PDA

View Full Version : Test Progress Monitor (Nov 2012)


al Furqaan
November 11, 2012, 09:43 AM
Test cricket after a year...7 matches scheduled over the next (WI, SL, ZIM, NZ). We need a thread to dissect exactly how we are doing. This thread can become a continuing epic to track our progress (or lack thereof).

But how to measure and against what standard?

1) Our first 3 years of Test cricket, up to 31 Dec 2003, we played 26 Tests with a batting average of 19.24 (2.77 runs/over). Bowling average 52.92 (3.51 r/o).

2) Since 1 Jan 2010, our batting avg (28.58, 3.31 r/o) and bowling (52.27, 3.60 r/o)

3) The next weakest side, NZ, since 1 Jan 2010 have a batting avg of (29.51, 3.09 r/o) and a bowling avg (38.65, 3.2 r/o)

4) The legendary AUS team from 1 Jan 2000 to that 5-0 Ashes sweep of 2007 had a bat avg (43.75, 3.74 r/o) and bowling (27.39, 3.08 r/o).

Our performance can be simply given as the ratio of our batting and bowling averages.

The Aussies had an awesome ratio of 1.60, the NZ side of late a ratio of 0.76, and our average in our early ears of 0.36. Our recent average is 0.55.

Lets see what we manage vs West Indies in the next two weeks.

Nadim
November 11, 2012, 09:53 AM
Not much difference between us and NZ batting wise since Jan 2012, but that bowling is a big headche for us!!!! Didn't improved a single bit in bowling since we started playing Test cricket:wow::head::(

Ajfar
November 11, 2012, 10:03 AM
^ I'm hoping Sunny and Gazi can provide some much needed support to Shakib finally. That will def help to bring that bowling average down. As for our phast bowlers just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

deshimon
November 11, 2012, 10:33 AM
We progress in bowling in the department of spin but in pace we improve nothing. One the other hand we can't progress significantly. I think our spin is okay. But we have to improve a lot in all other departments ardently.

Isnaad
November 12, 2012, 12:39 AM
It's really unacceptable that we still do not have the ability to take 20 wickets in a match. Still averaging 52 with the ball is disappointing.

Sohel
November 12, 2012, 01:15 AM
It's really unacceptable that we still do not have the ability to take 20 wickets in a match. Still averaging 52 with the ball is disappointing.

That's the basic thing many organizers, selectors and obviously fans simply don't get about the long game. That's why they still obsess over containment bowling and subsequently the bowler's "economy" in tests and what passes for "FC" in Bangladesh. Naturally we have spawned an ignorant cricket culture saturated with the limited over mindset where unforced batting errors with regard to both technique and temperament gets you wickets and nobody cares about the predatory quality of the bowling. Those capable of swing and drift and therefore somewhat neutralizing the dead pitch with movement in the air, are rarely used because they will go for runs every now and then. The concept of buying a wicket is as alien as the idea that grass on the pitch has nothing to do with swing bowling.

These experts and matobbors don't get that test cricket is a bowlers game because unlike the shorter versions, there is no fielding restriction skewing the game in the batter's favor. They don't get the fact the team that gets 20 wickets wins the match, a freakish tie notwithstanding. Add crappy pitches that offer nothing to our bowlers and there you have it.

Asaad's numbers show that some of our batters have improved over the years, due to natural progression and other reasons, but the bowling remains utterly toothless.

SS
November 12, 2012, 02:13 PM
That's the basic thing many organizers, selectors and obviously fans simply don't get about the long game. That's why they still obsess over containment bowling and subsequently the bowler's "economy" in tests and what passes for "FC" in Bangladesh. Naturally we have spawned an ignorant cricket culture saturated with the limited over mindset where unforced batting errors with regard to both technique and temperament gets you wickets and nobody cares about the predatory quality of the bowling. Those capable of swing and drift and therefore somewhat neutralizing the dead pitch with movement in the air, are rarely used because they will go for runs every now and then. The concept of buying a wicket is as alien as the idea that grass on the pitch has nothing to do with swing bowling.

These experts and matobbors don't get that test cricket is a bowlers game because unlike the shorter versions, there is no fielding restriction skewing the game in the batter's favor. They don't get the fact the team that gets 20 wickets wins the match, a freakish tie notwithstanding. Add crappy pitches that offer nothing to our bowlers and there you have it.



I don't think it will ever happen and I feel terrible that I keep on following this team which will be like this forever :facepalm:

Raynman
November 12, 2012, 02:52 PM
Not to disrespect this thread but isn't the only indicator that should matter now be the result?

12 years in, I personally no longer care for centuries, 5 wicket hauls etc. Its great for that individual and I'll sure enjoy it but in the context of us a test nation, they really are meaningless. Barring record breaking stats (as a Bangladesh player or format in general) we should not overhype the individual accomplishments.

The only important stats to monitor should be a Win or a Draw, ability to take 20 wickets, being in a comfortable situation to declare , batting out to force a draw or something to that effect.

al Furqaan
November 12, 2012, 09:27 PM
Not to disrespect this thread but isn't the only indicator that should matter now be the result?

12 years in, I personally no longer care for centuries, 5 wicket hauls etc. Its great for that individual and I'll sure enjoy it but in the context of us a test nation, they really are meaningless. Barring record breaking stats (as a Bangladesh player or format in general) we should not overhype the individual accomplishments.

The only important stats to monitor should be a Win or a Draw, ability to take 20 wickets, being in a comfortable situation to declare , batting out to force a draw or something to that effect.

While I wouldn't be shocked if Bangladesh won a Test in this series, it would still be an understatement to say that WI are favored. They're quite heavily favored. Draws these days are rarer due to the aggressive nature of batting. How often do teams actually bat out 450 overs without some weather involvement or on a pitch that isn't a sheet of paper?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win or being aggressive or not tolerating anything less than the best. But to expect a team with as dismal a record as ours to magically start winning Tests means is actually not helpful.

I'm not so stupid as to not realize that the object of playing the game is to win. But being all gung-ho about it is no more intelligent than GW Bush's "bring it on" comments. There really isn't much to say if someone refuses to understand that multiple incremental improvements = one big improvement. And to be really frank, its also annoying.

BANFAN
November 12, 2012, 09:43 PM
I think what Raynman is saying is instead of counting individual performances, we should be monitoring team performance indicators. Such as:

1. Wins
2. Draws
3. Overs Batted as a team
4. Wickets taken as a team in test match
5. Avg Runs scored per match/Per innings
6. First innings leads/avg scores
7. First innings Wickets taken/Runs conceded.
8. 2nd innings avg scores and Runs conceded
9. Winning Margins.
10. Losing margins
11. Records Brocken .. Partnerships and HS etc
12. Declared innings
13. Match taken to the last session etc

Etc etc should be the focus instead of counting individual performances ... As those are too macro to understand any real progress of the team in test cricket. Instead of the team, we start actually do more focus on players. I do agree with him, if this is the idea...infant we got into this bad habit during JS...he used to bring out these stats to justify progress...we had a lot of debates on it as well,

But particularly in this thread, team achievement should be the only indicators, rather than individual records...that won't indicate the real progress in test cricket as the thread heading says...

Your OP is ok, but may be we can widen it a little more relating to Match outcomes to understand the true, progress.

Tigers_eye
November 12, 2012, 09:48 PM
While I wouldn't be shocked if Bangladesh won a Test in this series, it would still be an understatement to say that WI are favored. They're quite heavily favored. Draws these days are rarer due to the aggressive nature of batting. How often do teams actually bat out 450 overs without some weather involvement or on a pitch that isn't a sheet of paper?....
Just a thought Australia was heavy, I mean, mega ultra heavy favorite with Ponting and Co.

They play as a team we win.
Back!!

al Furqaan
November 12, 2012, 09:52 PM
I think what Raynman is saying is instead of counting individual performances, we should be monitoring team performance indicators. Such as:



It appears as though not everyone is on the same intellectual plane as me :D

I'll try once again. Why not just look at the ICC rankings table then to look for improvement?

Why not dissect our rating points? 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.

Do you see the futility?

Instead focus on tangible and incremental things that lead to those zeros becoming 5s and the 5s becoming 20s and so on and so forth.

If you don't even know what to look for, how do you expect to find it?

Raynman
November 12, 2012, 10:47 PM
BanFan is spot on in his interpretation of my post.

Glorifying individual stats that are meaningless in team context will do more damage than good.

al Furqaan
November 18, 2012, 01:30 AM
After 1st Test:

Batting avg = 36.15
Bowling avg = 57.14
Ratio = 0.633

KaaL-PurusH
November 18, 2012, 02:48 AM
Jotoi kata chira koren jogfol "ekoi chame". They will fall harder everytime. We fans have better temperament than those losers. We have been taking the pain for a decade but come back strong everytime.

simon
November 18, 2012, 07:46 AM
battingwise we improving.
after eleven minths we managed a 556 is brilliant.
yesterdays collapse was due to lack of experience of such situations,dont think we ever had such an easy target to beat a good side in test.
but nevertheless we.need to make sure we bat well in both innings.
and hopefully xith the inclusion of Elias we better get twenty wckts.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Rabz
November 18, 2012, 08:21 AM
Improvement after 1st test ??
Well, we have prolonged the defeat.
Instead of losing within 3 days, we have manage to lose on the final session of final day.

Unless we win, we haven't progressed. But from the performance of the last test, if we can hold on to this, win will not be too far away.

cricheart
November 18, 2012, 08:30 AM
We are definitely improving. Compairing last series against Pakistan, this is far better performance. I must say, having dull wicket trick worked out well for us and managed to put us in situation where we were ahead of the oposition before 4th innings. No matter what, from here I dont like to see any innings defeat in comming times.

Isnaad
November 18, 2012, 09:20 AM
1-0-0-1. Enough said.

M.H.Rubel
November 18, 2012, 10:50 AM
Good thread Al Furkan vai. So bowling is a big issue no doubt. But another thing is to mitigate the weakness of batting normaly we play with 8 batsman and 4 bowlers. I think we need to be more aggressive. We can play with 5 bowlers like W I.

Kohli_Sox
November 18, 2012, 10:58 AM
There is no progress. After all this, all these talks about taking the game to 5th day on our home turf shows the negative mindset and not believing our own ability. As long as there is no believe, we won't achieve.

Tiger Manc
November 18, 2012, 12:16 PM
Scored the most runs in a match 723, breaking our previous record of 704. Also lasted the 3rd highest number of overs in an innings.

al Furqaan
November 25, 2012, 02:44 AM
after the 2 Test series:

Batting average = 34.93
Bowling average = 64.26
ratio = 0.544

We we marginally less competitive this series than we have been since 2010 and somewhat better than when we first started playing Tests.

Maysun
November 25, 2012, 03:00 AM
Need to push the batting averahe to 40s and pull the bowling average down to late 40s or 50s

BANFAN
November 25, 2012, 03:22 AM
What I Care is....

A. we lost series 2-0
B. Took both test matches to 5th day
C. Margin of defeat: 77 Runs and 10 Wkts

Improvement from last series??

WarWolf
November 25, 2012, 08:21 AM
No improvement at all since 2001.

Tiger Manc
November 25, 2012, 01:31 PM
In the last decade we played 61 Test matches, playing 120 innings. Amongst them we crossed 270 22 times. That's 18.3%.

Since the turn of the decade, we've scored over 270 18 times out of 28, including 9 in a row spanning 5 Test matches. That represents a significant boost to 64.3%.

When you regularly score over 540 runs in a match the less chance of suffering an innings defeat, which is exactly what's happened. Amongst our 52 Test defeats in the previous decade, we lost by an innings 30 times (57.7%). This decade amongst our 13 defeats, only 2 have been by an innings (15.4%). It's not much to shout about but we have to look at the small improvements before looking at the bigger improvements.

Tiger Manc
November 25, 2012, 01:43 PM
It's sad to see our pacers regress. In the last decade our pacers took account for 50% of our Test wickets. In fact only 1 wicket seperated pacers (287) from spinners (286). Pacers averaged 55.2 whilst spinners averaged 46.89 in total. This decade our pacers have only taken 49 wickets at an unacceptable 77.5. This is in contrast to spinners who've taken 110 wickets at 45.16. Pacers have accounted for 30.8% of our wickets compared to 50% the previous decade. The only way we can improve this is by setting up a pace academy and investing in our pacers.

BrianLara7
November 25, 2012, 01:49 PM
nobody gives a crap about meaningless stats (shakib/ nasir 100, abul's fluke century, gazi 5 wicket etc) when you are losing every test match you play.

Navo
November 25, 2012, 02:12 PM
au contraire, as the article shared by Nadim and Dilscoop in the Raju thread demonstrated, plenty of people took notice: http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/sadisthour/archives/2012/11/cricket_news_hurl_abul_hasan_i.php

In fact, this Test will soon be forgotten. Bangladesh losing is (unfortunately) part of the order of things. Abul, the 20 year old debutant, scoring a century in his first innings at No. 10 thus living every cricket-lover's fantasy is something people will not forget for a while. (A bit like Ajit Agarkar's century at Lords)

al Furqaan
April 13, 2013, 08:48 PM
So since the beginning of this thread, ie since the WI series last November our cumulative averages are as follows:

Batting = 36.76
Bowling = 65.66
Ratio = 0.560

So we haven't really improved from the WI series to the SL series in terms of overall competitiveness.

al Furqaan
April 15, 2013, 12:51 AM
In contrast, Zimbabwe's stats in their 6 Tests since re-admission are:

Batting = 23.36
Bowling = 38.41
Ratio = 0.608

If you take out their win against us, then only does their ratio drop to 0.476, which is still not that much poorer than ours.

This indicates that we've been playing "well" on really flat batting tracks whereas Zimbabwe have played on far more sporting wickets at home, in NZ (seam friendly), and WI (spin friendly). Based on these numbers, the series should be closer than most of us expect, which is disappointing and scary at the same time!

reyme
April 15, 2013, 03:18 AM
That's why it is such a critical test for us. We must go all out and win these 2 tests at any cost. I really don't want to see some of the silly mistakes were made on and off the field by our coaches and selectors, like playing 3 pacers in the last Test.

SS
April 15, 2013, 11:16 AM
In contrast, Zimbabwe's stats in their 6 Tests since re-admission are:

Batting = 23.36
Bowling = 38.41
Ratio = 0.608

If you take out their win against us, then only does their ratio drop to 0.476, which is still not that much poorer than ours.

This indicates that we've been playing "well" on really flat batting tracks whereas Zimbabwe have played on far more sporting wickets at home, in NZ (seam friendly), and WI (spin friendly). Based on these numbers, the series should be closer than most of us expect, which is disappointing and scary at the same time!

Great analysis ... And we will have tougher time than SL.... My expectations will be based on seeing their performances on the ground and how they will adopt on sporting or Seam wkt. It seems that it will come down our batsmen strength on these wkts and how are spinners adjust to it

al Furqaan
April 20, 2013, 03:51 PM
Through our last 5 matches now...

Bat avg = 31.77
Bowl avg = 57.46
Ratio = 0.553

Just the ZIM match alone our ratio is 0.388 (ie almost as poor as how we used to perform in our early days of Test cricket).

al Furqaan
September 6, 2014, 08:06 PM
Thought I had updated this thread, but I guess I've only updated my personal record book. Anyways, coming into the ongoing St Vincent Test our stats are:

Bat avg = 35.37 (we're actually ranked 4th out of the 10 test nations)
Bowl avg = 53.59 (SL are next worst but much better)
Ratio = 0.660 (dead last)
Ratio at start of thread = 0.547
Ratio of first 2 years (2000-2003) = 0.323

Current ratios for the other 9 teams:

1) SA = 1.260
2) AUS = 1.179
3) SL = 1.089
4) ENG = 1.054
5) WI = 0.973
6) NZ = 0.965
7) IND = 0.960
8) PAK = O.808
9) ZIM = 0.743

As one can see, we're way behind due to our pathetic bowling stocks. And with the WI 407-3 at the momemt, it can only get worse.

Naimul_Hd
September 6, 2014, 11:30 PM
No improvement at all since 2001.

This statement is still valid.

al Furqaan
September 6, 2014, 11:34 PM
This statement is still valid.

Not true. 2001 ratio was less than a third (0.323).

2014 its two thirds (0.660).

We're in striking distance of Zimbabwe and Pakistan. 2001 no one was near us.

al Furqaan
September 16, 2014, 11:53 PM
We took a big hit:

Bat avg = 32.66
Bowl avg = 53.72
Ratio = 0.608

Can we cross ZIM by the end our series?

al Furqaan
October 31, 2014, 04:11 PM
after the first ZIM test:

bat avg = 31.77
bowl avg = 49.46
ratio = 0.642

we have improved slighly due to such a narrow win against ZIM. ZIM also improved their ratio since readmission in 2011 due to the small margin of defeat (current 0.751). its important that we thrash them in the remaining matches.

So since the start of this thread 2 yrs ago...our progression is:

0.55 (baseline from 2010-12)

0.633
0.544
0.560
0.553
0.660
0.608

0.642 (current)

we've spent most of our time hovering around 550, we need to try and use the ZIM series to get past 700 and then stay there against the top sides. inshallah we can do it and also go past ZIM as well.

Rifat
November 2, 2014, 07:46 PM
It's sad to see our pacers regress. In the last decade our pacers took account for 50% of our Test wickets. In fact only 1 wicket seperated pacers (287) from spinners (286). Pacers averaged 55.2 whilst spinners averaged 46.89 in total. This decade our pacers have only taken 49 wickets at an unacceptable 77.5. This is in contrast to spinners who've taken 110 wickets at 45.16. Pacers have accounted for 30.8% of our wickets compared to 50% the previous decade. The only way we can improve this is by setting up a pace academy and investing in our pacers.

This has more to do with Spinners taking more wickets(Read: Shakib + sunny + Gazi). nothing much changed for the pacers except Shahadat declined/digressed over the years big time.

al Furqaan
November 8, 2014, 02:23 AM
We have passed ZIM on the ICC rankings table apparently...I'm not quite sure, I think we need a 3-0 to pass them, but everyone is saying we've passed them so maybe its true.

But in bat/bowl ratios we're still behind although we've narrowed the gap.

Our ratio is at an all time high...0.683

ZIM are at 0.747.

Tiger444
November 8, 2014, 11:53 AM
We have passed ZIM on the ICC rankings table apparently...I'm not quite sure, I think we need a 3-0 to pass them, but everyone is saying we've passed them so maybe its true.

But in bat/bowl ratios we're still behind although we've narrowed the gap.

Our ratio is at an all time high...0.683

ZIM are at 0.747.

Even if we lose, we'll have 27 ranking points and Zimbabwe will have 25. If we draw we'll have 30 and Zim 21 and if we win we'd have 32 and Zim 18.

This is all according to the BC tool here.

MHRAM
November 8, 2014, 11:56 AM
Even if we lose, we'll have 27 ranking points and Zimbabwe will have 25. If we draw we'll have 30 and Zim 31 and if we win we'd have 32 and Zim 18.

This is all according to the BC tool here.

So if we lose we will remain no. 9 but if we draw we will become 10th?

:lol::lol:

Tiger444
November 8, 2014, 12:35 PM
So if we lose we will remain no. 9 but if we draw we will become 10th?

:lol::lol:

Corrected it. Sorry about that. :lol:

Night_wolf
November 8, 2014, 06:21 PM
i feel even though we will be 9, zim deserves it more..they beat a G8 side in test..something we can only dream of atm

Eshen
November 8, 2014, 06:42 PM
Even if we lose, we'll have 27 ranking points and Zimbabwe will have 25. If we draw we'll have 30 and Zim 21 and if we win we'd have 32 and Zim 18.

This is all according to the BC tool here.Thanks Tiger.

I would not mind a draw to be honest. The third Test will be great test of endurance for both teams, given none has played a three match Test series in recent past.

al Furqaan
November 8, 2014, 08:24 PM
i feel even though we will be 9, zim deserves it more..they beat a G8 side in test..something we can only dream of atm

They beat an Asian side at home on friendly surfaces. They did the same thing to AUS last month in an ODI. That would be like us beating NZ, AUS, SA at home. But we make flat roads that actually hand home field advantage to the stronger side. If we made turners for NZ/Sa/WI we wouldn't have drawn any matches but wed have won one or two by now.

Things might change now that we have decent spinners instead of Razzak.

If they deserved to be 9th, they'd have been 9th, which they were. Besides Pak are bipolar...they can beat Australia and lose to Zimbabwe. No team is as unpredictable as them.

Night_wolf
November 8, 2014, 08:30 PM
They beat an Asian side at home on friendly surfaces. They did the same thing to AUS last month in an ODI. That would be like us beating NZ, AUS, SA at home. But we make flat roads that actually hand home field advantage to the stronger side. If we made turners for NZ/Sa/WI we wouldn't have drawn any matches but wed have won one or two by now.

Things might change now that we have decent spinners instead of Razzak.

If they deserved to be 9th, they'd have been 9th, which they were. Besides Pak are bipolar...they can beat Australia and lose to Zimbabwe. No team is as unpredictable as them.

what we could have done, would have happened has no pedigree unless we do it, i am talking about tests only

and us saying pak are bipolar is funny..yes they can lose to anybody and win against anybody, but still they haven't lost to us right?..untill that happens we can't say this like beating pak isn't that of a big achievement as they can lose anytime

al Furqaan
November 8, 2014, 09:32 PM
what we could have done, would have happened has no pedigree unless we do it, i am talking about tests only

and us saying pak are bipolar is funny..yes they can lose to anybody and win against anybody, but still they haven't lost to us right?..untill that happens we can't say this like beating pak isn't that of a big achievement as they can lose anytime

Hypotheticals are certainly valid if you think Zim should be leading the current series 2-0 because they beat Pak last year. Or that Zim should be 9th cuz they lost to the 10th ranked side. Yes, that makes sense.

If Zim deserved to be 9th they would have beaten us plain and simple. They didn't even beat us at home...series drawn 1-1. On what basis should they be 9th? And why stop at 9? Why not say Zim should be #1? See I can be silly too.

Zim won 1 test by the smallest of margins. 25 runs. We drew 4 tests recently, one overseas.
If Zim were better they'd have drawn a few as well. That's how you know the win was a fluke. Tiny margin, no draws.

And speaking of silly, your signature is out of context.

We lost to Kenya when we were ourselves Associates. Kenya qualified for a world cup before we did, they are supposed to beating us even today. Canada also qualified for a world cup 20 years before we did. Just to make it clear, imagine 30 years from now Papua New Guinea loses to us in a Test match...well its not going to be humiliating for them because we were always ahead of them.

Ireland already beat a Pakistan before they beat us. Same with Netherlands who beat England in T20 and beat us in T30. So you can't count them. Afghanistan beat us when we were missing 4 players : Shakib batsman, Shakib bowler, Tamim, Mashrafee. Might as well count A team women's cricket losses too then.

Only HK and Scotland should qualify as first time Associate losses who never beat any Test team nor qualified for WC before us with full strength side.

Tiger444
November 8, 2014, 09:40 PM
Thanks Tiger.

I would not mind a draw to be honest. The third Test will be great test of endurance for both teams, given none has played a three match Test series in recent past.

Ideally I want a win but wouldn't mind a draw either. We should try to get as many points as we can this series since it's very unlikely we'll beat Pak, SA, India or Aus next year and until we play Zimbabwe again.

zman
November 8, 2014, 09:48 PM
^I wouldn't have ruled out an unexpected win against Pak if not for Misbah's resurgence and Younis' other worldly form

al Furqaan
November 8, 2014, 10:03 PM
Thanks Tiger.

I would not mind a draw to be honest. The third Test will be great test of endurance for both teams, given none has played a three match Test series in recent past.

Eta kun deshi kotha...wouldn't mind a draw? Mushy and others have said they want to win 3-0 and I'm glad they will go for it.

Yes, if we are set a target of 400 with 4 sessions to go, play for the draw...even then I say we have the series in the bag, go for the win and if you lose to many wickets then play for the draw.

But at the start of the series/match, 3-0 was always the target.

M.H.Rubel
November 9, 2014, 06:16 AM
It will be very interesting what type of wicket team management offer in final test. To me best option is to offer a wicket like Khulna. In this type of wicket its not tough for our boys to make a draw further more some good bowling from spinners can give us another test win.