[Dhurr]

al Furqaan, thank you for the well thought post.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
all teams with the exception of pakistan struggled in their initial decades at test cricket. the fact that bangladesh is also the only team that did not EARN test status indicates that we would only do worse. much worse. that much should be expected.

We probably shouldn't compare ourselves and our history to every other test team's (although that comparison is inevitable).

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
of course we will continue to hear the propoganda that india and NZ drew many of their matches, etc, etc. and the truth is that india was a much stronger team in relation to their opponents than we are. that much is obvious, and we don't dispute that. however, the point is that india and NZ both became stronger in the course of time (a lot of time).

This is a thread between us, BC members. So forget about what outsiders say and their "propaganda". Let's try and take an objective look at what we have done in the years we have played test cricket.

Since you insist on comparison, wouldn't the best comparison be that between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe or Bangladesh and Sri Lanka?

Zimbabwe used to compete against Bangladesh in the World Cup qualifiers. That same team went to get test status 8 years before we did, and their performance between 1992 and 2000 (8 years) was much better than our performance between 2000 and today.

Before Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka was the last team to get test status, and if I remember correctly, Sri Lanka was much more competitive between 1982 and 1990 (their first 8 years) than we were in our first 8 years.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in the absense of a strong domestic structure, which is a chicken and egg thing, btw, and without naturally athletic genes, time is the only thing which can help bangladesh. its actually quite stupid to think bangladesh should be a strong team in just 8 years, no matter how many tests are played.

No one expected Bangladesh to win a World Cup or be the #1 test team by 2008; at least I hope no one did. That would be foolish. The expectation, however, was that we would be competitive, not that we would fold inside of 3 days on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
the added burden of 2020s is also killing our team. IMO, BCB should strip Bangladesh of their 20-20 status, that form of the game won't help us in any way shape or form, cricket wise or financially. it will only ruin what little temperemtn and technique we have.

Maybe it's the game of the future. Who knows? I am not fond of Twenty-20 either, but it is what it is. In any case, my concern in this thread is test cricket.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in short, we simply cannot physically avoid today's situation of being 97-8 against south africa. this has nothing to do with temperement, per se. we are not used to facing 6 foot 6 inch tall fast bowlers throwing down short balls at 150 k. so even if they aren't doing it, we already have that fear. its a natural thing, and there is no real reason or benefit in "blaming" the batsman.

This thread wasn't a direct result of today's performance. I would have posted this two days ago, even before the tests began, but I knew I wouldn't have the time to respond to the posts, so I held off until today.

In any case, doesn't your quote actually make a case against Bangladesh's test status, i.e. we are bound to be this bad under these conditions, which we are bound to face if we want to play test cricket?

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
it took subcontinent teams 160 collective years of playing Test cricket before someone one a match at Perth (india last year). 160 years. its not a coincidence that india, pakistan, and sri lanka lost matches there for 160 years. and we expect the genetically miniscule bangalis to compete against the likes of steyn and morkel in south africa? clearly, expectations are insane. pakistan has had supreme fast bowlers, and yet they've never won at perth. sri lanka even today, often retreats to a shell away from home.

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. No one (or at least no sane person) expected Bangladesh to go to South Africa and rape their team on South African soil. The expectation is competitive cricket, not bending over and letting them have their way with the team so it loses its first 8 wickets in 24 overs.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
bottom line is, yes, we suck more than anyone else has ever sucked, but we aren't the only ones who have ever sucked.

So then your reason is: "They were bad too".

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
the only way we can fix things, is to forget about our NCL, forget about international 20-20s, and continue to play Test and ODIs against both top teams, and occaissionally against minnows. we must find players with the skill set to succeed on bouncy tracks, as well as our home tracks and find ways to get them to play all their non-international matches away from bangladesh on greentops, on bouncy tracks, on fast wickets. that is the only way we can overcome the fear or steyn or morkel on hard pitches.

I sort of agree with all of the above except the NCL suggestion. We need domestic competition, and lots of it.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
we also need a psychologist. NOW.

as i type, mushy and shahadat are putting on 24 runs for the 9th wicket. more than any of the top order batsman managed. this indicates that in addition to our baseline inability, is a profound mental weakness amongst the top order. the top order plays to their potential only when demoted to the lower order and when wickets have tumbled up front. put ashraful at #7 instead of #4, and i gurantee you his mean score (not batting average) but his average runs per innings, will increase at least two-fold. there is a cavalier immaturity which never ceases to infect any of our top order. i thought tamim and raqib were different, but i am sure they will react the same. we need to sort out the mental bullshit ASAP.
to be honest, i don't think the BCB knows what to do and so they are continuing or will continue the failed policies of the past. someone should inform them of what to do.

Agreed.