PDA

View Full Version : Important capabilities that are missing in the current test team


WarWolf
June 28, 2007, 09:13 AM
It was another disappointing show in the first test against Srilanka. In the second innings, we have seen some positive things which should be taken to move forward for the rest 2 test matches. It has been evident for years that we have some areas where we have some serious lackings which really hurts the progress.

The biggest problem that has been hurting is lack of consistency in batting. Our batsmen doesn't seem to know how to approach a test inning. They are either too much attacking or too much defensive. Sahriar Nafees is a perfect example of being over attacking in the second innings while Ashraful is a good example of being extra defensive. They never rely on rotation of strikes to release the pressure from their shoulders. There may be some technical problems in their batting, not sure though; but what hurts most is their poor temperament.

Mashrafee and Rajib are good attacking pace bowlers. But they lack some real fast bowling features. None of our pacers are good enough at delivering well directed yorkers which can produce a lot of wickets if they can be used perfectly. None of them are master of reverse swing. Yourkers or fuller deliveries with good reverse swingers are very much productive. Ability to give slowers without altering action is another important thing. We are not very much strong here also. Without a strong pace department, we never can be a good competitive side in test cricket.

We need a real good leggie in our team. Ashraful bowled well, but he didn't use odd ones well enough to produce wickets. A good off-spinner can always make a big positive difference in the bowling line up. I am eagerly waiting to see Mahmudullah Riad. Let's hope he will come here to stay. Ability to take wickets needs a lot of variation in bowling department.

We don't have any specialized slip fielder. Need to work with this problem too. We improved our fielding to a great extend in last 2/3 years which is a very good sign.

The most important thing, that is missing, is the killer instinct and the determination to continue hard work every single moment. If fact the moment Srilanka got bangladesh all out for 89, the result of the match became certain. Yet they never seem to relax for a single moment until the game is over. This is what we need in our team.

sharifk
June 28, 2007, 09:45 AM
I disagree that our players aren't capable of performing. As I stated in another thread, the problem starts when our capable players are asked to perform not according to their capabilities. This happens when we select a team to play for a draw, so it (the team)includes players of defensive mentality. And this gives wrong message to the players with positive mentality. As a result, some players of capability are kept out of the team, and the ones are in the team try to alter their natural style of play, and no capability is displayed. Let's not look at the wrong reasons and put our players down. Here are some reasons that I believe are the problems:

http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/showthread.php?t=22419

WarWolf
June 28, 2007, 11:51 AM
I disagree that our players aren't capable of performing. As I stated in another thread, the problem starts when our capable players are asked to perform not according to their capabilities. This happens when we select a team to play for a draw, so it (the team)includes players of defensive mentality. And this gives wrong message to the players with positive mentality. As a result, some players of capability are kept out of the team, and the ones are in the team try to alter their natural style of play, and no capability is displayed. Let's not look at the wrong reasons and put our players down. Here are some reasons that I believe are the problems:

http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/showthread.php?t=22419

I agree with you to some extent though, but yet the important thing is lack of mental and some pure technical capabilities.

Rubu
June 28, 2007, 12:26 PM
WW,

'Rotation of Strike' is a phrase that associates with ODI as a norm, but not in test. In test, it is pretty much impossible to score big runs just by singles and doubles. The field placement is the main reason. When in ODI, you have them all over the park, you can find the gaps and place the ball to pick up the singles and you have to be able to do that in each ball, as there is only 300 of them. In test however, all the fielders are in catching positions and they have only one thing in mind, get you out, not save the run. So, you just can't play too much shots. you have to wait for the bad balls and when you get that you send it out of the park. So, I did not see anything wrong with Ash's innings, except for those 3 balls (two sweeps and one over the wicket when he got out). Regarding SN's innings, if I'm not mistaken, murali came over the wicket and he was out first ball. that poor. he should have waited to see what is coming before hitting it out. but, before that I did not see him doing anything wrong.

WarWolf
June 28, 2007, 12:34 PM
WW,

'Rotation of Strike' is a phrase that associates with ODI as a norm, but not in test. In test, it is pretty much impossible to score big runs just by singles and doubles. The field placement is the main reason.
For a defensive type of batsman rotation of strike is not important is test. That's why I didn't use Rajin as an example. As he is basically defensive type, he can be happy just defending. But for someone who is basically of attacking type, rotation of strike is important. Cause not scoring quicky puts pressure on him and finally he plays some false stroke and gets himself out. This is the case that happened to Ash yesterday. As he can pick gaps easily, he could find gaps for singles very easily. Not doing that finally made him play a very foolish stroke. And you know the rest.

Sohel
June 28, 2007, 01:07 PM
Good observations as always WW.

My humble solution: More.First.Class.Cricket.

WarWolf
June 28, 2007, 02:43 PM
Good observations as always WW.

My humble solution: More.First.Class.Cricket.
Not only more first class cricket, but also tough first class cricket.

Shafin
June 28, 2007, 02:44 PM
Good observations as always WW.

My humble solution: More.First.Class.Cricket.
And also get some class foreign cricketers there.

They were talking of giving the Dhaka league 1st class status,that would be great,clubs certainly has the financial capability to get us those players.

Tigers_eye
June 28, 2007, 03:54 PM
For a defensive type of batsman rotation of strike is not important is test. That's why I didn't use Rajin as an example. As he is basically defensive type, he can be happy just defending. But for someone who is basically of attacking type, rotation of strike is important. Cause not scoring quicky puts pressure on him and finally he plays some false stroke and gets himself out. This is the case that happened to Ash yesterday. As he can pick gaps easily, he could find gaps for singles very easily. Not doing that finally made him play a very foolish stroke. And you know the rest.
Sorry, I can not agree on Ash's out. It is pure lack of concentration and understanding of the situation on his part. No reason to go after those balls at that time. The pressure didn't affect him for 170 balls. He was happy not rotating the strike for 35+ overs. How come all of a sudden from 171 balls it mounted that he couldn't control? All of a sudden he wanted to find gaps? I don't buy that. It is the lack of concentration and understanging of the situation. That's all. A player must adjust between the three form of games we have. That is his duty. Twenty/20 almost blind hitting. ODI hitting and rotate strike. Test not giving up his wicket. Our players have yet learn the differences.

Rotation of strike is not that important in test. Especially in the first 4 days.

WarWolf
June 28, 2007, 04:15 PM
T_E bhai in my opinion, your comment is perfect with defensive batsmen. But for attacking batsmen, patience game without scoring much is against their natural instinct and always risky. If someone continues to play against his nature, in part it is likely for him to loose concentration and play as rash shot. Going against the nature is always very tough and very people can handle it properly.

Foozy
June 29, 2007, 01:17 AM
T_E bhai in my opinion, your comment is perfect with defensive batsmen. But for attacking batsmen, patience game without scoring much is against their natural instinct and always risky. If someone continues to play against his nature, in part it is likely for him to loose concentration and play as rash shot. Going against the nature is always very tough and very people can handle it properly.

i have to agree here with WW.... see this is where the "natural game" of a player comes in.. coz some can handle those long and tireless blocking game... and others just cant... u need runs ... successive runs at times...
i would hav to point out simple examples of bashar at his best times... and ash or SN at their best times... at their individual peaks (for ash its not a period of time... rather the matches he did produce superbly...)... they did hav the class... playing up to the marks of any good players... and yet they did hav that HUGE diference of styles... ash was always the one takin huns here and there... ull find plenty of 2s and 3s in his runs... with much less balls faced.. SN also played good knocks in fewer balls... (u can check stats for confirming)... but if u look at the best knocks of bashar or JO... it was always slow and tedious..
neither are better than the other.. and both are actually required in a good team id recon.. u just need to balance them out... and control them just to a certain extent so that they dont get carried away...
but ya... players need to enjoy wat they are doin in the way they do it best...

WarWolf
June 29, 2007, 05:24 AM
As far I remember, during Edie Barlow's period as our coach, Bangladesh played really well; though that was probably before getting test status. He proved a coach can certainly make some real difference for a team like bangladesh.

battye
July 1, 2007, 03:32 AM
They should set themselves targets.

For instance, the opening pair must be told to make 100 runs. It's as simple as that... 50 each.

If the openers build a solid foundation, then by the team the first wicket falls, one of the pair will have already 'got in', and will be on a score around 50.

Then the aim should be no worse off than 2/150, 3/200, 4/225 and 5/250.

At 5/250, one of the batsman should be well and truly in, and nearing (or past) their century.

Then the aim should be to do whatever is necessary to make 400. If that means playing in an attacking manner from both ends (ie. Ashraful at one, Mortaza at the other) then so be it. If it means a lot of defense from both ends (ie. Javed Omar and Khaled Mashud) then it doesn't matter, as long as the team is either all out for a score over 400, or declares if that is what must be done to ensure a positive outcome.

Sohel
July 1, 2007, 05:06 AM
Quantity of matches and a small number of well organized, financed and marketed teams are bound to improve quality. Simple math that will pay dividends. Wishful thinking and preserving the status quo won't.