View Full Version : Batting order

January 29, 2005, 05:33 AM
Is anyone left with any doubt that this is the batting line-up we should have?

The middle order played well today, especially Mashud and Ashraful precisely because they didn't panic when the runs dried up but made sure they had wickets in hand for last ten, allowing us to get to the total we got to. A little gem by Rana at the end, well played.

But this is how we should bat, get off to a good start, conserve wickets in the middle overs and have a go at slog overs! Brilliant!

January 29, 2005, 05:44 AM
Yes, I am starting to see the core of the BD ODI team.

Bashar (not at 3 but here)
Ash (ideal at 5)

Rana, Enamul, Tapash, Nazmul as pitch dictates.

January 29, 2005, 09:52 AM
Yes, the order is coming into shape. I would still take another batsman.

Very impressed with our openers. they are making the job easier for people lower down the order. They are both getting runs and in the case like today, when we lose one, we are making sure that at least one of them stay around and score runs. It was Nafis today. Rajin in the last game. Aftab coming at no.3 has been better for him.

January 29, 2005, 09:57 AM
But isn't this order only if we bat first!!!
how we will solve batting last...like buiilding innings and finishing up

January 29, 2005, 10:11 AM
If this is the team we play, then I would have this line-up even when we are chasing! Of course, if the situation warrants, we can have a pincher, but given this team, our top six should be nafees, rajin, aftab, bashar, ashraful and mashud!

I think our objective, even when we chase, should be to keep wickets in hand for the last ten overs. Of course, we can't let the required rate go up too much, but with wickets in hand, we can score 75 in the last ten overs (given we have Mashrafe, Rafiq, Rana and Mahmud to come later on). Our problem is, we keep losing wickets at regular intervals and don't have enough wicket left in the last ten to mount a serious assault.

If we bowl first, our objective should be to keep Zimbabwe to about 230, score about 165 to 170 in 40 overs with the loss of no more than 3 or 4 wickets. We can then score 60 or 65, whatever is necessary in the last 10. However, if we are 160 for 5 or 6, it becomes terribly difficult. So, even if we have to go at about 4 an over when our asking rate is above 5, its much better that they do that through the middle overs and keep wickets in hand!

ps. BD scored 82 in the last ten overs today!

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 3:12 PM GMT, by Sham.

January 29, 2005, 10:20 AM
I have serious serious seriuos doubt about this line up.

After 132 in 30 overs Bangladesh can score 240+ most often then not. whoever bats at 6.

Mashud scored 20 of his first 39 balls. Bangladesh went to 40th over 164 for 4 from 132 for 4 in the 30th. this is not the way no. 6 bats.

And if the objective of sending Masud at 6 is to stop the rot as stated by some posters then...................the whole debate is pointless!

N.B. The objective of this post is not to criticize Masud. He is fabulous for Bangladesh.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 3:21 PM GMT, by Optimist.

January 29, 2005, 10:43 AM
Well, you can't say Beamer and I haven't been asking for another batsman! But if this is the team we get, who would you rather have batting at 6? Mashud did a good job today. Yes he didn't score quickly at the beginning but the point was to conserve for the end and he played a really good ODI innings I thought, 51 of 62 balls in the end. Its unfortunate he got out when he did.

The point of a number six is to play according to the need. Mashud did that today. At some other point, the need for the number 6 may be to come in and score quickly straight away. That is exactly why I think we should have a batsman who can handle different situations. I may be a Rana hater, but he played well today at the end and I have no problem acknowledging that. But Spitfire was right in one of his posts, Rana's mission was very simple today, get as many runs as possible in the last 2 overs! I think the line-up clicked today.

I want to know more about what your serious problem is with it.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 3:44 PM GMT, by Sham.

January 29, 2005, 11:16 AM
I agre with he Beamer/Sham duo that we are one batsman short, bu we play with the hadn we are dealt with. With that caveat, this is starting to look stable.

January 29, 2005, 11:59 AM
Have you noticed that chacha doesn't finish his quotas these days? and also coming lower and lower down the order every game. His batting value is almost zero except for an occasional 20 some sometimes. Combination of Rajin and Aftab can easily fill his quota of bowling. If we take another batsman, it will obviously come at the expense of chacha..

Given the team we have, there is no question who is the best no.6 in the team. If we pick an extra bat, which I have asking for, Mashud can come at no.7. For now, no disputing who is best suited for that spot.

roaring tigerz
January 29, 2005, 12:42 PM
i have my reservations about this line up in the long run. i believe that in limited overs cricket your best batsmen have to face as many balls as possible. i am in no doubt that ashraful is our best and technically most correct batsman and the right place for him in the order is number 3. aftab is doing well for now so i agree to the notion that if it ain't broken don't fix it. as for mashud at 6 i believe he is good enough to come in this position. but we definately need another batting allrounder, capable of some late lusty hitting, coming after him.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 5:44 PM GMT, by roaring tigerz.

January 29, 2005, 02:40 PM
Batting order in 4th ODI was almost pixel perfect. I believe, like I said earlier, Masud has the ability to come at no 6 if he's given the role. Aftab at 3 and Ash at 5 can swap their batting position subject to their batting form at that time. Though I would like to take another batsman at no 7 instead of Khaled Mahmood but probebly that won't happen in 5th ODI. Rajin and Aftab are capable enough to bowl 10-12 overs together in the middle of the innings in Dhaka pitch. First change bowling would be the main cause of concern, but I've faith on Aftab. If Mahmood happens to play in 5th ODI, then he should not waste this nice opportunity to retire from international cricket gracefully as he would certainly not cut it in the next series in England, be it bowling or his batting.

January 29, 2005, 02:44 PM
BTW, I fully know Mahmood's contribution to BD criccket in limited over format and he has been playing okay of late, but in England tour he will be milked by opposition team, and you know who they are, just for trivial fun!

January 29, 2005, 02:47 PM
We need a #7 batsman hunt just like the pacer hunt.

Current candidates: Kapali, Rafique (perhaps not a true allrounder), ?

January 29, 2005, 02:53 PM
Right now there is no chance to replace Khaled Mahmud. He got 5 wkts in this series, with some crucial breaks. Mainly because of his experience+ batting the team still needs him. Lets not forget his experience played a role for the ODI victory against India. Aftab/Rajin can bowl, but that may not be enough, by looking at the bowling rotation/selection.

So no matter how much advocacy is going on for a 6th batsman, I dont see that is happening anytime soon at the expense of Khaled Mahmud. And I think Rana silenced his critics duo for now.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 8:02 PM GMT, by reyme.

January 29, 2005, 02:54 PM
In english condiiton,, all these philosophies will evaporate. Temperment, agression, skills ,,, all will count then. Fast bowls requires to use your foot work cleverly to score. How many BD batsmen actually does that? Especially, when England is having problem selecting which inform player to be in the final 11. The experiment with batting order is good for now as it is not an issue thats causing us the match...

We are still lacking an off-spinner another good fast pace bowler, quality medium pacers and a pure right arm spinner. We are winning against Zim because of spins and are not concerned if Mashrafee or Nazmul is performing. But soon, that will become an issue

January 29, 2005, 02:59 PM
Some say Khaled Mahmud is ideal for English condition.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 8:01 PM GMT, by reyme.

January 29, 2005, 03:27 PM
Today all the way we never felt any shortage of batsman. Even the #10 (Rana) is a genuine batsman. This made our life easier and confident.

January 29, 2005, 03:45 PM
Sam, get ready to get some onslaught from Sham+Beamer duo for you comment on "Rana Gunuine Batsman"! Good luck :)

January 29, 2005, 03:51 PM
but I don't think either of us are gonna get drawn into that debate anymore!

January 29, 2005, 05:01 PM
I think I made my point amply clear in my last post. Here is it again:

From 132 to 4 in the 30th over to 161 for 4 at the end of 40th is not acceptable. Mashud did his best in this match and that did not change a thing. Batting first we can score 240+ against Zimbabwe at Dhaka any day after 132 for 4 at the end of 30th. Whether Mashud comes at 6 or not will matter little. Our management is well aware of this fact and Mashud's capability and hence they tried some other things: Sending Rafiq earlier........or bringing in Mortuza/Manjural............

2. My point ---- Mashud coming at no. 6 was not a big factor which you are making. And I fully understand why our management took these other steps. Again, I have no problem with Mashud coming at no. 6 in this team, but I think it makes little difference. Todays game if anything made me more convinced.

3. Should we take another batsman? It is a completely different debate.................and should be judged on whether a fifth regular bowler gives us more or a sixth batsman gives us more. At this point of time we have no one who can bat at no. 6 and that is the reason I have a serious serious doubt about this line up. 130 for 4 at the end of 30 th over should not be a crisis for any team. If it is then that team is in serious trouble from the very begining.

I'm well aware that my opinion is a minority here.

January 29, 2005, 05:06 PM
you are right. I am done with this subject.

Rana comtinues to impress me with his bowling. Good job by him. I like where he batted today and should remain in there.

I heard about this guy waseluddin playing hurricane innings at no.6 in the league. He is also travelling with the "A" team. Someone to keep an eye for the future.

January 29, 2005, 05:16 PM
i think coach mcinnis also said that waseluddin will be a part of our national team in 5 years time or so.

January 29, 2005, 05:59 PM
Only time will tell if this lineup will hold beyond this series. But I dont think so. In England, with same players, if BD is 30/4, I see Rana coming at #6. If BD is tottering early, Dav will not save Rana for #10 spot, he will come early. It does not matter how much some people hate to see that.

PS: No disrespect to anybody's personal opinion. You had yours, I had mine. Peace.

Edited on, January 29, 2005, 11:05 PM GMT, by reyme.

January 29, 2005, 06:08 PM
I wish I could share your confidence in our batting line-up. Our team has been putting up decent scores in the recent past, both against India and Zimbabwe, but I just can't agree that Bangladesh would go from 130 for 4 to 247 anyday, no matter who we play, even Namibia. I guess those days of going from 81 for 3 to 87 all out still haunt me!

I personally think Mashud did well today and his partnership with Ashraful played a large part in our posting the score we did. I just don't think our team has yet earned the reputation where we can say that we could have sent anyone out there and we would have reached close to 250 anyway. If another wicket had gone down at that point, we could have easily gone down for about 215-220!

Instead of asking whether going from 130 to 162 in the 40th over was acceptable, I would rather ask, was going from 130 for 4 to 247 acceptable? And if the answer to that question is yes, then ask whether Mashud and Ashraful consolidating in the middle overs contributed to that score? My answer is yes, yours is perhaps no.

Lastly, the reason why I asked you to clarify was because you used the word serious thrice in regard to how much doubt you had about this batting line-up. Yet from what you have said since, including the fact that you don't have a problem with Mashud coming in at 6, doesn't suggest that your doubts are all that serious. So I thought maybe I had missed something!

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

January 29, 2005, 06:36 PM
God help us, if we are in a scenario such as 30/4 in Eng, only for the great batting hope Rana coming in at no.6 to rescue us out of trouble! and play a blazing knock of 100+ innings! We got dreamers in this board! or is it "sleepless in seattle" syndrome? Insomniac perhaps? Its a nightmarish proposition. The big question remains, will we play two spinners in a game in England? With Rafiq around, that could be a stretch. So, as much as people like to dream of Rana coming and rescuing us, it may never happen. We will take six batsmen in the England trip and given our vulnerability to the pitch and unknown swinging English conditions, three pacers will be needed as well. Rafiq will be the lone spinner. I actually see Chacha playing before Rana in England ( one days offcourse ). Not to mention that our opponents, England and Australia, for the series have a lot of left handers in their batting line up. Rana is a decent bowler on our sub-continenet pitches at best. And you know about his batting already. Dav knows it too by now. Look where he batted today. He was experimenting with him by virtue of that fluke 60odd against Zim. I think he also knows now. He is a good no.9 by the way. Has that unknown factor about him where he may connect for a few fours or sixes with a over or two remaining in the game.

January 29, 2005, 06:42 PM
More than the order itself, I was very satisfied that the top 3-4 batsmen have been doing their job in the last two ODIs. Particularly the openers. If we can get at least get one of the openers to score a 50 regularly, our batting will be in pretty good shape.

January 29, 2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Sham

Lastly, the reason why I asked you to clarify was because you used the word serious thrice in regard to how much doubt you had about this batting line-up. Yet from what you have said since, including the fact that you don't have a problem with Mashud coming in at 6, doesn't suggest that your doubts are all that serious. So I thought maybe I had missed something!

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

I think you have missed my point again. I repeat................. I don't think this batting line up is good enough. 132 for 4 should not be a crisis for a good batting line up and 240+ after such start is not a good one. And again if I was not clear earlier....................Batting first Bangladesh will more often then not reach 240+ from 132 for 4 against this Zimbabwe at Dhaka (not against other teams and not in other grounds).

That is my humble opinion. If I had used three serious's...........that reflects the extent of my doubt. This line up looks very vulnerable and Whatmore and Faruk is going to address that against a stronger bowling line up.

January 29, 2005, 09:52 PM
When we're done with ODI batting line up analysis, I guess we need to do the similar exercise for test batting line up too as it seems we're not sending right players at the right position.

Here is an interesting stat ...

Top averages for each position in the Bangladesh lineup (for test matches)

No....Ave....No of Innings....Player
1 24.38 30 Javed Omar

2 46.50 6 Nafis Iqbal

3 35.33 55 Habibul Bashar

4 24.37 20 Aminul Islam

5 44.89 10 Rajin Saleh

6 44.50 6 Mohammad Ashraful

7 24.80 5 Manjural Islam Rana

8 58.33 5 Mohammad Rafique

9 20.67 23 Mohammad Rafique

10 14.75 20 Tapash Baisya

11 22.00 5 Tareq Aziz

Note that in order to provide meaningful results for this analysis, only players having batted in at least five innings in the position have been included. As a result, for restrictive searches, there may be fewer results returned than expected

Edited on, January 30, 2005, 2:55 AM GMT, by Zephaniah.

Edited on, January 30, 2005, 2:57 AM GMT, by Zephaniah.

January 29, 2005, 10:03 PM
I realize that you don't think this batting line-up is good enough. I don't either. We probably have different solutions to the problem, but I agree with you. And I didn't miss your point. But since it seems like we all agree that the first five in the line-up are fine, and the problem really is with 6, I didn't think the problem was as bad as those serious' sounded, as if the line-up is flawed from start to finish.

How about we start a thread on how many serious's were appropriate? I say 1! :)

Edited on, January 30, 2005, 3:04 AM GMT, by Sham.

January 29, 2005, 10:04 PM
Now lets see how this averages look like in ODIs:

Top averages for each position in the Bangladesh lineup (ODIs - All time)
No...Ave...No of Innings...Player
1 25.95 22 Javed Omar

2 27.00 16 Mehrab Hossain

3 44.25 5 Akram Khan

4 25.87 15 Habibul Bashar

5 23.80 5 Aftab Ahmed

6 26.58 14 Naimur Rahman

7 22.06 38 Khaled Mashud

8 17.77 21 Khaled Mashud

9 18.83 8 Tapash Baisya

10 31.00 7 Mohammad Rafique

11 7.67 7 Shafiuddin Ahmed

Now this is weird, but shows that we shuffled our ODI line up far too much.

(Note that in order to provide meaningful results for this analysis, only players having batted in at least five innings in the position have been included. As a result, for restrictive searches, there may be fewer results returned than expected. )

January 29, 2005, 10:23 PM
Top averages for each position in the Bangladesh lineup (ODIs from 2003 - )
No...Ave...No of Innings...Player
1 25.50 6 Javed Omar

2 21.40 5 Nafis Iqbal

3 30.71 7 Rajin Saleh

4 18.13 8 Habibul Bashar

5 23.80 5 Aftab Ahmed

6 23.20 5 Akram Khan

7 27.50 19 Khaled Mashud

8 25.50 8 Khaled Mashud

9 16.33 5 Khaled Mashud

10 31.00 7 Mohammad Rafique

11 7.50 6 Nazmul Hossain