the above comment.

Lasting 5 days would most likely result in a draw. Hence that would not be a shomman jonok porjaoy since a loss is not in context. However, if the match is lost in the 5th day, it would be a shomman jonok porajoy only if we push the opposition to the limit :)!

al Furqaan
June 20, 2007, 07:08 PM
Well, if you look at my sig, you would know what I think about it.

your stance on "honorable defeats" is the most well known on this forum :)

In simple words, not going for the win from any situation but try to make the scorecard look good is a shonman jonok porajoy. i agree, but only in a perfect world. in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about welfare states vs cut throat states because no one would be poor. in a perfect world, communism wouldn't seem so bad. in a perfect world, our test status would not be in question. in a perfect world...

there are instances where honorable defeat is abhorrent - i.e. 1st ODI against india at Mirpur where Bashar let dhoni milk 90 of the easiest runs in his career. utter bullshit of the highest form. in my mind, we won that ODI, and hence drew the series 1-1. i don't care what any BC poster says or what any indian fan thinks or mocks. [edit] de silva and his best friend, haba, lost us that one, thank you very much.

however, i would point to another so called honorable defeat: ICC champions trophy match against Sri Lanka. chasing 300+ we get 265 in 50 overs.

at the time, our hero, saqib caught all this flak for playing such a negative innings! today he is our hero. but yours truly said something along the lines of "don't judge saqib's worth by this one match...grow a backbone, folks"

was that a winnable game? you betcha.

should we have won? not at all.

when SN and ash wasted balls at the start of the innings, you can't expect a rookie on virtual debut to lead the team to a chase of 300. plain and simple. that game was not meant for us to win. it was no cardiff 05, gayana 07, or bogra 06. i for one am satisfied with knowing we could have won, and of seeing us put on 265, regardless of how sloppy SL bowled and/or fielded.

bangladesh are just not that good yet. i support the team, just ask the numerous indian and paki trolls who have [edit] figured BC was a most in-hospitable environment. i take great pride in [edit]. and i am not afraid to dream big.

but i try to keep a perspective when chewing out our players. sometimes the task is bigger than they are. there isn't anything demeaning about that, for if it were, teams like Australia would own 100% winning percentages.

*********

further you have this un-ideal situation where we have elitist pricks breathing down our necks. any bad performance from BD, and we have a serious, if unlikely, chance of losing test/odi status.

in that light, i would take an honorable 30 run loss, rather than a 150 run loss trying to win. retaining our rightful position at the highest level is more important than satisfying my egoistic urge to "go for the win" at all times and costs.

now, going back to ash's comment about 5th day. You have to keep in mind one thing and that is very important, in test there is a 3rd option called draw. A draw is not a defeat and there is nothing wrong with playing for draw.

especially for us. but if a win presents itself, a real shot at a win, not a "chase 250 in 30 overs courtesy of dravid" shot, but a legitimate shot at a win such as chasing 100 with 90 minutes of play left to win, then we should sieze that opportunity even at the risk of an innings defeat.

If Ash says that from this point of view, I'm all with him.im sure thats what ash means.

sandpiper
June 20, 2007, 07:16 PM
I dont know the implied meaning of Ash's comment. But I am pragmatic about our possibilities in the forthcoming series. I believe "PORAJOY SHOB SHOMOI OSOMMANJONOK" there is no such thing like "sommanjonok porajoy"

nobody will remember the losing team. the history of world cup cricket would attest to this truth... in 92 New Zealand were thoroughly superior than other sides, south africans had a hard luck in 92 and 99. India was one of the underdogs in 83 (and they lost to west indies in a group match)

chasing 340 in 50 overs, when our team lose 3/4 quick wkts against a top ranked team, then if our lower order cant maintain the asking rate, it doesnt mean that we are playing for a "sommanjonok porajoy". they just cant afford to play those luxurious shots

I can remember the typical batting of Harschelle Gibbs and Langvelt against Bangladesh in Guyana. they were not taking strokes even when the asking rate went above 10. because it is meaningless to throw wkts when the opponent bowlers are on song (you just cant afford to play strokes then). Even in the world cup final once Dilshan and Chamara gone out, Srilankan lower order didnt go for an unlikely target.

Spitfire_x86
June 20, 2007, 07:39 PM
Addition to this, Ash's comment of trying to extend to five days in each of the test falls into this category? Isn't playing like that is attesting "shomman jonok porajoy"?

I want to know what members think of the above comment.
I think this is a highly contagious disease in Bangladeshi cricket. I'm not surprised a bit to hear these words from him. He made his debut with the "sommanjonok proajoy & co.", and has been in touch with them during all these years. In an ideal scenario, anyone who utters these words would be banned from coming within 100 feet of the team. But in reality it's not possible.

Spitfire_x86
June 20, 2007, 07:45 PM
Taking to 5th day doesn't mean shomman jonok porajoy only, it may mean draw as well. And there's nothing wrong in looking for a draw in test. In fact the greatest of all time Mr Gavasker played half of his test matches looking for a draw.
Playing for draw before a single ball is bowled is a horrible idea. It's as bad as playing aimlessly. The team will lose with almost 100% certainity, if the opposition is considerably stronger. On the other hand, you give yourself a chance if you play the game as it should be played.

Gavaskar's main achievement is record of runs and centuries. He and players like him nearly killed test cricket (You could find them by dozens in the 50's). Most of the great batsmen in the history of test cricket were aggressive, Gavaskar/Boycott and few others are exception.

Spitfire_x86
June 20, 2007, 07:50 PM
Taking to 5th day doesn't mean shomman jonok porajoy only, it may mean draw as well. And there's nothing wrong in looking for a draw in test. In fact the greatest of all time Mr Gavasker played half of his test matches looking for a draw.
Playing for draw before a single ball is bowled is a horrible idea. It's as bad as playing aimlessly. The team will lose with almost 100% certainity, if the opposition is considerably stronger. On the other hand, you give yourself a chance if you play the game as it should be played.

Gavaskar's main achievement is record of runs and centuries. He and players like him nearly killed test cricket (You could find them by dozens in the 50's). Most of the great batsmen in the history of test cricket were aggressive, Gavaskar/Boycott and few others are exception.

My concern is what Khaled Masud is looking for. His approach is Shomman jonok porajoy and this approach leads us to a horrible porajoy. He scored 7 in 50+ balls. If he can hold like this then I had no question. But what happens is, he scores 15 and gets out.

Please don't compare him with other slow hitters. JO, Rajin is perfect looking at our strength and necessity of staying longer in the middle.
JO doesn't qualify as any kind of specialist batsman. Please don't put Rajin in the same basket with him.

gadha
June 20, 2007, 09:52 PM
:fanflag: JO doesn't qualify as any kind of specialist batsman. Please don't put Rajin in the same basket with him.

lol.. that is true. I like the way Rajin Saleh plays. He gets set first and then starts playing shots. Unfortunately that is the sign of end is near. But on the other hand JO plays the same innings throughout whether we are at first 15 overs mark, 30 overs mark (if he lasts) or 40 overs mark (HOLY COW JO is still there, god bless us all and shurjo poshim dike utse)... tc...:fanflag:

layperson
June 20, 2007, 10:07 PM
As far as I am concerned there is nothing called shommanjonok porajoy. How can defeat be "shommanjonok" !!!! You either lose the match or win the match. The only benefit of losing by a lesser margin or playing to lose by a lesser margin is some lower order batsman will have inflated statistics, eg pilot. They would appear more useful than they are in real life. There should be no place for a defeatist attitude in any sport team and our team should go for wins and wins only. IF you are batting second then we should think this way, if the other players could make it against our bowling then we can and should be able to make it against their bowling. We should consider ourselves at par with our opponents. This positive and aggressive approach will make the team shine through in many occassions while we will also come face to face with horrible defeats. I am willing to take them on the chin provided the team goes for the win.

sadi
June 20, 2007, 10:32 PM
Totally agree with Selina. When Ash is urging our batsmen to take the game to the fifth day by staying in the wickets and making partnerships, that will definitely be a huge improvement from what we have seen in recent days and it automatically give us a chance to go for a better result.

Baundule
June 21, 2007, 03:32 AM
Every match is there to win!
Rubu's sig. says it all.

Every one must try his best to win the match.

BD-Shardul
June 21, 2007, 03:42 AM
Bhai o Bonera,

Shommanjonok-Oshommanjonok porajoyer bornona tottogan e amar mostishko aulaiya jaitetse. tarporeo apnader ekta proshno kortey chai:

SL sofore BD jodi protiti test match 5 din (Assumig that rain will not affect any of the matches) kore khele porajito hoy, tahole apnader koyjon okhshi thakben?

Please reply. I will find out your stance on honorable defeat.

ammark
June 21, 2007, 04:11 AM
BD_Shardul, porajoy'er manoshikota niye khellei sheta oshommanjonok. 5 din hok, 1 diner khela hok. Taader Khela jeeta'tai uddeshyo howa uchit. 5 diner mathay jodi porajoy mene niyei khele, taate shomman kothay? Jeetar jonno to cheshta korte hobe, srom dekhate hobe.

Baundule
June 21, 2007, 04:11 AM
Bhai o Bonera,

Shommanjonok-Oshommanjonok porajoyer bornona tottogan e amar mostishko aulaiya jaitetse. tarporeo apnader ekta proshno kortey chai:

SL sofore BD jodi protiti test match 5 din (Assumig that rain will not affect any of the matches) kore khele porajito hoy, tahole apnader koyjon okhshi thakben?

Please reply. I will find out your stance on honorable defeat.

It depends on the attitude. If we are going for the win, with proper planning, I dont mind, even if we lose terribly within 2 days. (Though that could happen, only if SL is too strong to grind us. SL is certainly not that stronger.)

But if from the start, we are aiming at a deafet on the 5th day, that will do no good for my respect towards the team.

Sohel
June 21, 2007, 09:35 AM
Shonmanjonok porajoy: an oxymoron used by real morons.

Lor'hai kore hara: that I understand.

Spitfire_x86
June 21, 2007, 10:44 AM
Shonmanjonok porajoy: an oxymoron used by real morons.

Lor'hai kore hara: that I understand.
These two words can be synonyms, depending on how they are used.

If you set Lor'hai kore hara as target before the match, it becomes a synonym for Shonmanjonok porajoy.

Rubu
June 21, 2007, 11:02 AM
These two words can be synonyms, depending on how they are used.

If you set Lor'hai kore hara as target before the match, it becomes a synonym for Shonmanjonok porajoy.
I would have to disagree here. Lorai Koray hara would be the one you go for the win and end up losing. I do not mind that. I do not expect the team to win all the matches they play nor that would be a good thing (as the meaning of the game will be lost). However, I want that 'lorai koray hara' in each game they lose. And that lorai is to go for the win regardless of the situation. But again, that is in ODI. In test, we are still in a situation where win against SL is out of sight.

And as you said in earlier post that if a bowl is not bowled and we play for draw that is same as shonman jonok porajoi, I have to disagree with that. If you think we can win a test against SL in this series, I'd have to say you missing few things here and there. playing for draw is our best bid as that is 100 times better than a lose.

sandpiper
June 21, 2007, 11:35 AM
agreed 100% that the phrase "shommanjonok porajoy" is an oxymoron
like these ...... :smug:

Peace force
Pretty ugly
living dead
upside down
united nations
unbiased opinion
usually unusual
second best
open secret
major minority
ill fortune
calculated risk
advanced basic
liquid gas
IBM-Apple compatible
hot water heater
honest politician
free market
homework
defensive strike
common phenomenon
civil work
a fine mess

:)

Shonmanjonok porajoy: an oxymoron used by real morons.

Beamer
June 22, 2007, 12:02 AM
Spitfire is spitting fire ! he is right however.

How many test matches these days go the entire length of five days? Not as many as say 15 yrs ago. A whole lot of games finish within four days now a days. I blame this, for the better, on Australia. They are the ones who has made 4 rr fashionable in tests ( 90 over a day - 350-360 runs per day ) and everybody else had to change their style to keep up with them. Now, some teams fall flat on that pursuit, but as a result of the change of attitude, you do see the likes who can play that type of game flourish. Look at the top ten test players now and compare them to players from twenty years ago. Who are among the top batsmen? Ponting, Petersen, Yousuf, a re tooled Dravid ( who used to bat like a tortoise in late nineties ), Gilchrist, Hayden, Jayawardene, Lara etc - all great attacking men with healthy avg and SR. Don't look further than our ex captain. He doesn't boast the highest avg among us just becasue he liked to play possum. Runs matter always. You play naturally with your brain to score in test matches. Without the intent to score will get any batsman in trouble.

All this talk of survival first, stay in wkt two days, don't bother about runs - dosen't belong to cricket in this century. If we want to learn to play test cricket, we learn the way its played now, not in '74, nor in '84, but now. I will back the players who are ready to do just that.

PoorFan
June 22, 2007, 01:33 AM
All this talk of survival first, stay in wkt two days, don't bother about runs - dosen't belong to cricket in this century. If we want to learn to play test cricket, we learn the way its played now, not in '74, nor in '84, but now. I will back the players who are ready to do just that.
While I support T_E, Rubu and others on learn first to stay long, but you have a good point.

Rubu
June 22, 2007, 07:43 AM
Beamer, that is what we have been trying to do for last five years. And there is a big difference between all the other test nations who follows the australian style and us. Let me give one example, when every team was taking full advantage of the 15 over restriction (now 20), we were concerned with keeping wickets at first. Why, when we tried like other team, we needed up in trouble. This does not mean you don't try. but you take an approach that is suitable for you. What is suitable approach for a 100 years old test team is not suitable for us. that is why we need to first learn to stay there longer and then work on getting more runs. one at a time that is, if we try to do both, you know what happens, opposing players gets two extra days of vacation.

ottawaGuy
June 22, 2007, 08:53 AM
IMO a "shommanjonok porajoy" shouldn't be associated with intentions of "porajoy" at all. It can rather be rephrased as a moral VICTORY! Something that surpases the outcome of the game.

A team plays every game to win. In cricket, teams often find themselves in overwhelming circumstances with an unrealistic chance of winning. But there are a distinct bunch on people- individuals who stand out. These individuals are capable of fighting against the inevitable and they create history. In cases where they fail however, they still remain within the hearts of passionate fans as heroes. Consider Ian Botham and his case of lost tooth as published in a recent cricinfo article. Had Ian lost that game, it would've still, neverthless been a tremendous effort well worth of quoting in the history of cricket. Such loses, if they were to occur, would come to the humble fans as somewhat acceptable defeats. Having said all this I would say Bangladesh hasn't had too many games that can even be rated as honourable defeats.

Baundule
June 22, 2007, 09:24 AM
So, let's get a real-life example ;)

In the weeekend before the last weekend, we had a 15 over per side tape-tennis cricket match. The team batting first (my opponents) scored a massive 144 runs (credit to the opponent's batsmen as well as to one of our 'shoukhin' bowlers, whose one over costed five sixes :)). So, we needed almost 10 runs per over to chase this down. It was not an easy target, even though it is a tape-tennins cricket match. (Our regular scoring rate is between 4 and 7 RPO).

I, as a captain, looked at the faces of my team players and everything looked so bleak in their eyes. I tried to instill the belief that the match is not over. We can still win it, though it's quite tough. Let's give it a go. My instant decision was to change the batting order, oroginally a hitter-grafter combination was thought of for the opening, in stead I went for the hitter option from both ends. It was a tough decision actually. If they fail, we did not have enough people afterwards to hit and we are done. So, the intial instruction was to target one of the opening bowlers and for others, hit if not in the line and defend first and think of quick singles (for the first 5 overs) if in line. We got the result immediately. The first ball of the second over was hit for a 6 and the next one (a no-ball) went for a 4. The usually quite accurate opening bowler lost his line. :)

Unfortunately, the first wicket, the best of our batsmen, fell in the third over and then it became quite tough. Stepping up at one down, I played my part quite sensibly, building partnerships with minimum of risks, while hitting the bad deliveries for boundaries. We were closing in the gaps and the last over needed only 13 runs to win. I was bowled in the first delivery of the 15th over and we eventually lost the match by 9 runs! (tailenders were guests playing cricket once in a year)

At the end, we could really thank ourselves for our effort. We tried our best and never gave it up. :)

ottawaGuy
June 22, 2007, 09:50 AM
HAHAHA @ Baundule! entertaining read.lol

Tigers_eye
June 22, 2007, 09:58 AM
Good experience B.
What if the strategy failed? would you ask your boys not to finish the game within 8 overs? Or would you ask them to make sure the opponent finish their bowling quota? If you choose the second would it be considered as "shomman jonok porajoy"?

As for the style of the game in test cricket this is what I understood till now.

There are three types of players (in a early stage of life).
Ones who are good at both version of the game.
Ones who are good at Test (Technically sound).
Ones who are good at ODIs (Boom Boom jodi laiga jai with very little patience).

The ones who are good at both have no issues of adjustment.
But eventually a good test player can become a good ODI player. A Good ODI player can't become a good test player (Most of the time and there is exception).

Spitfire_x86
June 22, 2007, 10:23 AM
How does Afridi (probably the most brainless batsman in the history of international cricket) has a better test average and more test centuries than all of our players?

Not that I wish for a BD test team made of 11 Afridis, but this type of team would certainly bring much better result than a team filled withi 11 Golla/Pilot.

Baundule
June 22, 2007, 10:49 AM
TE, the strategy itself was adaptive to the situation, quite unlike what our captain Sir Habib follows. :)

In longer version of games, usually one finds more time to adjust and recover from a bad situation. So many times I have seen Steve Waugh or Adam Gilcrist taking the full control of the game, inch by inch, even after getting themselves at 150/6. Patience is the key for test cricket. In ODI, one has much less time to respond to the situation. Some players do it by atacking the oposition (not exactly, Sokka or Mokka) and some others take more careful approach like trying to build parnerships by scoring singles and rotating the strike.

Good players are eligible enough to adjust their games. It does not matter, if they are playing tests or ODIs. Problems are with those who have only one gear. They are fit either for ODI or for test.

Spitty, I think, Afridi is also a good test player. Most often he playes sensible cricket in tests. He is NOT always the boom boom man. But most often, he has to play that role for the team. He faces 42 deliveries per innings, compared to 50 by Gilchrist. Not that bad!

ottawaGuy, thanks.

al Furqaan
June 22, 2007, 10:53 AM
i actually agree with both beamer and rubu...

Beamer
June 22, 2007, 12:22 PM
Beamer, that is what we have been trying to do for last five years. And there is a big difference between all the other test nations who follows the australian style and us. Let me give one example, when every team was taking full advantage of the 15 over restriction (now 20), we were concerned with keeping wickets at first. Why, when we tried like other team, we needed up in trouble. This does not mean you don't try. but you take an approach that is suitable for you. What is suitable approach for a 100 years old test team is not suitable for us. that is why we need to first learn to stay there longer and then work on getting more runs. one at a time that is, if we try to do both, you know what happens, opposing players gets two extra days of vacation.

Rubu, I understand your point of view, but will repsectfully agree to disagree!

One of the reasons behind our reasonable one day success lately is due to the fact that we changed our approach and attitude on how to tackle the power plays. Arrival of SN, promotion of Aftab to no.3 and the latest arrival of Tamim indicates that we 'intend' to take the prevalent approach. End result : lot more victories in ODI's in the past year than ever before. It can always backfire, but we will also win a lot more. So, our approach is correct in that regard and we put suitable players for those positions.

Our Test approach is flawed to the teeth. We have preordained some batsmen thinking they are test quality. But, in reality, they are not. They might give you an impression of stickabiltiy, but in reality, they don't stick around long enough, yet they are tagged as, 'grinder' - test quality. We don't stick or score runs and end up averaging 240ish per innings.

It all begins though with tough domestic four day competitions. I agree that we are behind by miles in that aspect from '100 year' old teams, though a bit confused by what you meant. I guess you are trying to talk about teams with enough cricketing culture in the background. That can only happen over time as the culture of playing long innings firmly take root. I don't see us winning test matches regularly in the near future until we produce enough players who are used to playing long innings before they step up to the test arena. So, we will lose regardless, but, we can help ourselves right now if we pick the young players alreday available that has the penchant for domination and attacking flair. We keep our fingers crossed that by backing them, maybe they will learn to play longer innings in the future. I think the attitude should be, to term it loosely- " score runs and learn to stay- as opposed to -" stay in the wkt and learn to score runs later". The latter approach is 100 years old to borrow a word from you. The other approach is to play the game right now. Present and Future, not Past.

Sohel
June 23, 2007, 05:31 AM
These two words can be synonyms, depending on how they are used.

If you set Lor'hai kore hara as target before the match, it becomes a synonym for Shonmanjonok porajoy.

"লড়াই করে হারা" and "হারবার জন্য লড়াই করা" aren't the same IMHO. In fact, I'd say "লড়াই করে হারা" has more to do with "হারাবার জন্য লড়াই করা" ...

Sohel
June 23, 2007, 05:34 AM
Our Test approach is flawed to the teeth. We have preordained some batsmen thinking they are test quality. But, in reality, they are not. They might give you an impression of stickabiltiy, but in reality, they don't stick around long enough, yet they are tagged as, 'grinder' - test quality. We don't stick or score runs and end up averaging 240ish per innings.

Well observed as expected.

Pundit
June 23, 2007, 09:40 AM
Shomman jonok porajoy

I think we have to be practical here. We have to be mindful of not falling into the trap of youthful exuberance. Our players from the 80s,90s did not have the opportunities to hone their skills as players now do. Naturally, your objective would therefore be quite different.

The other aspect is that you may begin your career with great vigor (just as our test career began), but at every step you faltered, your aims are re-adjusted and your confidence eroded.

Fortunately for players now, they do get better coaching, and mental prep, and are more likely not to succumb to initial failures (which are also expected to be less with the better coaching).

So lets not get too hung up with this terminology. Things change every decade, and sometime the changes are greater.