PDA

View Full Version : Weakest batting lineup in the world playing 5 batsmen.


pagol-chagol
January 26, 2005, 04:58 PM
I think its time to include one more all rounder and drop a batsman.

Get Mushfiq back and get Ashraful out.

I wonder why India plays 7 batsmen in One day?
[sarcasm off]

Sham
January 26, 2005, 05:07 PM
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!

BangladeshFan
January 26, 2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!

actually rana is quite a useful odi bowler, flatter, ,perfect staff for odis

he can bat as well atleast get some runs which many so called bd batsman cant do.

he is a must in all odis for bd

Hasib
January 26, 2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!

I now ppl said b4 he was a batsmen... but I always considered him as a bowler...

Zunaid
January 26, 2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!

Sham - you might have used the sarcasm green :)

People are missing it.

Beamer
January 26, 2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!


;)

Pagla_Baba
January 26, 2005, 09:29 PM
6 batsmen + 2 allrounders + 3 bowlers looks good enough odi pattern to me.

BD is following it for quite a while.
And if u really want to replace ash, take a batsman instead of mush.

Spitfire_x86
January 26, 2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Rana is a batsman! Only today did we find out that he can also bowl a bit!
:lol:

sadi
January 27, 2005, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Pagla_Baba
6 batsmen + 2 allrounders + 3 bowlers looks good enough odi pattern to me.

BD is following it for quite a while.
And if u really want to replace ash, take a batsman instead of mush.

that was a joke bro...mush for ash...lol...joke of the yr

cricketfan
January 27, 2005, 01:17 AM
BD plays 5 batsmen and 6 tailenders. It is the tailenders who score more than the 5 batsmen, so why not play 4 batsmen and 7 tailenders:)

feisal
January 27, 2005, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by cricketfan
BD plays 5 batsmen and 6 tailenders. It is the tailenders who score more than the 5 batsmen, so why not play 4 batsmen and 7 tailenders:)

** because when that happens we loose big... ALL our victories were artifact of someone in top order getting runs.

Sham
January 27, 2005, 01:42 AM
for those of you who took my comment about Rana being a batsman seriously, that was me trying my hand at sarcasm!

reyme
January 27, 2005, 02:49 AM
Bashar said Rana is considered as the number 6 batsman. He has been impressive on many occasions as a batsman already, maybe not at #6, but have you forgotten or just pretending/overlooking his contribution as an opener, as a grafter, as a fighter of fixing the innings not so long ago? Like his style or class or not, he is doing better job than many others.

Sham, FYI, Rana's batting performance in terms of consistency and ODI avg has been far better than few so called "labled" specialized batsman.

Wake up and Tell me sham and spitfire, whats the use of your name brand batsmen like Alok, if he cant score runs (and not even get wickets) and if his success rate is mere 10% (literally)? At least the other hard working down to earth guy Rana, is doing what he was told to do. He is grafting as ordered and bowling his hearts out. Getting wickets, checking runs, giving his best.

Those who are considering Ash as very young, must know he is the same age as Rana and has 3 years of more experience than Rana in ODI. He is older than Enam, Aftab, Nafis, and similar age of many others like Rajin, Nazmul etc etc. Sorry Sham, sorry to see your Kapali and Ashraful is and will continue to disappoint 80% of the time. That is not a sarcasm, that is a REALITY. ACCEPT IT.

Bottom line, we dont need to fill up number 6 or any other position someone with a batsman label, someone who had glorious batting in some good old days, RATHER we need someone we can contribute with runs or at least make up by taking some wickets.

Sham
January 27, 2005, 03:03 AM
I thought I may be overlooking the 'many' occasions that Rana did wonders with the bat. So just to refresh my memory, I checked out his stats, and like I said, he has three innings of more than 25, and one half century, a 63 of 98 balls against Zimbabwe. I don't know why people are trying to make him out into a Mashud all of a sudden. I have seen Rana bat, and it is my opinion that he is of very average ability with the bat. Thats the way it is for me. Sure, he will fight and graft and play a holding innings once in a while, but that doesn't make him a batsman. And just because a lot of our batsmen have been inconsistent doesn't mean that a bowler who somestimes contributes with the bat should now be given the number six spot in the side. Thats just ridiculous to me. Do you see England making Giles their number six because Flintoff is inconsistent? Its madness!

And also, this has absolutely nothing to do with Ashraful or Kapali. I have a right to my opinion, and I have made my opinion of Rana very clear, and its based on watching him bat, not from looking at his average on CricInfo. Its painful to watch Rana bat. If he is the best we can do at number six, then Bangladesh cricket has a very bleak future. Thats my take on the matter. You have the right to disagree, but you cant force me to accept something just by stating it as boldly as you can (in capslock)!

Edited on, January 27, 2005, 8:14 AM GMT, by Sham.

Warlock
January 27, 2005, 07:40 AM
Reyme, thanks for the very well written comment. Many supporters like me were very happy to see Rana get the man of the match award yesterday.
True- as Sham said- I have never actually seen Rana play. My impressions are based on cricinfo reports and newspapers. If what people tells is true- that Rana is a ordinary player- that would mean Rana works even harder for his country and delivers the goods with his limited ability!
Okay guys, may be he has no talents, his batting is artless and there is no variation in his bowling, but just tell me what is happenning to Ashraful or Alok, our so much talented players? Do they think they don't need to give their 100% for their country just because they are so very talented? If that is the case- I will settle for the ordinary and unskilled Rana who is ready to give everything for his country than to praise those who have a big amount of talents but don't know (or don't care about) how to use it.

Sham
January 27, 2005, 08:19 AM
Once again, no one is trying to justify Ashraful or Alok's inconsistency by having a go at Rana. These are two different issues. Ashraful is supremely talented and infuriatingly inconsistent. He has problems that he needs to sort out, but thats a different issue.

As for Rana, I also feel happy if he does well because it helps the team and thats the most important thing! Its not like I have a personal grudge against the guy, believe me. But stats and scorecards can be misleading! You can see a tail-ender scoring 25 of 38 balls to get a team's total past 150, and you think, look at that, once again the top order fails and a bowler like Rana fights for the team to take it past a 150 total. Maybe, but if you saw Rana bat, you'd think differently. His batting is absolutely useless, but once in a while he scraps together a decent score. Its all fine if he is a bowler in the side and he contributes once in a while with the bat. A team shouldn't have to expect bowlers to bat all that well, and when one does, we can all celebrate it. But my problem with this situation is, Rana simply isn't a number 6 batsman!! I sound like a broken record saying the same thing over and over, but everytime someone brings up Alok and Ashraful. What has one got to do with the other? Alok and Ashraful being talented but inconsistent does not make Rana a top-order batsman!

Just because our batsmen are inconsistent doesn't mean we need to make batters out of bowlers who can bat a little bit. If Ashraful and Alok cant bat, then find batsmen who can bat and who will perform more consistently. What is ridiculous is to put up a guy, who just doesnt have the skills or ability to bat in the top order, and ask him to score runs just because he has scrapped a couple of innings together in the past!


Edited on, January 27, 2005, 1:23 PM GMT, by Sham.

akabir77
January 27, 2005, 09:15 AM
Well my solution to this rana problem is let him play and if he stop scoring/taking wkt than he will be dropped imdiatly. Cause coach / selectors knows about his skill... But when he is scoring or taking wkts why bother? Do we have to have plyr who not only can score or tk wkt also has to look good in style?????

So stop all this stat analysis and see and pray that he does good in next two cause our talented bunch is doing nothing... And i think he was send in 6 to stop the wkt fall not to hit out...

Ahmed_B
January 27, 2005, 09:32 AM
Here is how I would grade the current Bd players around:

Pure Batsmen: Nafis, Bashar,J.Omar, Hannan
Pure Bowlers: Najmul,Enamul Junior, Rajjak

Allrounders-A(effective):Mashrafee, Pilot, Rafiq, Tapash, Aftab, Rajin

Allrounders-B(Ineffective-as they only do one part well):
Ashraful, Rana, Mahmud, Mushfiq, Alok

now choose u'r team..

Spitfire_x86
January 27, 2005, 09:37 AM
The saddest thing is, our captain thinks that Rana is a REAL batsman.

Shish Ahmed
January 27, 2005, 10:11 AM
Bring back Mushfiq!!

Are you having a laugh!!

We have much much better players than him waiting for a call.

AsifTheManRahman
January 27, 2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by crickethorizon
Here is how I would grade the current Bd players around:

Pure Batsmen: Nafis, Bashar,J.Omar, Hannan
Pure Bowlers: Najmul,Enamul Junior, Rajjak

Allrounders-A(effective):Mashrafee, Pilot, Rafiq, Tapash, Aftab, Rajin

Allrounders-B(Ineffective-as they only do one part well):
Ashraful, Rana, Mahmud, Mushfiq, Alok

now choose u'r team..

can't agree with u...when did u see rajin bowl well? and when did u see aftab bowl at all (except for that occassion when he took 4 wickets)?

i'd put rajin and aftab in the pure batsman category

Ahmed_B
January 27, 2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
i'd put rajin and aftab in the pure batsman category
ok suit urself ;)

This is my own gradings.. because i believe Rajin/Aftab can contribute well when they bowl. Not necessarily u have to agree.

reyme
January 27, 2005, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Sham
Thats just ridiculous to me. Do you see England making Giles their number six because Flintoff is inconsistent? Its madness!

You have the right to disagree, but you cant force me to accept something just by stating it as boldly as you can (in capslock)!



Sham, I dont think anyone in this forum, including me, is forcing you or Rana to make Rana a #6 batsman. Rather it was the coach who thought Rana was ideal to go at #6 to stop the collapse and graft, not to hit. The coach could not rely on Alok anymore, so no matter how pleasant he looks as a labled batsman in your eyes, he was dropped.

I have seen Rana bat, sometimes it is not so pleasant scene to see him bat. But what is amazing about this guy is, he is giving his hearts out in the middle and doing exactly what the situation demands or asked to do. Now because of that you dont and of course not forced to like him or accept him as a batsman.

But when a player is leading with 2nd highest batting avg (Rajin is the leader now), it states a lot. It tells a lot about his character. If you think the avg is misleading, I will tell you it is not. At least not for Rana. He played 16 matches and holds the 2nd highest avg. He is not coming at 8/9/10 and hitting some run a ball to have a high avg. Not so long ago he was patching or repairing the innings under tremendous pressure, after your talented batsmen failed to deliver game after game.

The team failed in opening, so he was sent as an opener, the middle order was collapsing, so he was sent at 8, 7, 6 or even earlier. He has been seen as a solution for out of form specialist batsmen in the eyes of the coach. But I did not see some talented batsman coming to rescue Rana with his bowling. Now did you see that?

My question to you is how come your talented and labled batsmen cant even avg 20.00? They had all the chances, they come early in the innings, have all the time to settle and score big. But why they could not do it? They are "batsman" right? They look great to watch right? But does it really matter? If they are so inconsistent leading to a dismal avg, then the team is better off without them.

Rana's situation is same as Alok, who started as a bowler. But his ODI avg, ability to stop the batting collapse, hold on to his wicket tells he has a future, he has a potential. If overall, Alok or anyone else can show that they are more effective than Rana, then let it be, Rana will be replaced by that player.


Sure he will fail sometime, but on most occasion, I believe when Rana is out he will try his best, he will exceed expectation. Some of the talented batsmen will just bring more more deep sigh, broken promises after talking big, and before you know it, they will disappear.

Sham
January 27, 2005, 03:12 PM
I still don't understand why a critical analysis of Rana has to invoke Ashraful and Kapali. And since when did they become my Ashraful and Kapali? I would love to adopt them both, but last I checked, I hadnt!

Now, for the last time, and I promise (myself mainly) that I will not bother next time, but what I have been saying about Rana has nothing to do with Ashraful or Alok. I haven't at any point said they are consistent, nor have I said their talent alone should ensure a place in the side for them. When I say a batsman, I mean a batsman. Now its not my fault that Bangladeshi batsmen have been inconsistent. But that doesn't mean that we can't find proper batsmen who will be consistent, who will have heart and who will fight for the team. Nafees showed some heart and fight in the second Test, so has Aftab at times and I am sure there are more of them out there.

Now if you dont like Ashraful and Kapali, kill them, I couldn't care. Drown 'em, batter 'em, suffocate 'em, poisen 'em, and then just to make sure they are dead, shoot them in the head. Twice! But once you are done with that, please pick some proper batsman to fill up the batting places in our team (1-6). And make sure they are fighters rather than losers with more talent than sense. But they must have some batting ability. Rana with all the heart and the fight doesn't and will never in my book be good enough to bat in the top six in the BD side, Tests or ODIs.

Edited on, January 27, 2005, 8:18 PM GMT, by Sham.

Beamer
January 27, 2005, 03:38 PM
sham

I suggest you just leave it alone . People have pre determined notions about him regardless of what is said about his technique, class or whatever. You are indeed talking to a brickwall. Actually, not a single person has come out and counter debated his worthiness as a no.6 batsman, which is the talking point here. They will purposely ignore that and will bring up other attributes like bowling abilities, heart, courage etc.. since they don't have any arguments for rana as whether he is a true no.6 or not.

reyme
January 27, 2005, 07:28 PM
Okay this will be my last post on this topic just to answer few questions and ask some. I figured this time I should keep it short and sweet. But I would suggest Sham/Beamer to stop hitting the brickwall, and come out of the box and see: the big picture that is.

1. Rana is not a batsman, let alone a #6 as argued by Beamer. He has no class, abilities, tecnique. My question to Beamer and Sham is why he was sent by the coach at #6 then? It it possible Dav does not know he is not a batsman? Why Bashar is suggesting he was chosen for his batting? Are these 2 famous people dont know what they are doing? clueless perhaps?

2. Why in the earth Dav is not picking up a genuine batsman such as Kapali/Shahriar and send them at #6? I mean thats your point right? You want to see a recognized batsman who can accelerate the runrate, has a solid batting capabilities and rule the bowlers, right?

3. Rana is a man who is a bowler, who can bat a little. So according to Sham, no matter what he does, how much heart and soul he has, how hard he works, it will never make him a batsman, let alone a crucial #6. Thats your final answer, right?

And here is my final answer.

Team needs 5 bowlers. 5th bowler must also be able to bat, to help out 5 frontline batsmen. So he is more like an allrounder: so Rana is chosen. Dav knows no matter how disgusting Rana's batting abilities are, in the past Rana was able to graft, stop batting collapse, score some runs when many top order failed, he is only the few who showed some consistency, which was more than any top order in general. In a team like India, Rana would perhaps be sent at #10, but in a team like BD and specially against stronger teams, Rana quickly earned a much higher rank. So much so that the coach even dared to let him open. This horrible bowler, who cant hold the bat, did not disappoint the coach, did he?

In conclusion, without being biased to any players, it is fair to say that Rana's role let that be bowler or batsman, added value for the team. The coach recognized his value and picked him accordingly. Sent him at different position to bat as the team needed and this guy duely followed order within his limited capability. Without recognizing his dire effort, Bemer and Sham are now mocking and playing a game of sarcasm as what a horrible batsman he is, what a joke of a batsman he is!!!

Recognize a player for his effort and contribution in the team, let that be batsman or a bowler. Give him opprotunity to grow. Analyze the final value that has been added for his contribution. We cant tell the future so we dont have the right to tell a player will never become a batsman: that will be mocking someone's ability (simialr arguemnt is, if someone say, a woman will never be the president of USA).

I dont care who plays for this team, I just want to see the best for this team, even it is playing 10 bowlers. Funny part is, many people actually wanted that not so long ago. Lets forget the batsman and bowlers for sometime, let think of them as players, and justify thier contribution. Thats how you see the big picture, that how you come out of the box!

PS: Sorry for making this so long, but hey at least I feel much better now :)

Beamer
January 27, 2005, 08:20 PM
I will answer a few of your questions and stop any more discussion on this dead end topic. I have watched him play and derived my opinion only after doing so. All that I have said about him is true and that is not going to change.

1.They are playing him at no.6 because thats all they have in this squad. It has been a policy of BD team in one dayers to go with five batsmen. I think it is wrong and we should at least go with six batsmen. I am sure Whatmore knows more than anyone about cricket. I am not sure whether to go with five is his decision or Faruk's. I guess, we will never know. Regardless, its a wrong practice and Rana is not an answer at no.6, the single most important position in one dayers. We are ignoring the importance of that position alltogether.

2. They should try to find a good batsmen who suits that spot. Maybe, so many people have failed in that position that they are thinking, why take anyone? Kapali, rokon, imran..all played and missed. We started the series with six batsmen with kapali playing the first game. They quickly ditched the plan once he didn't get any runs. From this team, Mashud should sleep walk into no.6 before Rana. Before they go to England, they must make sure they don't go in with a plan of five batsmen. It will be suicidal. At this point, I am willing to see Shamshur Rahman and how he does in "A" team games. I heard he can play that position well.

3. You are about right on question no.3. Dead on. Yep. he will never be a batsman. No matter how many 20s he scores. He scores most of his 20s and 30s in losing causes, when the outcome of the game has all but been decided. Garbage runs, so to speak!

Appreciate his role for the time being. But appreciate everybody else as well. He doesn't have a special mention for his heart or anything. I believe all of them are pretty dedicated.

Not playing a game of sarcasm here. I am telling you how horrible he is as a batsman. Where do you see the sarcasm? Can't be anymore blunt. Can I?

You don't care who plays for the team but want to see the best for the team. Well, with Rana in, we are not playing the best team. he can play as a bowler and like I said before, he can bat no.9. There won't be any arguements. Thanks for trying to make me see the big pic. Don't need it. Pretty confident in my own knowledge of cricket. And if your idea of thinking out of the box means playing an unorthodox, no shotmaking, playing and missing, slow player at no.6, then sorry, I would rather remain in the box.

Zunaid
January 27, 2005, 08:27 PM
Here's a way to breakdown brick-walls. Let's do an exercise for ODIs.

Given "quality", "technique", "ability" and class which current BD players could fill positions 1 through 7.

A strawman list:

1. Nafees
2. Rajin
3. Bashar
4. Ashraful
5. Aftab
6. Alok
7. Pillot

nihi
January 27, 2005, 09:32 PM
Dr. Z: Last time I noticed, your mood was 'vigil'. If I am right, why is it Virgil now? (If asking the intention of mood is a privacy infringement, please excuse me!)

feisal
January 27, 2005, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by reyme
Bashar said Rana is considered as the number 6 batsman. He has been impressive on many occasions as a batsman already, maybe not at #6, but have you forgotten or just pretending/overlooking his contribution as an opener, as a grafter, as a fighter of fixing the innings not so long ago? Like his style or class or not, he is doing better job than many others.

** he has been impressive only once that was as aopening batsman against zimbo, and then in the very next match looking at his batting everyone concluded that he looked VERY inadequate as aopener against a mediocre windies bowling.. he WAS never again tried as an opener.. His bowling was super though, some commentators thought he was better than rafique (was wicketless in three matches)

Sham, FYI, Rana's batting performance in terms of consistency and ODI avg has been far better than few so called "labled" specialized batsman.

** True, but most of those runs were scored in loosing cause..

Wake up and Tell me sham and spitfire, whats the use of your name brand batsmen like Alok, if he cant score runs (and not even get wickets) and if his success rate is mere 10% (literally)? At least the other hard working down to earth guy Rana, is doing what he was told to do. He is grafting as ordered and bowling his hearts out. Getting wickets, checking runs, giving his best.

** grafting in one day??? it is aloosing cause to start with.. u do not have to justify his bowling..there is already an acceptance that his bowling is very useful.

Those who are considering Ash as very young, must know he is the same age as Rana and has 3 years of more experience than Rana in ODI. He is older than Enam, Aftab, Nafis, and similar age of many others like Rajin, Nazmul etc etc. Sorry Sham, sorry to see your Kapali and Ashraful is and will continue to disappoint 80% of the time. That is not a sarcasm, that is a REALITY. ACCEPT IT.

** what is this 80% thing?? if batsman dissapoint you bring in another BATSMAN.. not a utility man..

Bottom line, we dont need to fill up number 6 or any other position someone with a batsman label, someone who had glorious batting in some good old days, RATHER we need someone we can contribute with runs or at least make up by taking some wickets.

*** at number six??? problem is no other team believes in this and they play a FULL batsmand in that position. and we can also afford to do that as many of the top order can bowl.

Zunaid
January 27, 2005, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by nihi
Dr. Z: Last time I noticed, your mood was 'vigil'. If I am right, why is it Virgil now? (If asking the intention of mood is a privacy infringement, please excuse me!)

My mood wasn't vigil - it is Arnab's. I was just doing a play on words to annoy him. But he appears to be obtuse to all that.

nihi
January 27, 2005, 11:19 PM
oops! I am really loosing my vigilance! Talking about being obtuse, he, seems like, selectively applies his acuity.



Edited on, January 28, 2005, 4:20 AM GMT, by nihi.

reyme
January 29, 2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Beamer
And if your idea of thinking out of the box means playing an unorthodox, no shotmaking, playing and missing, slow player at no.6, then sorry, I would rather remain in the box.

Never ever advocated Rana being sent to #6 or or any other specific position. It was the coach who sent Rana at #6, and at least 3 other different positions. Reason is coach could depend on him and the nature of his play was due to the instruction that he had follow. I saw Rana play as well, including tough innings under pressure against India and other teams. My conclusion is he has the potential to be a dependable batsman with consistency. Like his style or not, if he continue to contribute better than some specialized labled batsman, I would prefer Rana and validly so.

Now, Beamer look at your post, how biased and one eyed a man your are! No shotmaking, playing and miss, slow? Is it you? How come someone racked up 2nd highest ODI and TEST avg with this hit and miss? Either the team too bad or something good about Rana. Worthless 20's? Before this series when most top order batsman had a hard time to have back to back double digits, these 20's were and will continue to save our faces. Well with this biased cricket knowledge let you be in your box. The end.

Piranha
January 29, 2005, 06:19 PM
(none of the following is sarcasm, this is a serious post).

I think everyone is talking past each other. First we need to do an 'apples to apples' comparison.

Let's compare Rana's ODI batting to other batsmen who batted at 6/7. First lets consider Ridley Jacobs. He was not the most gifted player. In fact, it was at times painful to see him bat. But during the 90s when WI's batting was beyond awful, he held up the late order and added respectability to the innings ('respectable' relatively speaking ofcourse).

I've seen Rana bat only once. And my impression was that his batting is really bad. His off-side shots are respectable when he times them, but the less we speak about his footwork the better. (This is all drawn from one innings that I saw, I forget who it was against). He really does remind me of Jacobs. Somehow, both of them manage to stick around and score a few runs, even though they look like they'll get out any minute.


And then lets look at the best no. 6 ever Michael Bevan.

Summary stats are as follows:

Summary - Innings - not outs - Ave ----- 50's----- HS
Rana -------17 ----------- 5 -------23.66 ----- 1 --- 63
Jacobs -----112 --------- 32 ------23.31 ----- 9 --- 83*
Bevan ----- 232 -------- 196------ 53.58 ---- 46 - 108*



% of innings not out:
Rana: 29.4%
Jacobs: 28.5%
Bevan: 34.1%



The similarities between Rana and Jacobs are quite striking. Both have very similar averages. Both stay not out at a similar rate.

The % of not outs is the key to understang this situation. Nealy all no 6/7 batsmen will have inflated averages because they tend to have more not outs than others. We need to treat Rana's batting average with some care.

Having seen the stats lets ask ourselves these:

1) Would you say that Jacobs did a decent job of batting when the WI were in tatters?

If your answered 'yes', then you would should note that Bangladesh's batting is in many ways similar to the WI batting. And Rana played a similar role to Jacobs.

No one would say that Jacobs regularly produced match winning innings (he had a few good test knocks, but thats a separate story). I think west indians would agree with me when I say, "During difficult times, Jacobs did his job and brought a smile to our faces when we had a broken heart". Rana fans would probably say the same thing.

2) Was Jacobs exceptionally good at what he did?

Clearly, no. Just look at Bevan's stats and you will see the wide gulf of difference.

Is rana doing an exceptionally good job with ODI batting? Again, no.

3) Is this the best available choice?

During the extreme batting slump, WI tried a lot of batsmen who were simply hit-and-miss and never stuck aroud in the team. It is the same situation with us. When 'proper' batsmen fail to deliver, selectors often stick with the "Nai mama'r cheye kana mama bhalo" policy.

Piranha's opinion: I'd say lets keep Rana in the squad. I would never call him an automatic choice, and I prefer to see him at 7 after Mashud. But so far, when things have been tough, he has at least shown us that we wont give up without a fight.

I'd never have him bat at 2 or 3 (the few experiments along these lines turned out awful). I'd also like to see him rotated along with Alok, Tushar and others. Until (through rotation perhaps) we find someone who can reasonably walk into the no 6 role, I'm happy to stick with him.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 11:23 PM GMT, by Piranha.
Reason: added note on top

Piranha
January 29, 2005, 06:21 PM
And as for rana's bowling, I have only seen his bowling once. I really liked it. He had decent variations in trajectory, pace, and some spin. He keeps the ball very straight. For an ODI bowler thats pretty useful.

However, if Enamul Jr, starts to bowl well in ODIs, I play him instead of Rana.

Sham
January 29, 2005, 06:37 PM
I wouldn't say comparing Rana to Jacobs is like comparing apples to apples, one batted at number 7 as a keeper batsman and the other is being made to bat at 6 as a bowling all-rounder.

Anyway, Ridley Jacobs was actually not a bad batsman. He might not have been nice to watch, but he had batting ability, and he had quite a few shots. Like Chanderpaul, painful to watch, but a lot of talent. Rana, in our view, is not only painful, but lacks the ability needed to bat at number 6. They can put him there if they want, but its only a temporary solution. At some point, we are gonna have to find a batsman who can fill that spot, and the quicker we get to it the better.

Also, the debate here is in regards to team selection. Was Jacobs position in doubt? Firstly, he was the keeper of choice at the time, and therefore, an automatic pick. Secondly, the Windies bowlers were pathetic batters, so the fact that Jacobs would bat at 7, after the specialist batsmen and before the bowlers, as keepers usually do, was also open and shut.

Although a lot of us don't think he is that great of a spinner, we have said even before the last two matches, that Rana can be effective with the ball, and if the team management feels that he is good enough to get into the side with his bowling, then we don't have a problem with that. Our problem is with him batting at 6. I think we really need to play 6 proper batsman, have rana bat down the order and get rajin, ashraful and aftab to bowl the fifth bowler's quota. That would give our line-up much more solidity.

You are right about inflated averages of course. The not outs help. Rana was not out today as well after his little cameo, so again his average will get a boost.

Blah
January 29, 2005, 06:41 PM
How about playing 3 spinners and get rid of that guy named chacha. I mean think about it, he is like 50 years old already. How long can he keep on playing?

Jokes aside, if selection would be based on performance and not talent on ODI than rana would be an obvious choice over enam. However if enam is as good as he showed in test he will eventually get in to the ODI team at the cost of someone's poor showing.

It's always good to have more than few good players, as they are always under pressure to perform, to keep their chances in the team alive.

Who would thought I would live to see this day. :)

Blah

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 11:42 PM GMT, by Blah.

Beamer
January 29, 2005, 06:47 PM
absolutely correct on the not out issue. Lets compare these three no.6's strike rate. anyone has that stat? I am pretty sure Rana's strike rate is not up to it, specially when he bats at 6 or 7. Does he at least have high strike rate?

Beamer
January 29, 2005, 06:51 PM
hey sham..ashen apni ar ami ekta "rana fan club" start kori..people think we hate this guy. we don't. I think he has been fabulous with the ball. o bat korety namlei amar bhoy lagey. azke ar jai hok..bhoi lagey nai..onek porey namaisey to..bhoy er kichu chilo na..lagley laglo..na lagley na..type er attitude. aoni amare ekta u2u koren to apnar e-mail diye. amio pathachi apnake amar e-mail. amader ekta kichu kora dorkar..konthasha obostha ekhaney..

Piranha
January 29, 2005, 08:07 PM
In case anyone misunderstood.....

I didnt post this message to boost either the 'Rana-fan' group, or 'Rana-hater' group. Personally, I am in neither camp.

Sham you are right that Ridley Jacobs is a much better batsman than Rana. after all. Jacobs has 3 test centuries to his name. It is the 'overall' situation that led me to make the comparison. Their stats are also remarkably similar.

Also, I would not advocate Rana in the #6 position. I like him where he was in the 4th ODI. All I am saying is that he has a justifiable claim to be in the team.

In any case, this whole argument is quite pointless. With two consequtive MOM awards, he is definitely going to be in the 5th ODI and beyond.