Athers on BD & Whatmore (Telegraph)

RazabQ · #1 May 1, 2005, 12:39 PM

Source

Michael Atherton, who is far more fluent as a writer than, IMO, he ever was as a batsmen, touches upon the many aspects of Whatmore's job that have been already discussed to death here. Highlights include:

a) Lancashire coaching
b) Avuncular approach (as opposed to a no non-sense tough SOB one)
c) India out-clause
d) Conflict of interest in doing Test match summary while his team plays.

Athers also casts a somehwhat more tolerant eye to BD then his "better curry in England than subcontinent" stating fellow columnist Scyld Berry.

FaltuRidwanBhai · #2 May 1, 2005, 12:59 PM

In the article there is a line that says, "That would be easier if Bangladesh played more often against their equals, rather than constantly against their betters." What do they mean by "often against their equals", who are they referring to here.

RazabQ · #3 May 1, 2005, 01:09 PM

I'd presume the likes of Kenya & Zimbabwe. Also, based on present form, perhaps Windies.

Sorry · #4 May 1, 2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FaltuRidwanBhai
In the article there is a line that says, "That would be easier if Bangladesh played more often against their equals, rather than constantly against their betters." What do they mean by "often against their equals", who are they referring to here.

referring to zimbabwe and kenya

chinaman · #5 May 1, 2005, 01:35 PM

Why would Kenya come to you guy's minds is beyond me. How would Bangladesh play "more often" against a country if it not a test nation? I don't know, must be losing it big now a days!

Rob · #6 May 1, 2005, 01:49 PM

Hmm, its proven Bangladesh are better than their "equals" and would beat them regularly so I do not see how much good playing against their "equals" more would do Bangladesh. They would just win the vast majority of games against them and go into games against the top nations with false hope.

chyicarus · #7 May 1, 2005, 01:53 PM

I'm sure what he meant was have more series between the two teams, to sort of build their confidence. Whats the point in playing against giants- getting beaten black and blue and come home humiliated! I don't agree with the tier-system but i don't think we should be playing with the big teams as often as we do. Besides where is fun of a Test match when we finish up in 3 days!

Sam · #8 May 1, 2005, 03:21 PM

chyicarus , I can't agree with you. Now-a-days we are not finishing in three days. Moreover, many giants are also finishing in 3 days, but it's problem only when we do it. It's unfair.

aosaif · #9 May 1, 2005, 03:38 PM

Instead of the five-year plan and the proposed tier system, it might have been better for us to not play the top 3 teams in the world until we reached a certain ranking

sunniath · #10 May 1, 2005, 03:48 PM

people ask us to play more often with keny becasue kenya is a superior team to us to the rest of the cricket world.

RazabQ · #11 May 1, 2005, 03:58 PM

Kenya team has more playmakers than us so in ODIs, on past performance, they are better than us. I'd daresay if they played a 4-5 day match with BD, they'd lose handily.

Thing is, what happens when Odumbe, Tikolo et al go away? When we used to play them we had Akram, Hasib and Naimur. We've already replaced ours. Do they even have replacements?

Rubayed · #12 May 1, 2005, 05:17 PM

"That would be easier if Bangladesh played more often against their equals, rather than constantly against their betters."

This is stupid. England kept playing Australia in 90s despite knowing that there is no chance in hell they would win against them, so what is wrong with us playing any major test teams,including England?

FaltuRidwanBhai · #13 May 1, 2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chinaman
Why would Kenya come to you guy's minds is beyond me. How would Bangladesh play "more often" against a country if it not a test nation? I don't know, must be losing it big now a days!

ji bhai apni kintu thiki bolechen. jaihok, kothata kintu shotto je akshomoy amra kintu aki shathe chilam. tobe tarpor amra kintu peye jai test status jeta tara kintu pai na. ebong tarpor hotat kore tader board ar moddhe kintu onek golmal shuru hoi. ebong ami jotodur jani bortoman kenya team ar obostha kintu amar mone hoi na khub akta bhalo obosthay royeche. tobe zimbabwe kintu amader shathe bola jete pare. west indies ar obosthao hoito amader theke khub akta bhalo na. tobe jake jebhabe cris gayle ar sarwar khello tate kintu abar taderke thik amader shoman bolao jai na. dannabad.

FaltuRidwanBhai · #14 May 1, 2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rob22888
Hmm, its proven Bangladesh are better than their "equals" and would beat them regularly so I do not see how much good playing against their "equals" more would do Bangladesh. They would just win the vast majority of games against them and go into games against the top nations with false hope.

exactly u r rite. well our team can go to hongkong and countries like UAE. i am sure our team will win big and we supporters are going to be happy. but the thing is our team wont actually learn anything from that. u learn from mistakes. so yes while playing big teams we will loose badly but through this loosing we are also gaining something which is experience and good tehcniques.

FaltuRidwanBhai · #15 May 1, 2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rubayed
"That would be easier if Bangladesh played more often against their equals, rather than constantly against their betters."

This is stupid. England kept playing Australia in 90s despite knowing that there is no chance in hell they would win against them, so what is wrong with us playing any major test teams,including England?

u r rite. well the thing is there is no point of playing a lot of matches with them because that might just be a disaster but not playing at all doesnt make any sense too. and the tier system is the worst thing i have ever heard in my life in the history of cricket. this is just being racist. there is always ups and downs in cricket. once WI used to be the champs and look at their team now. so the tier system just doesnt make sense. because the team on the top of the ladder is just not going to be on top of the ladder for 100 years it is probably going to get down at one stage and the team on the bottom of the ladder is just not going to stay at the bottom eventually it is going to go up at one stage.

FaltuRidwanBhai · #16 May 1, 2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by razabq
Kenya team has more playmakers than us so in ODIs, on past performance, they are better than us. I'd daresay if they played a 4-5 day match with BD, they'd lose handily.

Thing is, what happens when Odumbe, Tikolo et al go away? When we used to play them we had Akram, Hasib and Naimur. We've already replaced ours. Do they even have replacements?

again u r rite. tru kenya had players like odumbe and tikolo who alone can take the kenya side to victory. they are world class players. but the thing is who is going to be their successor. have they produced any? i dont think so. i have not heard. we used to have shanto during the 1996 world cup. but after that we have changed so many bolers and now we have world class bolers like mashrafee. martin suji and toni suji used to play in the kenyan team in 1996 and i think they are still in the team and why is that? that is probably because they have not been able to produce anything better than them.

aosaif · #17 May 1, 2005, 07:57 PM

i don't like the use of the words "equals" and "betters". I've always thought British people, unjustifiable, think of themselves as some kind of super-race (vis-a-vis good upbringing, nobility, blah, blah). Of course, this is only a generaliztion, and many of you will disagree with me. I just didn't like those words.

Sham · #18 May 1, 2005, 11:03 PM

Aosaif, I know what you mean, but I don't think Athers' piece, and that line in particular, was the manifestation of an inherent racism on his part. He wrote it the way he saw it. We aren't all going to agree and I don't think any writer ever expects universal acceptance of all his views, ideas and suggestions.

In any case, my love for Atherton aside (my batting style is completely modelled after him), I think this piece is quite enlightening because we have a description of Whatmore as a coach from a guy who has been coached by him. We all knew quite a bit about Dav already obviously, but my perception of Dav, based almost entirely on his appearance (he does look more like a bootcamp instructor than King Arthur), has always been that he is more of a dictatorial coach than someone who lets the team make most its decisions. That perception is changing slowly and reading stuff about him from players he has been coached by helps a lot in understanding the guy better.

As for Fletcher, that was an inspired choice by England, and I think the fact that he was relatively a nobody when he took on the England job helped both him and the team. He took over right after a poor World Cup in 1999 and a home series loss against New Zealand, possibly the lowest point for English cricket, and managed to take them to number 2 within 3 or 4 years. People are actually talking about winning the Ashes, which is quite something. I don't think England will though.

aosaif · #19 May 1, 2005, 11:14 PM

Sham,
Yes there are lots of things you can say about the article. I just pulled out a few things that annoyed me. Of course, there's some really revealing stuff in there that you already pointed out, like Dav Whatmore's personaily and style as a coach.

Fletcher may have got the highest paid coaching job in world cricket, but at least Dav has taken a bunch of nobodies like the sri lankans, and made them into world cup champions. The things he's done with the Bangladesh team, Fletcher would never be able to do.

aosaif · #20 May 1, 2005, 11:15 PM

Yeh England will not win. I'd say they'd do well to draw the series. They never play well under pressure.

Sham · #21 May 1, 2005, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aosaif

Fletcher may have got the highest paid coaching job in world cricket, but at least Dav has taken a bunch of nobodies like the sri lankans, and made them into world cup champions. The things he's done with the Bangladesh team, Fletcher would never be able to do.

I agree, and I think thats the point Athers was trying to make as well. Fletcher has been fantastic for England because he is exactly the type of coach they needed. Whatmore wouldn't have worked for England, just as Fletcher wouldn't have worked for Bangladesh at the time that we got Whatmore. However, in another three or four years, Fletcher might be worth having a look at.

aosaif · #22 May 2, 2005, 03:35 AM

hmm.....hope so.....hopefully we'll reach a stage where steely grit will be needed more than rectifying poor batting technique

betaar · #23 May 2, 2005, 02:04 PM

I think we are feeding those english writers what they crave for.
As long as our players keep their cool we should be ok. Thank god most of players are not good in english (not that they have), these articles won't make much sense to them which is a good thing.

Spitfire_x86 · #24 May 2, 2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BETAAR
I think we are feeding those english writers what they crave for.
As long as our players keep their cool we should be ok. Thank god most of players are not good in english (not that they have), these articles won't make much sense to them which is a good thing.

And I don't think they have much reading habit either