Part of an article from Telegraph

[Sharek]

This is just two paragraphs from that article, rest was pretty much the same as other papers

The after-effects of last week's torrential downpours meant that play could not start until 2.30, the scheduled beginning of the final session. And it would not have started at all if the home side - a development team listed as the Bangladesh Cricket Board President's XI - had not acceded to England's request to bat first.

"Michael Vaughan wasn't very keen to bowl, which I can understand because the run-ups were a bit dicey," said John McInnes, an Australian who is coaching the home team. "For us, the important thing was just to play some cricket and have a look at some of our young players. We're not playing for sheep stations here."

Thought it was interesting, so why toss?

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by Sharek]

[Carte Blanche]

So there was no toss?

[Sharek]

Sorry, what I meant was if England had already decided that they would only bat if play was possible on the first day, why did they even toss in the first place.

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by Sharek]

[Arnab]

Trescothick continues run of form by Simon Briggs in Dhaka (http://www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2003/10/13/scbrig13.xml&sSheet=/sport/2003/10/13/ixsport.html)

[Sharek]

thanks arnab

somehow I couldn't get the link to work and didn't want to paste the whole article

[Edited on 13-10-2003 by Sharek]

[Hasib]

That is SOOO unfair

[Sham]

The thing is, warm-up matches are scheduled to give the touring side some practice. In our case, we are also using it to break in a few youngsters, but lets not forget, these matches are scheduled for the benefit of the England team, not for us. So usually, in tour matches, if the visiting team wants it a certain way, like batting first, they usually get their wish.