View Full Version : 1st ODI: Sumon praised for on-field captaincy

May 16, 2004, 04:32 AM
From another cricket board, by two British gentlemen:

I think at the end of the day it proved just how important fielding and setting the right fields are in a one-day game.

The Bangladeshis had 7 inside the circle pretty well at all times, even when Ricardo Powell was batting. The invitation was there for the batsmen to hit over the top, but always on the fielding side's terms. The pressure was unrelenting - 4 saving 1 in the covers, square leg, short midwicket and mid-on with one out deep on leg, the other fielder sometimes at slip, sometimes at short third man dependent upon who was bowling - and the screw turned tighter and tighter (10 runs off 10 overs at one stage).

Even Scallywag might have agreed that was an example of wonderful on-field captaincy - and it so nearly paid off. Now if the Bangladesh batsmen can show similar discipline, there might be a future for them as a competitive test and ODI team.

Not to mention he was constantly encouraging his players throughout the entire game, and building some great rapport within the team.

May 16, 2004, 07:18 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree.

May 16, 2004, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by fwullah
I wholeheartedly disagree.

What is your opinion then? As I did not watch the game ....

May 16, 2004, 08:20 AM
At least on two occasions yesterday, the change in bowling immediately reaped a wicket. The first was I think Sujon's first over and then the next was Rana's first over. Everyone praises when this happens, how much it is by chance and how much by prudent decision we will never know.

And note so many people were upset when he brought in Rajin in the second to last over and was hit for a six. May be even Rafiq would have been hit for a six. Everything cannot happen to our liking. Then the West Indies can also say that the run outs were stupid and what not. What I am saying is captaincy is very important in cricket, unlike say, in soccer, but the end result may not go your way all the time.

If his captaincy is good that is very good news, but do I need to say how irresponsible he is as a leading batsman, let alone a captain. That sort of shot at that point of the match is unbelieveable. Nine out of ten times he does that. Once when he survies he scores a 50. That is not enough. See Rajin, Ashraful, Mushfiq and not to mention Pilot and Rafique. You can hope that they will put up a fight.

I don't know what the team will be today, but I would drop at least Alok. Biddyut is also very incosistent.

May 16, 2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by fwullah
I wholeheartedly disagree.


May 16, 2004, 09:25 AM
Here is my view on some particular points:

When Mahmud finished his quota of 10 overs, Bashar brought in Alok Kapali. My question is why? It was surely a gamble. But was it needed? Who in our team is most similar to Mahmud in terms of bowling? Mushfique no-doubt. And we know Mushfique can bowl brilliantly in the middle overs. Mahmud was so effective! I have no idea why Mushfique was not brought back! Alok and Rajin bowled 4 overs together! And Mushfique did not finish his quota! This same thing happened in the last one-day interrnational against Zimbabwe! This game was never going to the 50th over...I really want to know why Mushfique was not brought in!

N.B. I have not watched the game in TV so don't know about the field placing. But I think Habibul have done a brilliant job just by putting up a fight!

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Optimist]

May 16, 2004, 09:31 AM
Credit need to be given to our fielders. They played well. 145/9 didn't happen by chance.

May 16, 2004, 09:32 AM
right on optimist. That was my thinking too. mushfy had four overs left and he could have been so useful instead of kapali there. rajin gave him the breakthrough in that one over, wasn't necessary to bowl him at the end. why do you have tapash in the team then? its upto the lone specialist pacer to get you the last man out..anyway..fight back was unbelievable. this rana guy is something. he contributes in one form or another, so far all the games he has played for us. either with the bat and yesterday with the ball and the runout.

May 16, 2004, 09:35 AM
I totally agree with Optimist.

Pacers were a must in the last 2-3 overs. Apperently Sumon is very good with Feilding position. However, his bowling rotation has a few weak points. He still did a great Job except the last 2-3 overs.

May 16, 2004, 09:40 AM
its a on the job learning process. its a rarity that we are in such close tight situations during a game except the few last games. he will improve as the team does and will learn from different situations.

May 16, 2004, 09:44 AM
I have a feeling sumon's decision was influenced by the large number of close fieldershe had posted to save ones and twos. His thinking was probably that with the lack of pace and WI tailenders' inability to negociate quality spin he would be able to stifle WI's runs and take wickets at the same time. He was probably reluctant to bring on Mushfy as he might have been hit because the tailenders would have tried to slog him and they are more used to pacers at the death. And with the fielders mostly protecting 1s any semi-good hit would have inevitably bled runs. It was a gamble. Unfortunately it didnot pay off. He can only do so much. The spinners generally bowled a very tight line but carted for 6s of fulltoses (don't know he could much about that!). All in all, Bashar did a terrific job. I doubt any other captain would have had much more success under those circumstances.
The Tigers proved they are mentally tougher than the WIs.

May 16, 2004, 10:41 AM
No bowlers can prevent runs with certainity. Best bowlers routinely bowl at the death with the outcomes going both ways. And when the outcome doesn't go their way, is it always their fault?

Somebody must bowl at the death. Who is most likely to produce desired outcome has mostly been a retroactive choice by design. The design is such that it looks always beautiful if it goes our way but never the other way arround.

Anyone can be hit for a six and anyone can deliver a fulltoss. When Tapash surprised an otherwise unmoved Heath Streak with a big full toss just the other day, did anyone complained about his judgement?

As for the way Sumon rotated the bowlers in the end is no way a gamble at any point in my humble opinion. He had choices. He made an educated effort and picked one that was likely to yield the best for the time and situation. Unfortunately it didn't go our way.

May 16, 2004, 11:27 AM
Now that I've overcome the flurry of emotions that had overcome ME after yesterday's match, some cool headed thinking has given me the following impression:

Bashar did a great job yesterday as a team; getting that close to victory after scoring only 144 is a wonderful achievement. There were times when he made wrong decisions, for example bringing in Rajin and conceding six runs off one delivery, but then we should also note the good stuff that he did with the fielding placements and bowling changes, and remember that it is a learning curve for him as much as it is for the young players, and that he is in fact doing pretty good with his captaincy. At least he has given us, fans, some cause to be confident on his boys even when a loss is so expected.

May 16, 2004, 12:33 PM
The reason no pacer was used is that We donot have quality pacer. WI batsman are used to facing quality pacers they could tuladhuna our pacers at the end. WI score was 24/1 at 6 over. It is our spinner who kept the game close.

Now we can say why not this why not that. It is easy.

Bowler need nice fielding to make him look good. Bashar did it right. It is the fielding arrangement and bowler selection that kept the game possible for us. Otherwise we wouldn't discuss it now how could we win a close one.