PDA

View Full Version : Never Play With 2 Pacers


nahaz
March 1, 2008, 04:27 AM
I have no idea why...but for some reason or other a lot of the members here, and the selectors, think it is perfectly reasonable to play with 2 pacers.Not only is that a grave mistake, since u practically negate any chance of keeping the opposition under pressure with quality pace bowling over a 10-20 over period , we also have one of those 2 pacers off-form, Mashrafee. There's a reason why Australia even don't wanna go with 2 pacers, and it's not that only Warne was a good enough spinner.See, if a guy like Shahadat gets 3 wickets in quick succession, and then there's no third pacer, you're just throwing the game away after a while. Imagine what would have happened if Shahadat got those wickets first and then they scored 500.
We also overestimate the quality of our spinners... it's too much to ask spinners to get most of the wickets anyway.Then u have only rafique who has some good experience. And our curators are also not too smart in creating any specific type of wckiets.
But like I said, NEVER play with 2 pacers again. At least have a Farhad Reza as a 3rd pacer, if not a Rasel. It has to be someone who has the CAPABILITY to put the opposition under pressure with a fine spell every now and then, and good control at other times.
Seriously, it's worth playing even one less batsman for one more pacer. Mostly, the extra batsman doesn't make much difference.

arafath79
March 1, 2008, 07:03 AM
Exactly Nahaz, I agree with you. The whole Bangladesh Cricket Team, the management and captain Ashrafool are dumb and failed to understand that playing only 2 pacers are the dumbest idea in every condition and even in a flat batting track. If Bangladesh had one bowler like Murali, one like Shane Warne or Anil Kumle then I would support them to go with three 3 spinners including Rafique(the only world calss spinner we have).

Alien
March 1, 2008, 07:27 AM
Exactly Nahaz, I agree with you. The whole Bangladesh Cricket Team, the management and captain Ashrafool are dumb and failed to understand that playing only 2 pacers are the dumbest idea in every condition and even in a flat batting track. If Bangladesh had one bowler like Murali, one like Shane Warne or Anil Kumle then I would support them to go with three 3 spinners including Rafique(the only world calss spinner we have).

Our spinners are nothing compared to Warne or Murali. Hence it makes more sense to play with fast bowlers. Problem is that fast bowlers are a rare item in BD. And I mean extremely rare. Slow less bouncy pitches only breeds spinners.

On that note, our bowlers success is usually limited to opponent's batsmen underestimating us, or they are having a bad day themselves.

arafath79
March 1, 2008, 07:48 AM
Our spinners are nothing compared to Warne or Murali. Hence it makes more sense to play with fast bowlers. Problem is that fast bowlers are a rare item in BD. And I mean extremely rare. Slow less bouncy pitches only breeds spinners.

On that note, our bowlers success is usually limited to opponent's batsmen underestimating us, or they are having a bad day themselves.

But the pace bowlers like Sajidul, Rasel, Farhad should get more opportunities to play in the test cricket. They will learn nothing if the bloody team management of BD leave them out of the squad and play 2 pacers only.

I have got a huge hope on the four up coming young pace bowles who are Rubel Hossain, Subhasish Roy, Mohamad Salahuddin and Dollar Mahmud. They arestill young and three of them played for under 19 team allready and they will be encouraged by watching the senior bolwers like Mashrafe, Shahadat, Rasel, Sajidul but if they see that the BD team is playing with 2 pacers speacially in the longer version of the game that will not give them confidence at all.

Tigers_eye
March 1, 2008, 07:50 AM
lol you play with 3 pacers and the score after 1st day stands 450/0 in 85 overs. Read more and understand the wicket first.

For SA, fast bowling is there strength. They have no spin attack. Thus they stick to their basics/strength.

Instead of batting track I wish it would have spinning track and we dropped Mash for an Off spinner. and let Aftab open with Shahadat for few overs and then start webbing them.

arafath79
March 1, 2008, 07:59 AM
lol you play with 3 pacers and the score after 1st day stands 450/0 in 85 overs. Read more and understand the wicket first.

For SA, fast bowling is there strength. They have no spin attack. Thus they stick to their basics/strength.

Instead of batting track I wish it would have spinning track and we dropped Mash for an Off spinner. and let Aftab open with Shahadat for few overs and then start webbing them.

If every one thinks like dropping pace bowlers then Bangladesh will never produce good pace bowlers at all.

The main job for the spinners are to keep one end tight enough and rest the fast bowlers to gain their strenght back. Most of the time spinners need support from the wicket and a bit of luck to get wickets and win the match for the team unless they are Murali, Kumble or Warne. But a good fast bowler can get wicket with raw pace in any sorf of wicket. Look at Shahadat, he is the leading wicket takers in the test series but he needs to generate some more pace.

Umar
March 1, 2008, 08:00 AM
Sayed Rassel or Farhad Reza should've been playing in this test. Instead of RAZZAK!

"u can argue that razzak got smith out...but it doesnt matter because RAFIQ Dropped a Catch the previous day"

Ajfar
March 1, 2008, 10:22 AM
well tehnically we played with 1 pacer...cause as far as i'm concernedd..Mash doesn't really countt..he needs a break...

Rabz
March 1, 2008, 11:10 AM
Pacers or no pacers, im tired of SLA's.
Too many of them in our cricketing scene.

may be we should force them to bowl otherwise.

detroitpagla
March 1, 2008, 11:18 AM
hmm...so u r another bangali pondit think that by playing 3 pacers would do the job?
Previous pondits said play with 3 spinners. kool!!!
"koyla doile moyla jai na" it doesn't matter if u play 11 pacers or 11 spinner
bangladesh batting f*****g sucks :hairpull:

lamisa
March 1, 2008, 11:43 AM
well,i want to see quality leg spinning in the bd team.

mildwind
March 1, 2008, 12:02 PM
I really dont blame bowlers. There was not anything on the first day in chittagong for bowlers.

However our batsmen could not negotiate properly last 16 overs that put us in this situation.

Rifat
March 1, 2008, 12:56 PM
three words:

SYED RASEL IS AWESOME!!!!

Rifat
March 1, 2008, 01:03 PM
I Love Rasel!!! Excellent Gift Of Bangladesh, Try Not To Abuse Him Or Lose Him

FagunerAgun
March 1, 2008, 01:49 PM
Well, we can argue for hours on less pacers more spinners, less spinners more pacers, no spinners all pacers, all spinners no pacers, retard selectors, more selectors, no selectors, all BC memers are selectors, but the result will be almost the same, because of our super talented, hyper, gullible, black diamond, brown diamond batsmen and super flop 'very successful' WK and the pitch curator.

nahaz
March 1, 2008, 05:16 PM
Tiger's eye anDetroitpagla, I did not say playing 3 pacers would mean we get the opposition out under 200 all the time, or even sometimes. I said, or at least meant to say, that it makes much more sense playing 3 pacers since it gives our pace bowlers a chance to be effective. See how Shahadat got all those wickets. Don't you think that if there was a 3rd pacer he could have taken advantage of the pressure created by Shahadat and maybe taken one more wicket. Sometimes Shahadat and Mash might bowl an excellent 6-8 overs but the batsman know if they get through this they don't have to worry about pace for the rest of the session. Plus Mashrafee isn't in form so why 2 pacers?

Plus spinners usually are there to sustain pressure after the pacers have already put them on back foot. That's how even Warnie was successful.The other times , well he was the best ever. Razzak's no Warne or even Kaneria in tests.And often captains go back to pacers right after breakthroughs(mainly coz not every spinner is Warne/Rafiq:D).

Mind you detroitpagla, before you start swearing at Bangladesh,:waiting: even NZ couldn't handle Steyn. And the comeback the bowlers made yesterday after SA scoring 500+/1 MADE ME PROUD. That was a real show of character.
Which makes me curious..<b>now that Rafiq is gone, should we ever play 2 specialist spinners?</b>:-/ I say, in non-spinning pitches just play Sakib for the next year. Play Razzak and Enam at home/sub-continent for now.And hence 3 pacers is the way to go. And since we don't ever have 7 in-form/classy batman ,why not play with 4 bowlers plus Sakib more often than not in tests? It's always aggressive, and will mean a hero like Shahadat might rise out of the 4.

al Furqaan
March 1, 2008, 05:43 PM
our selectors really don't know what to do, hence they are plugging in players who shouldnt be playing tests ie razzak. supposedly we heard razzak was developing a doosra, that was back in WC. where is it?

enam should have played. also i think siddons is a very hit or miss type guy. he introduced novel training procedures before NZ tour: great. then took a break right after: wtf. then we push sa in T1: great. then his post game comments: ummm. now someone apparently says that he doesnt think highly of enam. i am beggining to have doubts as to how much siddons can do.

djnaved
March 1, 2008, 05:57 PM
I think rajjak got much variation than enamul, plus he can bat. However, his bowling line length in test cricket is not up to the mark, he tries different things,can frustrate the batsman, but it's not in the line. To me Enam is like unresourceful, bowl in a decent length, but can't frustrate the batsman

Btw,

Rafique says that Rajjak can be his best replacement in test cricket. Also he included Mosharrof Rubel

djnaved
March 1, 2008, 06:05 PM
supposedly we heard razzak was developing a doosra, that was back in WC. where is it?

.


lolz, it was enamul, He said he is developing a new weopon than can frustrate left arm batsman, it was almost like doosra

detroitpagla
March 1, 2008, 06:26 PM
i understand where u coming from but we(bangladesh) have too many short time heros so if we can get couple of permanent heros that will be good for our nation! UNTILL THEN WE HAVE HORRIBLE BATTING LINE UP!:ticking:

tiger_army
March 2, 2008, 08:14 AM
C'mon guys we need a bowler who can ball 145-150 an hour who can scare the batsman with those speedy bouncer hit few of them on the head....Agressive Fast bowling is a important key of test cricket. Every team has such kind of bowlers in the squad-

Australia - Lee, Johnson
India - ishant, Sresant
Sri Lanka - Malinga
NewZealand - Mills , Martin
SAfrica - Steyn, Morkel
Pakistan - Asif
Sorry i don have any idea abt england and WI.

these guys are very agressive and can destroy a good batting line up....We have good medium pacers like Sahadat (i like his reverse swing ability), Rasel (line & length), Mash(though out of form) but we need a bowler who can bowl 140-150 km/ hour and can hit the batsman.... is there any???? I dont think, Dolar, rubel is good enough.......

tiger_army
March 2, 2008, 08:19 AM
Another thing we shudnt rely on spinners as our Striking bowler....tell me in last 10 yers how many quality spinners have rised. Apart from Murali, Warne, Kumble i dont think there are any super class spinners. On the other hand look how many super class fast bowlers have risen.

BANFAN
March 2, 2008, 09:32 AM
But the pace bowlers like Sajidul, Rasel, Farhad should get more opportunities to play in the test cricket. They will learn nothing if the bloody team management of BD leave them out of the squad and play 2 pacers only.

I have got a huge hope on the four up coming young pace bowles who are Rubel Hossain, Subhasish Roy, Mohamad Salahuddin and Dollar Mahmud. They arestill young and three of them played for under 19 team allready and they will be encouraged by watching the senior bolwers like Mashrafe, Shahadat, Rasel, Sajidul but if they see that the BD team is playing with 2 pacers speacially in the longer version of the game that will not give them confidence at all.

None of these bowlers are bowling above 130 and neither such effective against test playing nations that we need to give them encouragement to come to the team.

We need pacers who can bowl over 140 when needed.

Current situation is an excellent encouragement for those unknown youngstars aspiring to be a fast bowler to be clear that, he needs to bowl above 140 and with intelligence to come to the team.

Our spinners are also not so great in comparison, but they are more effective than pacers.

One needs to have the arm to throw a ball at that speed, can become effective with pactice, if given a chance in the national team.

lamisa
March 2, 2008, 09:56 AM
Well, we can argue for hours on less pacers more spinners, less spinners more pacers, no spinners all pacers, all spinners no pacers, retard selectors, more selectors, no selectors, all BC memers are selectors, but the result will be almost the same, because of our super talented, hyper, gullible, black diamond, brown diamond batsmen and super flop 'very successful' WK and the pitch curator.

i know that the curator sucks but do not blame mushy.we all know what he is capable of doing.few months back people here were shouting to get pilot off the side but now suddenly you all want him back because mushy is going through a draught!this is outrageous.siddons sees a great future ahead of him and no offense but i believe that siddons as more cricket knowledge than u do.before you can blame our batsmen for being impatient please look @ yourself whos not even being patient with our keeper.:hairpull::hairpull:

smashyboy
March 2, 2008, 11:31 AM
Ya playing 2 pacers is the one mistake that cost BD this match.. Stop deluding yourself. Accept it.. South Africans are too good for BD.

FagunerAgun
March 2, 2008, 11:42 AM
i know that the curator sucks but do not blame mushy.we all know what he is capable of doing.few months back people here were shouting to get pilot off the side but now suddenly you all want him back because mushy is going through a draught!this is outrageous.siddons sees a great future ahead of him and no offense but i believe that siddons as more cricket knowledge than u do.before you can blame our batsmen for being impatient please look @ yourself whos not even being patient with our keeper.:hairpull::hairpull:

Are you before you preach? Did not I say super flop very successful WK, some people think that Mushy is very succefull, other group including the media think Mushy is not good. So why is the whining then?

arafath79
March 2, 2008, 12:33 PM
None of these bowlers are bowling above 130 and neither such effective against test playing nations that we need to give them encouragement to come to the team.

We need pacers who can bowl over 140 when needed.

Current situation is an excellent encouragement for those unknown youngstars aspiring to be a fast bowler to be clear that, he needs to bowl above 140 and with intelligence to come to the team.

Our spinners are also not so great in comparison, but they are more effective than pacers.

One needs to have the arm to throw a ball at that speed, can become effective with pactice, if given a chance in the national team.

Both Shahadat and Mashrafe clocked above 140 kmp in their career but not in this test series. They have the ablility to bowl faster than they r bowling in this series so far. The way u people r saying it looks like u want all spinners in the team and there are no spaces for pace bowlers in bangladesh team.

If u r well enough to judge then u should realize by now that Shahadat ( NOT A SPINNER ) is one of the successful bowler so far in this series. He did bowl very well in the last New Zealand series as well and he bowled consistently with the pace of 134-136 kmp and clocked above 140 kmp three four times.

My point is, not to over use Shahadat and need third pacer in the teram to support him.

BANFAN
March 2, 2008, 02:29 PM
Both Shahadat and Mashrafe clocked above 140 kmp in their career but not in this test series. They have the ablility to bowl faster than they r bowling in this series so far. The way u people r saying it looks like u want all spinners in the team and there are no spaces for pace bowlers in bangladesh team.

If u r well enough to judge then u should realize by now that Shahadat ( NOT A SPINNER ) is one of the successful bowler so far in this series. He did bowl very well in the last New Zealand series as well and he bowled consistently with the pace of 134-136 kmp and clocked above 140 kmp three four times.

My point is, not to over use Shahadat and need third pacer in the teram to support him.


You got me wrong. I know what Shahadat and Mash had been doing and I am not talking about them. If there is any one pacer equal to them, you are most welcome. But a compromise candidate will ruin the standard and inspiration for the younger one's to bowl faster if 125 can make a place in the team.

Please remember that Both Shahadat and Mash marginally meet the standard of other world class fast bowlers at the moment. You can't go bellow that to make a feast for the oposition batsmen. A spinner can attain the skills to be effective much faster than increasing the pace and skill of a fast bowler. India has been plaing with 3/4 spinners for about 50 years. They are only recently having some faster bowlers.

My point is, take any bowler who has a better skills to trouble the opposition at the moment. He may be a spinner or a Fast bowler. in my view I don't see these 125 type pacers troubling the opposition much. We already have russel in the slot. who has troubled the opposition in a few occassion, not with pace but with his intelligence.

nahaz
March 3, 2008, 12:41 AM
Smashyboy, u didn't read my post did u? I said it is a tactical error, didn't say it is the one thing that cost us the game....it did put us on the backfoot tho right from the start.And it always does when a team plays with 2 pacers.If u didn't notice a pacer cannot bowl 30 overs in a row like a spinner can.

Now,everyone, remember we lost 5 wickets to Kallis in the 1st test. I'm sure he doesn't bowl above 130. But see, he has skills. So since we don't have a 150k bowler like Bond, we need to use what we have and give them more exposure and thus they'll be more skilled.Obviously you would not just want a lolly-feeding bowler who just is there to fill the quota. But I'm sure there are pacers with potential who can trouble many batsmen in future with their 130-135 kph balls. Anyone heard of McGrath? Or Wasim in his last few years? Shoaib played along Wasim for a long time but Wasim/Waqar were always the better bowlers. You get my point.Right?

Oh, and no real use discussing any of this till our batsmen learn to play cricket.But still...less problems the better

Murad
March 3, 2008, 12:43 AM
We need to have a pace bowling allrounder in Test.

Farhad Reza is the perfect choice. He has good FC batting average.

PLus he's a good bowler as well.

We should play him in place of Shakib.

nahaz
March 3, 2008, 12:47 AM
Banfan, I agree in a sense with u...the most skilled should play. But we need variety too. And bowling 70% of overs with left arm spinners doesn't help us. Pacers can fluke it more easily too, with just one inspired spell of three overs.
If our spinners had enough skills SA should have been out under 300 this test, with 3 tests. It was our home ground.And it's no mean task to expect so much of spinners.

arafath79
April 8, 2008, 09:01 AM
বাংলাদেশের সোনার Spinner রা ডুবাইল আজকের ম্যাচে। Selectorder ধরে ভরে দেওয়া দরকার। Why the মদন selectors of Bangldesh can't realize Pakistan is not Ireland ??? Bowler like Riyad will obviously look ordinary against Pakistan who have got master spinner like Malik and they had class off spinners and leg spinners like Saqlain, Abdul Kadir, Mustaque Ahmed.

Winning combinition my foot. The winning combition against Ireland will not work against Pakistan who have good batsmen like Yousuf, Younis , Malik.......

The Bangladeshi selectors are still not learning.

al-Sagar
April 8, 2008, 09:40 AM
play 11 pacers.

mashrafe rasel shahadat sajidul talha rubel dolla subhashis nazmul reza manjurul

this 11 will almost score same runs as the BD national team

WarWolf
April 8, 2008, 02:46 PM
বাংলাদেশের সোনার Spinner রা ডুবাইল আজকের ম্যাচে। Selectorder ধরে ভরে দেওয়া দরকার। Why the মদন selectors of Bangldesh can't realize Pakistan is not Ireland ??? Bowler like Riyad will obviously look ordinary against Pakistan who have got master spinner like Malik and they had class off spinners and leg spinners like Saqlain, Abdul Kadir, Mustaque Ahmed.

Winning combinition my foot. The winning combition against Ireland will not work against Pakistan who have good batsmen like Yousuf, Younis , Malik.......

The Bangladeshi selectors are still not learning.
And they will never learn.

auntu
April 8, 2008, 02:53 PM
And they will never learn.

no never

arafath79
April 8, 2008, 04:33 PM
I felt sorry for Mashrafe today coz he had to bowl 7 overs consistently in his first spell. Please play 3 seamers in the main XI and give Mashrafe a bit of rest after his first 5 overs bowling spell in both ODI and test even if he bowled a over like 5-5-5 !!! Mashrafe should bowl his first 5 overs with full strength and speed and then he should be replaced by another seamer( Farhad may be in ODI ).

AsifTheManRahman
April 8, 2008, 05:40 PM
Playing Rasel *could* have reduced the total to something below 250. Cricket's more of a mental/situational game - had we been able to keep things a bit tighter right from the beginning, the extra pacer option would have ensured that we don't get clobbered in the middle overs. The lack of runs would have lured the batsmen into doing silly stuff, getting themselves out in the process. The loppa bowlers in the middle simply allowed them to settle down into an attacking mode and go for the kill later on.

Fazal
April 8, 2008, 05:48 PM
The result is sooo lop sided ... I don;' know where people get the idea that one player will change that game. It will not. A Rasel for mahmudulla could have contained PAk below 300. but not definitely as low as 250 as some people are saying. Its called day-dreaming. Even World class bowlers rarely contain Pak below 260 in PAK batting friendly pitch.

Our problem is beyond one player deficit. I agree we were one FB short in the team. I also don;t disagre that Rasel should have been in the team instead of a bastsman or mahmudulla. But in no way a Rasel could have make this game a cometative one/

cricket_pagol
April 8, 2008, 05:58 PM
Look the fifth bowler slot gave away 99 runs without taking any wickets... if we had a genuine bowler who took a wicket or two and gave away 40-50 runs... we could have restricted the pakis to a chaseable total of 250.

Now the batting wise, our team is terribly inconsistent. I would be surprised if BD crosses 200 in any of these games. I have been waiting to see them score 250 in a match against a test playing nation for a long time... I think the last time was in 2007 world cup against SA.

BanCricFan
April 8, 2008, 05:59 PM
The result is sooo lop sided ... I don;' know where people get the idea that one player will change that game. It will not. A Rasel for mahmudulla could have contained PAk below 300. but not definitely as low as 250 as some people are saying. Its called day-dreaming. Even World class bowlers rarely contain Pak below 260 in PAK batting friendly pitch.



Rasel would have been the difference between 100 of 10 overs from Aftab, Riyad and Ash as 5th bowler. I dont think any team scored 100 of 10 in the middle overs against BD before!

When a team scores 100 of 10 (in the middle overs) its almost impossible to contain them even if you have a Murali or a Styen amongst your ranks.

AsifTheManRahman
April 8, 2008, 06:01 PM
The result is sooo lop sided ... I don;' know where people get the idea that one player will change that game. It will not. A Rasel for mahmudulla could have contained PAk below 300. but not definitely as low as 250 as some people are saying. Its called day-dreaming. Even World class bowlers rarely contain Pak below 260 in PAK batting friendly pitch.

Our problem is beyond one player deficit. I agree we were one FB short in the team. I also don;t disagre that Rasel should have been in the team instead of a bastsman or mahmudulla. But in no way a Rasel could have make this game a cometative one/

Well at least we would have a shot at making it competitive; whether it would happen or not is a different question. Given our current batting strength, we have very little chance chasing down anything in excess of 250. However, we lost the plot completely when we started off with two specialist bowlers and an all rounder whose bowling isn't even tested well enough.

It's giving ourselves a chance at making things go our way as much as possible that matters the most - we didn't do so with the selection in the very first place.

AsifTheManRahman
April 8, 2008, 06:07 PM
I agree with BanCricFan and cricket_pagol. The inclusion of an extra specialist bowler would have done more than reducing statistical gaps. The key is to apply pressure from the start, and continue to keep things tight in the middle overs. This intangible aspect of the game itself can reduce totals by a greater factor than individual bowling figures would suggest.

arafath79
April 8, 2008, 06:21 PM
The result is sooo lop sided ... I don;' know where people get the idea that one player will change that game. It will not. A Rasel for mahmudulla could have contained PAk below 300. but not definitely as low as 250 as some people are saying. Its called day-dreaming. Even World class bowlers rarely contain Pak below 260 in PAK batting friendly pitch.



I agree with Fazal but chasing 250 and chasing 300+ are not the same. We would have seen better BD batting performace if we could select three seamers in the game. Definitely Rasel would get some sort of movement to trouble the Paki bastmen in the wicket and help Bangladesh to restrict Pakistan within 240-250 runs.

arafath79
April 8, 2008, 06:23 PM
Even Waqar said that three seamers are always required in the main XI in any sort of wicket.

Ajfar
April 8, 2008, 06:26 PM
everyone knws abt our SLA...they ain't that special...specially on a track like thiss.....they way they going oneday we might see 5 SLA bowlers bowling all 50 overs for bangladesh

FagunerAgun
April 8, 2008, 06:47 PM
I agree with this thread but our selection committe has random short term memory loss.

Ajfar
April 8, 2008, 07:08 PM
this is frm cricinfo
Bowlers who can take wickets, as Bangladesh hopefully learned from today, are priceless regardless of whether or not they can hold a bat or a catch.

Fazal
April 9, 2008, 08:30 AM
Look the fifth bowler slot gave away 99 runs without taking any wickets... if we had a genuine bowler who took a wicket or two and gave away 40-50 runs... we could have restricted the pakis to a chaseable total of 250.



Even for the sake sake of argument that is true (mark in green) , still it doen'd add it up to chaseable total of 250 (Mark in Red). Lets see the maths here:

322 - 99 + 45 (middle) = 268.

Plus when the team folds in 129, chasing 270 is day dreaming.

Again I am not arguing about Rasel's inclusion, He should be there instead of Mahmudulla or another specialized batsman. Nor am I arguing about the lack of one bowler short in the team, because I was also saying the same for a while; we have too many GOOD FOR NOTHIONG specialized batsman. But his (Rasel) inclusion would not make it a competative game. The score was soo lopsided.... its beyound one player fix.

lamisa
April 9, 2008, 10:19 AM
this is soooo shameful!

Fortuner
April 9, 2008, 10:40 AM
our selectrs think they will olways destry ny batting attack wid spinners...as we have smtimes did dt,they getting carried by that
bt those morons shld noe paks or dt matter asian teams are gud in playin spin
nw, they should drop riyad and take shahadat, drop farhad take rasel, drop aftab and take zunaed

BANFAN
April 9, 2008, 11:30 AM
It has been proven in the past that BD can chase upto 250. We have never chased over 300, so the batsmen didn't know what to do and how to approach. I know their performance is shameful, but that's what happens with batting, even in established teams if the target is very high. For BD it was beyond comprehension. But that's also not acceptable from professionals.

Having said that, lets look at some of the root causes, that lead to such big score and eventually collapse in the batting order:

1. Our bowling dept. - We played with three full time bowlers in a batting friendly pitch. That was unperdon able. We can't take chance on 20 overs. If bowling is not good how can one expect to keep them to 250 or defend a similar total if batting first? Our team management is neglecting the bowling side on some strange, alien thoughts, which I guess many of us understand.

2. Secondly, reading pitch had always been a problem of BD team. I know our players, ex-players none are that experienced on pitch, but what happened to the coach? Shouldn't he understand that and guide us? There were basic mistakes in understanding the pitch, even in the past under this coach.

3. Walker said before the match, that this is a pitch favoring the batsmen and it is very much possible to chase down 300+ on this pitch. Which has happened a lot here. Shouldn't the coach keep them mentally ready to chase 300+. If they were mentally ready they wouldn't have done what they did with bat. We may not have won, but could see a different approach not panic.

I am not looking for scapegoat, at the end of the day, it is the players who are at fault, but aren't we paying a foreign coach for bringing such expertise with him? Otherwise, those silly team rule type bulshit coaching can be done by sarwar or half of the BC members if not all, virtually anyone. Why keep him to drain money, if we have to learn these things by paying through mistakes?

jisaan
April 9, 2008, 11:42 AM
we must play ELEVEN BATSMEN

Fazal
April 9, 2008, 11:44 AM
I think the problem is "Gadha Ke Peetayee Goru Banano Jai Na", even you hire an expensive coach, he cannot make soemthing out of nothing. Sooner we realize that, the better it will be for the team. Our core problem is our batting. Our batting backbone consist of three experienced player in SN, Ash and Aftab who all have significant experience. Now SN is a opener and hope is still there that he may grow further. But we cannot say the same for Ash and Aftab. Adn these two are killing us day in and day out expect may be two thre games in a year. The problem is not the coach, the problem is with our experienced "Adu Bhai" batsmans who have plenty of style but no material inside to show for.

And ofcourse the major culprit is the selectors who doen't have the backbone to make the right decision and drop these experienced "Gadha" players who already proved they are not going to rectify their mistakes. Insetad they are still hoping against hope, protecting and paddng these experienced "Gadha" players and therby compromising our bowling strength and selecting un-balanced team.

Fazal
April 9, 2008, 11:48 AM
we must play ELEVEN BATSMEN

based on batting performance? Then I agree. Because that will slove out bowling problem also. Razzak, Mashrafee, Farhad, Shahadat, Rasel will all qualify in the team ahead of some of the so called specialized Batsman. These 5 will out score the current top 5 in the batting order.

nahaz
April 9, 2008, 06:59 PM
Firstly, thanks Arafath79 for bumping up the only thread I ever opened. Feels good:-D

But on a serious note....this obsession with 3 spinners is becoming like a contageous infection caught by all our selectors.Rafique has retired,and I don't think playing spinners just for containment ever work in ODIs. Mahmudullah should give way to Shahadat/Rasel for now.

Shahadat is a great ,attacking, fast medium opener who can only get better. His control has got better in recent times, and he's more effective than Mash. He should play. Rasel is also a great bowler who can keep one end quiet with good bowling, often resulting in wickets for himself and/or his partner. Problem with him now is Farhad is also bowling well and is similar to him, though a touch more expensive,but farhad can also bat.That said, He can still bring more to the game on some pitches than Razzak,<b> but then we play only 1 spinner, which is so unBangladeshi:-D</b>. He could also be considered to replace Rakib if he fails. I don't think there's any hope in playing an extra batsman for Bd. (Congrats to Mashrafee for being our highest scorer last game.)

I would love to see the selectors play 4 pacers for two consecutive games , just to see if it clicks. There's nothing to lose;)...it would be very effective against India.Also, I think Siddons underestimates our talents...that's not cool.Rasel is better than Ian Harvey or a lot of sub-continental bowling. And he works hard..we need Rasel.

nahaz
April 9, 2008, 07:02 PM
One more thing...the more pacers you play the easier it is to rotate them and keep them fresh.
And it is easier for pacer to bowl a line which is unplayable than for spinner. So they can save more runs.

BANFAN
April 10, 2008, 01:27 AM
I think the problem is "Gadha Ke Peetayee Goru Banano Jai Na", even you hire an expensive coach, he cannot make soemthing out of nothing. Sooner we realize that, the better it will be for the team. Our core problem is our batting. Our batting backbone consist of three experienced player in SN, Ash and Aftab who all have significant experience. Now SN is a opener and hope is still there that he may grow further. But we cannot say the same for Ash and Aftab. Adn these two are killing us day in and day out expect may be two thre games in a year. The problem is not the coach, the problem is with our experienced "Adu Bhai" batsmans who have plenty of style but no material inside to show for.

And ofcourse the major culprit is the selectors who doen't have the backbone to make the right decision and drop these experienced "Gadha" players who already proved they are not going to rectify their mistakes. Insetad they are still hoping against hope, protecting and paddng these experienced "Gadha" players and therby compromising our bowling strength and selecting un-balanced team.

Even the most promising new comers are not performing. What can the selectors do?

The mistake of not playing the specialist bowlers in playing 11; can't be attributed to the selectors. They have made everythin available in the 15 member team. Now it is the coach/team management who is responsible to pick that 11. I would still consider the coach to have made a big mistake there. Just think, If a coach in a football match takes 10 centre forwards, can the team even score? They will remain busy doing something they are not good at. That's what our all batsmen's team was doing. Busy bowling to keep the score low, how they will concentrate on batting?

But off course, you are also right in pointing out the inability and irresponsibility displayed by our batsmen. The batsmen are also to be blamed to certain extent, along side poor team management.

BD-Shardul
April 10, 2008, 01:38 AM
Never Play With 2 Pacers?

I would say play will 12 pacers (12th man has to be a paceman too).

irteja
April 10, 2008, 01:48 AM
I would say play will 12 pacers (12th man has to be a paceman too).
:lol:

AsifTheManRahman
April 10, 2008, 01:52 AM
Even for the sake sake of argument that is true (mark in green) , still it doen'd add it up to chaseable total of 250 (Mark in Red). Lets see the maths here:

322 - 99 + 45 (middle) = 268.

Plus when the team folds in 129, chasing 270 is day dreaming.


But you're missing the pressure factor though. An extra bowler who bowls a tight line and length has more to offer than mere additions and subtractions. Let's say the inclusion of Rasel yielded a couple of wickets (2 for arguments sake) along with the 45 runs. As he usually bowls all his overs near the beginning, with Mashrafe bowling with quite a bit of fire from the other end, Pakistan would have been in immense pressure, and Farhad and Razzak would then be able to capitulate on that. Under such circumstances, booking them below 250 wouldn't have been impossible.

Bowling Aftab, Ashraful and Riyad simply ensured that they settle down with a couple of big hits and go for the kill near the end without having to worry about not having enough wickets in hand.

Of course this is all an hypothesis, but I think it's a damn good one - while the opposite might have happened, at least we'd give ourselves a chance at reducing the total by miles.

Spitfire_x86
April 10, 2008, 02:25 AM
I don't understand why does people think 250 is a chasable target for us. Just doing it once against Australia doesn't mean it a norm. It's like saying 400+ is a chaseable total for South Africa.

Anything beyond 220-230 is an almost impossible target for us, preferably 200 for a comfortable chase. We couldn't even chase 240 against Ireland! As usual, we have to depend on opposition team's total batting failure in order to win.

BANFAN
April 10, 2008, 02:59 AM
None can guarantee that a team will definitely win if the target is even kept to 180. All are relative to the performance on the day.

Isn't 250 more chaseable than 322 ? That's the point.

AsifTheManRahman
April 10, 2008, 03:03 AM
250's just a number. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that at least we'd have a chance of preventing the Pakistani batsmen from going insane. 322 is humiliating, but 250's not. Given the way our batsmen play, anything more than a "shommanjonok porajoy" would seem like a bonus, and we'd probably have to book 'em below 170/180 to earn that bonus.

crikfreak
April 10, 2008, 08:11 AM
3 pacers in 1st match would have made a big difference.. we might have still lost.. but it would less humiliating..

Tigers_eye
April 10, 2008, 08:31 AM
Looks like ASH is a puppet. In the post game show he mentioned the team needed a third seamer.

Now on the second ODI, BD will still go with two pacers again? Chief selector oikhaney gasey kano?

arafath79
April 13, 2008, 01:27 PM
Bangladesh played well today and booked Pakistan within 308 runs and Mashrafe and Shahadat showed good bowling even in the flat batting wicket. Farhad is a handy allrounder. Now selectors should realize that 3 pacers r required in any sort of wicket.