PDA

View Full Version : It wasn't impossible..


Miraz
January 21, 2010, 04:06 AM
Only if our top order batsmen understood the difference between positive strokeplay and reckless shots!!! This is TEST not ODI.

We had about 40 overs to go and fell short by only 113 runs!!

Well done Mushfiq.

DJ Sahastra
January 21, 2010, 04:10 AM
It was definitely not impossible but also not as simple as the stats that you present.

The very thing that brought the team to 113 needed in 40 overs was the very thing that ensured that team had lost all the wickets before those 40 overs. You can't have it both ways.

Well done Rahim and well played BD. Team India will have lots to reflect on, especially on their bowling.

WarWolf
January 21, 2010, 04:11 AM
Yes. This is what we had been talking about since yesterday. Only Shakib got out in an unlucky fashion. The rest of the batsmen have thrown their wickets away.

deshifan
January 21, 2010, 04:11 AM
drown these morons in Karnaphuli :mad:

al Furqaan
January 21, 2010, 04:19 AM
It was definitely not impossible but also not as simple as the stats that you present.

The very thing that brought the team to 113 needed in 40 overs was the very thing that ensured that team had lost all the wickets before those 40 overs. You can't have it both ways.

Well done Rahim and well played BD. Team India will have lots to reflect on, especially on their bowling.

well if we were say 250-5 at tea, hypothetically speaking, instead of 301 all out, sehwag would prolly have a more defensive field allowing singles. to plug that up he would need to crowd the infield opening up room to go over the top. both situations are akin to an ODI and result in 4-5 runs per over...although by vastly different mechanisms. the former relies on singles and sharp running between the wickets, and the latter uses more boundaries. of course, i'm not guaratanteeing it would have worked, but the strategy would have been there. then we have the mental aspect. indian bowlers started to struggle and get demoralized once they couldn't get the last 3 wickets. thats the worst thing in cricket, because top order is supposed to be hard to get out. that plays with your mind. we saw the wides, the bad balls, and the half volleys at that stage, and that would have still been there with teh tension of defeat. plus the BD batsmen would have been a bit more charged up to try and get a total once it was within reach, just like rahim trying to get a 100 - rahim only accelrated once he realized "hey, i might just be able to get a ton today!"

the idea or strategy is just as simple as 113 from 40, but the implementation, as we have seen, is anything but.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2010, 04:24 AM
this is basically what happened.

we had crucial periods of our batting on flat tracks, but at the time of day when batting was most difficult. we had the edge winning the toss, but the timing of our innings mean that our first innings we batted and lost too many wickets before lunch, same thing today.

before lunch is the tough time to bat, when the fog still hasn't dried the pitch...the balls seam around, there is some swing, and the balls bounce and turn for the spinners. post lunch, even our tail was able to handle the googlies of mishra, when he was unplayable just an hour earlier.

yes our batting recklessness was the first, second, and third reason for our demise, but we were lucky to win the toss and field...but unlucky to bat the most crucial parts of both innings before lunch.

Gowza
January 21, 2010, 04:24 AM
definitely wasn't impossible, they had to score less than 350 in the day which is very possible. 2 wickets down wasn't ideal but the batting was there to still win it. if tamim had gone on to get a century i think BD would have taken the match.

magic boy
January 21, 2010, 04:31 AM
it was possible. but too hard task against no 1 team. also wtf playing attitude of top orders just spoiled it

Bangladesh v Sri Lanka~Bangladesh chasing target of 500+ (http://www.cricinfo.com/bangladesh/engine/match/378750.html)


Bangladesh: 300 in 88.1 overs
Bangladesh: 350 in 101.6 overs
Bangladesh: 400 in 119.5 overs
Mohammad Ashraful 100 in 182 balls (16 x 4)
Shakib Al Hasan 50 in 119 balls (3 x 4)
Mushfiqur Rahim 50 in 93 balls (5 x 4)
6th Wicket: 100 in 217 balls (Mohammad Ashraful 65, Shakib Al Hasan 36)
7th Wicket: 50 in 78 balls (Shakib Al Hasan 26, Mushfiqur Rahim 24)
7th Wicket: 100 in 185 balls (Shakib Al Hasan 50, Mushfiqur Rahim 49)

cricket_pagol
January 21, 2010, 04:32 AM
this is basically what happened.

we had crucial periods of our batting on flat tracks, but at the time of day when batting was most difficult. we had the edge winning the toss, but the timing of our innings mean that our first innings we batted and lost too many wickets before lunch, same thing today.

before lunch is the tough time to bat, when the fog still hasn't dried the pitch...the balls seam around, there is some swing, and the balls bounce and turn for the spinners. post lunch, even our tail was able to handle the googlies of mishra, when he was unplayable just an hour earlier.

yes our batting recklessness was the first, second, and third reason for our demise, but we were lucky to win the toss and field...but unlucky to bat the most crucial parts of both innings before lunch.

Conditions in the morning was tough, but there is no excuse for losing loads of wickets during morning session for both innings. That's what lead to such low totals in both innings... I though batting was most difficult on the first day, so we should not really complain about batting conditions... There was really not much in the wicket today during the morning session, tamim did all the hard work and but gave away his wicket.

Surfer
January 21, 2010, 04:32 AM
Isn't it the same old story? So close yet so far! That's been Bangladesh's story for sometime.

DJ Sahastra
January 21, 2010, 04:34 AM
well if we were say 250-5 at tea, hypothetically speaking, instead of 301 all out, sehwag would prolly have a more defensive field allowing singles. to plug that up he would need to crowd the infield opening up room to go over the top. both situations are akin to an ODI and result in 4-5 runs per over...although by vastly different mechanisms. the former relies on singles and sharp running between the wickets, and the latter uses more boundaries. of course, i'm not guaratanteeing it would have worked, but the strategy would have been there. then we have the mental aspect. indian bowlers started to struggle and get demoralized once they couldn't get the last 3 wickets. thats the worst thing in cricket, because top order is supposed to be hard to get out. that plays with your mind. we saw the wides, the bad balls, and the half volleys at that stage, and that would have still been there with teh tension of defeat. plus the BD batsmen would have been a bit more charged up to try and get a total once it was within reach, just like rahim trying to get a 100 - rahim only accelrated once he realized "hey, i might just be able to get a ton today!"

the idea or strategy is just as simple as 113 from 40, but the implementation, as we have seen, is anything but.

Al Furqaan,

The psychology is not that simple. A different mental game ensues the moment a team has a realistic and pratcical chance of chasing a win. Not taking anything way from brilliant batting by the BD lower order (and i am beginning to admire them way more than anything else), but even 50 runs needed off 10 overs with 3 wickets remaining is a different proposition in Test matches. Slowing down the batting team is not that difficult in Tests if you no longer want to take wickets. By the time Rahim started to accelerate, he practically had nothing at stake. If he was the difference between winning and losing, he would be much more wary of the same shots that he could play with disdain when he knew that he will no longer be held responsible for a defeat. That is what pressure is all about.

Shaan
January 21, 2010, 04:35 AM
everything was possible if Ash has took little responsibility, Mahmudullah shouldn't have played like crazy horse and have given a solid partnership with Mush. If Tamim after staying such a long time wouldn't play that shot and go for his ton...

Russell2k7
January 21, 2010, 04:37 AM
Only if our top order batsmen understood the difference between positive strokeplay and reckless shots!!! This is TEST not ODI.

We had about 40 overs to go and fell short by only 113 runs!!

Well done Mushfiq.
It was impossible to win but possible to draw. The top order should have tried to bat out 40 more overs. IND basically won the game at 170/7. If the game was much closer they would have bowled better.

Nonetheless, well played by Mushy and co.

Neel Here
January 21, 2010, 04:38 AM
the idea or strategy is just as simple as 113 from 40, but the implementation, as we have seen, is anything but.
sums it up beautifully. this is the reason why there have been only 4 such instances of successful >400 in about 2000 test matches.

PoorFan
January 21, 2010, 04:41 AM
It was definitely not impossible but also not as simple as the stats that you present.

The very thing that brought the team to 113 needed in 40 overs was the very thing that ensured that team had lost all the wickets before those 40 overs. You can't have it both ways.

Well done Rahim and well played BD. Team India will have lots to reflect on, especially on their bowling.
Well, there are other ways to make it possible, I am sure thats what Miraz pointing to.

Lot of people were saying from yesterday that if we can play sensible till lunch losing 1 wicket at least, or play till tea losing 4-5 wicket then we have chance to give a try. But as usual our top order gave away wickets playing balls they could have easily left alone.

Ash, Tamim needlessly thrown their wicket today at REAL bad time, instead of building big innings. Not that they ( top order ) scored/went for quick runs and eventually got out [one of your 'both way' is not there]. Hence we lost the opportunity to give a late charge for win, instead managed just a good total not having not enough wickets in hand.

BangladeshFan
January 21, 2010, 04:44 AM
what is the use of ifs and buts, we knew all along it was possible, indian bowling attack is not that threatening, but our top order is simply not good enough.

We need a major reshuffle in the batting order, SN needs to be axed etc. Our batsmen must know, if they cant score, they have no place in the team. There has to be a minimum threshold by balls played and runs scored, if a batsman cant do it repeatedly, he should be kicked out.

PoorFan
January 21, 2010, 04:45 AM
I think trying to save the match was the key to give a try for win at late. Now we lost both way and even in a bad manner.

DJ Sahastra
January 21, 2010, 04:47 AM
It was impossible to win but possible to draw. The top order should have tried to bat out 40 more overs. IND basically won the game at 170/7. If the game was much closer they would have bowled better.

Nonetheless, well played by Mushy and co.

Actually, as an India supporter, i was both glad and a little wary of Sakib's declaration that BD is going to play for win. Indian attack has been sub-standard for quite sometime now and the best chances for India to take wicket lay in BD batsman themselves giving those chances. I for one believe that if Sakib had tried an alternate route - to keep all the wickets safe until half-way into post-lunch and then decide if they should go for a win, BD should have easily managed a draw. Also, there was a high possibility that match would've lasted another 10 overs before being called off for bad light.

To try for win is of course a more positive approach and i wonder if Sehwag's pre-match statement had anything to do with it. If it had, then i would say that it worked to his advantage. This match lasted less than 4 days in all and Indian attack is too sub-standarad to get away with a win against this BD batting line-up in those 4 days. This is a jail-break and a sigh of relief for fans like me!

Eshen
January 21, 2010, 04:50 AM
Isn't it the same old story? So close yet so far! That's been Bangladesh's story for sometime.
Unfortunately, you are right. Once again our batsmen have failed to overcome mental blocks when needed.

Neel Here
January 21, 2010, 04:50 AM
Actually, as an India supporter, i was both glad and a little wary of Sakib's declaration that BD is going to play for win. Indian attack has been sub-standard for quite sometime now and the best chances for India to take wicket lay in BD batsman themselves giving those chances. I for one believe that if Sakib had tried an alternate route - to keep all the wickets safe until half-way into post-lunch and then decide if they should go for a win, BD should have easily managed a draw. Also, there was a high possibility that match would've lasted another 10 overs before being called off for bad light.

To try for win is of course a more positive approach and i wonder if Sehwag's pre-match statement had anything to do with it. If it had, then i would say that it worked to his advantage. This match lasted less than 4 days in all and Indian attack is too sub-standarad to get away with a win against this BD batting line-up in those 4 days. This is a jail-break and a sigh of relief for fans like me!

good analysis.

DJ Sahastra
January 21, 2010, 04:54 AM
Well, there are other ways to make it possible, I am sure thats what Miraz pointing to.

Lot of people were saying from yesterday that if we can play sensible till lunch losing 1 wicket at least, or play till tea losing 4-5 wicket then we have chance to give a try. But as usual our top order gave away wickets playing balls they could have easily left alone.

Ash, Tamim needlessly thrown their wicket today at REAL bad time, instead of building big innings. Not that they ( top order ) scored/went for quick runs and eventually got out [one of your 'both way' is not there]. Hence we lost the opportunity to give a late charge for win, instead managed just a good total not having not enough wickets in hand.

I agree with you Poorfan except that to think that the last 3-wickets which added close to 130 runs would have done so or could've been trusted to do so if BD was realistically approaching the target would be to think, if not impossibly, then atleast improbably. Remember that BD had a chance to take lead and how the moment played into the minds of the same batsman when they were within handful of runs of the lead.

My point being, Rahim, along with Mahmudullah and Shahadat, went beserk and brought the equation to 113 off 40 which makes the target look more attainable than it really was. But after the 7th wicket, there was an air of inevitability all along. That had its part to play by taking off any pressure off the batsman's mind. Now, if BD had a realisic chance of a draw (say only 5 wickets down by tea and 30 more overs to play and need to ensure that they don't lose any more specialist batsman) vs risk losing it by playing shots, the same batsman would not be playing the same way. Nor would the fielding side keep the same strategy.

Nafi
January 21, 2010, 05:36 AM
All I can say is

bechara bechara bangladesh, maybe next time

Naimul_Hd
January 21, 2010, 05:52 AM
this is what happens if you play test match after each 6 months in the year. Had Bangladesh played couple more Test matches in recent times after WI tour, then i am sure, Bangladesh would have been in better place in this match. If ICC plans that Bangladesh will play only 3-4 test matches in a year then you cant blame Bangladeshi players for not showing proper mentality.

arsenalsri
January 21, 2010, 05:56 AM
this is what happens if you play test match after each 6 months in the year. Had Bangladesh played couple more Test matches in recent times after WI tour, then i am sure, Bangladesh would have been in better place in this match. If ICC plans that Bangladesh will play only 3-4 test matches in a year then you cant blame Bangladeshi players for not showing proper mentality.

ICC doesn't plan it. Its the BCB that needs to plan it. They need to arrange bi-lateral tours with other countries. The ICC's FTP is a joke. Hardly anybody cares about it.

BD-Shardul
January 21, 2010, 06:12 AM
We are only good in going close and yet remain so far.

Baundule
January 21, 2010, 06:15 AM
It was definitely not impossible but also not as simple as the stats that you present.

The very thing that brought the team to 113 needed in 40 overs was the very thing that ensured that team had lost all the wickets before those 40 overs. You can't have it both ways.

Well done Rahim and well played BD. Team India will have lots to reflect on, especially on their bowling.

Have to agree with this. After India scoring 400+. we had no chance. We misssed our opportunity in the first innings.

It looks like an improved performance; but at the end of the day, it is the same old story. It has happened many times before that after a terrible first innings, our batsmen have gone in the 6-a-side mood to score score 300+ runs. It looks like a 'shommanjonok' defeat; but the end result is, it is a 'defeat' and there is nothing to be proud of, because it was not how to to play test matches in the first place.

The motto of a test match in such situation should have been 'draw first' and going for the win only if we needed something like 150 in 30 overs having at least 8 wickets at hand. What we did is just throwing our wickets away, as usual. Test cricket is all about patience and frustrating the opponents. We failed to do that miserably.

Naimul_Hd
January 21, 2010, 06:18 AM
ICC doesn't plan it. Its the BCB that needs to plan it. They need to arrange bi-lateral tours with other countries. The ICC's FTP is a joke. Hardly anybody cares about it.

cant agree more ! But you know, BCB has very limited power in terms of negotiating with other Boards. Where every cricket board is afraid of BCCI, BCB is nothing. for example, BCCI wanted to have some test matches, so they called up SA board, and they had nothing but to agree with BCCI !

Alien
January 21, 2010, 06:29 AM
End of the day I look at our performance curve. Yes we still suffer the same amount of defeat with endless excuses but what differs from the past is that the defeats arent as spectacular as they once were.

It shows that the team has really improved in terms of consistency. I guess BD is not the team to improve in a short span of time but I guess in next 15 years, we will be in the same league as other teams.

_Rafi_
January 21, 2010, 06:41 AM
Isn't it the same old story? So close yet so far! That's been Bangladesh's story for sometime.

in test it is not familiar story. We were expecting a humiliation by India who is in the best form ever.

_Rafi_
January 21, 2010, 06:49 AM
this is what happens if you play test match after each 6 months in the year. Had Bangladesh played couple more Test matches in recent times after WI tour, then i am sure, Bangladesh would have been in better place in this match. If ICC plans that Bangladesh will play only 3-4 test matches in a year then you cant blame Bangladeshi players for not showing proper mentality.

We cant blame Bangladesh but we can blame bd cricket authority? What is done by BCB for preparation for these test? They arrange DPL T20 and 50 over match. Why not they arranged first class match before the tournament? We cant solely depend on international match.

arsenalsri
January 21, 2010, 07:06 AM
End of the day I look at our performance curve. Yes we still suffer the same amount of defeat with endless excuses but what differs from the past is that the defeats arent as spectacular as they once were.

It shows that the team has really improved in terms of consistency. I guess BD is not the team to improve in a short span of time but I guess in next 15 years, we will be in the same league as other teams.

The other teams will also improve over the next 15 years. So Bangladesh in the next decade will have to progress faster than it did in the last decade. Bangladesh's target right now should be achieving the 4-6 ranking in Tests. They will only do it by winning tests.

In the Bangladesh teams of the last decade there would be one or two good player and mostly mediocre players. I mean for a long time most people outside Bangladesh didnt know anybody other then Ashraful. This current group of players I think will change that. Shakib, Tamim, Rahman, Riyad, Shadat, Mashrafe, Ashraful - this should be the core nucleus of the team for the next 5 years and other players will come and go. If this talented bunch of players keep playing together and keep performing consistently over the next few years Bangladesh will be more and more succesful. They shouldn't be distracted by IPL or T20 in general, their focus has got to be Bangladesh and doing well for Bangladesh. If they are successful here the IPL and everythign thing else will come to them automatically.

cant agree more ! But you know, BCB has very limited power in terms of negotiating with other Boards. Where every cricket board is afraid of BCCI, BCB is nothing. for example, BCCI wanted to have some test matches, so they called up SA board, and they had nothing but to agree with BCCI !

South Africa were going to be playing 5 one days India, the BCCI asked it to be changed to 3 one day and 2 tests. BCB doesn't need BCCI's permission to invite other countries - Pakistan, NZ, WI etc. Anyway atleast these year you guys are playing 7 tests, which is more than what India is playing.

Gowza
January 21, 2010, 07:08 AM
definitely not good having a 6 month break, and one test against NZ just doesn't seem right, they should at least be playing 2 tests.

zainab
January 21, 2010, 07:24 AM
ICC doesn't plan it. Its the BCB that needs to plan it. They need to arrange bi-lateral tours with other countries. The ICC's FTP is a joke. Hardly anybody cares about it.


The ICC FTP is controlled by Australia, England and India with Australia and England playing twice as many test matches as other countries.
Each test nation should play a minimum of 6 to 8 test matches per year. Hopefully, this year BD is playing 7,all within the first half of this year. What happens in the second half? BCB should arrange some 4 day tours with other countries, so that these boys get the practise playing in the longer format.

nsd3
January 21, 2010, 07:29 AM
I would not give credit to Batsmen in general. Mushfiq, Riad were good. I'd point finger on SN, Imrul, Rakib, and Ashraful - don't they understand what they are responsible for when they play in those positions in the batting order?

nsd3
January 21, 2010, 07:30 AM
The ICC FTP is controlled by Australia, England and India with Australia and England playing twice as many test matches as other countries.
Each test nation should play a minimum of 6 to 8 test matches per year. Hopefully, this year BD is playing 7,all within the first half of this year. What happens in the second half? BCB should arrange some 4 day tours with other countries, so that these boys get the practise playing in the longer format.
Totally agree with the point.

simon
January 21, 2010, 07:45 AM
Ya,I hink we could have won it too.
We lost by 113 runs.
I think if we had 2 more 50's it was quit possible.
Raqib,Imrul,Sakib,Ash,Ryad,SN none of them got a 50 & 3 of them scored below 20.:-|
Hope we get more from these btsmen in future.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2010, 08:05 AM
Al Furqaan,

The psychology is not that simple. A different mental game ensues the moment a team has a realistic and pratcical chance of chasing a win. Not taking anything way from brilliant batting by the BD lower order (and i am beginning to admire them way more than anything else), but even 50 runs needed off 10 overs with 3 wickets remaining is a different proposition in Test matches. Slowing down the batting team is not that difficult in Tests if you no longer want to take wickets. By the time Rahim started to accelerate, he practically had nothing at stake. If he was the difference between winning and losing, he would be much more wary of the same shots that he could play with disdain when he knew that he will no longer be held responsible for a defeat. That is what pressure is all about.

thats true, which is why they may or may not have made it...even if we were 250-5 or 280-5 at tea instead of 313 all out.

but point is that a run rate of 4-4.5 could easily have been maintained without playing risky shots. rahim's innings is an example. there were very risky strokes played if any in his entire innings (the one which sailed a couple yards above the keepers gloves is a rare exception), yet he scored at close to a run a ball. there were a lot smart twos and singles in there.

an innings similar to gambhir's would have done the job...now all the batsman are capable of doing that. in fact, nudging the ball around is easier than playing fancy strokes to the fence. but it requires temperement and patience, you will have to play out a maiden here and there. block the good balls and send the rest to the gaps. this is where the implementation comes into play.

Neel Here
January 21, 2010, 11:49 AM
an innings similar to gambhir's would have done the job...now all the batsman are capable of doing that.
no they are not. otherwise all would have had gambhir like records
in fact, nudging the ball around is easier than playing fancy strokes to the fence. but it requires temperement and patience, that is unfortunately the difficult part ! it is temperament and patience that makes all the difference between a good batsman and a great batsman.