We had a chance

Zobair · #1 February 18, 2003, 10:25 AM

I am not b-s-ing you... It seemed if the match were to be curtailed to a 25 match affair then we just needed to score 93 according to the D/L method. This is probably the reason shahriar, ehsanul and then ashraful and sanwar showed such urgency...to knock off as many runs as they could before the rain intervened if it intervened. The odds were really high coz the conditiond were really overcast. This seemed to be the verdict of the west indian commentators I was listening to. Given that we had managed to knock off 32 runs...we would have needed only 65 runs from 17 overs with 8 wickets in hand!!!!!!!! So believe it or not at some point the west indians probably did not mind the match being washed off....much the opposite of what wisden and the rest of the snobs would have you believe....

This could have been the fourth ODI win for us...we will never know now.....

**Tehsin** · #2 February 18, 2003, 10:35 AM

Could have been. Atleast we have 2 points now. Whish means, if we beat kenya, we still have a shot of finishing on top of Canada, not fair for Canada but the way our batsmen handed them the match ......
The key is to beat Kenya and hopefully rain will stay away from all the other matches, again, what was the big idea of having the WC in SA around this time ?

Sham · #3 February 18, 2003, 10:43 AM

93 in 25 overs? That cannot possibly be right. We needed 245 off 50! That is about 122 in 25. Add to that the fact that we would have 10 wickets for 25 overs rather than 50, would boost that requirement up a few. Isn't that how the D/L system works? Therefore, I would think we would require something in the region of 140 in 25 overs, not 93. 93 in 25 is less than 4 runs an over, how can that be right since the WI scored at 4.88.

Anyway, we got 2 points. This is disastrous for the WI, they really needed the 4 points today. Pool B is going to be very interesting indeed. With the way India is playing in Pool A, I think Australia, Pakistan and England will go through.

Shubho · #4 February 18, 2003, 10:44 AM

I would rather we played and lost under the D/L method, than have the result we have now - a 'no result'.

Although pompous may have a point about the openers showing urgency so that they could pile on some early runs, I believe they were genuinely outclassed by Merv Dillon. That guy was looking awesome. Seezan and Rokon were edging anything and everything - AS USUAL, which was highly annoying. And, they were extremely lucky to have been dropped THREE times.

Ashraful was looking good today for a change. Two sweetly timed boundaries. I wonder whether things have changed for him psychologically. Sanwar, I think, would have tried to play a supporting role...at least that's what it looked like. Who knows? Maybe those two could have put up a decent partnership.

I had a problem with they way our fielding and bowling went today, however. Actually, it was just the bowling. Sure, restricting the Windies to under 250 is an achievement to a certain degree. But we could have contained them much better.

First off, we gave away FOUR overs in extras, which is absolutely pathetic. 27 runs just like that. Then Powell got one too many chances by Manju, Rafique and Talha. Too many short deliveries which were punished big time. And then Pilot made a big mistake putting Talha in to bowl the 47th over. The poor guy is 17, he doesn't have the composure to handle a West Indian attack in the slog overs. Mind you, Manju wasn't any better. Got whacked all over the park. Pilot should have used Kapali's leg spin much earlier, and I don't understand why the guy didn't even get a shot.

Anyway, I guess given our previous two performances, we should take heart from the way our team played today, even though they could have potentially restricted the Windies to a little over 200.

samia · #5 February 18, 2003, 12:15 PM

really wanted to see the outcome of the match but looks like nature had other plans.i guess we would have lost but it would have been interesting to see whether BD put up a fight and if their batting improved.

shahid · #6 February 19, 2003, 02:38 AM

what's the rule of the DL method. i guess with 2 wickets down, we would have needed somewhere around 110 atleast in 25 overts.

Shubho · #7 February 19, 2003, 07:19 AM

we would have needed only 93 runs from 25 overs; pompous seems to have been correct. In contrast, the winning total would have been 205 or so if we were 8 wickets down after 25 overs. Given the way we have been batting in the tournament, I think we would have been 8 wickets down way before the 25th over. We would never have reached a total of 200 in 25 overs...not even top test teams could.

fwullah · #8 February 19, 2003, 08:54 AM

From what I can remember, the commentators were saying over the TV before Bangladesh's innings started that Bangladesh would have needed to score 86 without any wicket after 25 overs (in D/L method).

And then 90 odd runs for the loss of 1 wicket and more than 100 runs for losing 2 wickets.

But as I know our batsman - they would have lost a few more wickets after 25 overs.

The papers today also saying that we had a chance to win - but that is not realistic when we were all out for 120 in the first 2 matches.

We needed the full match for our batsman to get some confidence back - especially since Akram Khan is coming and will surely be in the team for the next match vs SA.

Sham · #9 February 19, 2003, 10:27 AM

Damn! 93 in 25 overs, that we could easilly do! Although I guess if we had to chase 93, we would make sure that we were all out for 82. But damn, we could have actually caused an upset.

Zobair · #10 February 19, 2003, 10:51 AM

I think..what the commentators were says was Bnagladesh had to score another 93 runs....i.e 125 if D/L came into play from 25 overs....do you remember the ICC final....Kenya score 260 odd??

SO yeah we had a chance....

Shubho · #11 February 19, 2003, 11:04 AM

93 for the loss of 2 wickets! That's freaking impossible. Ashraful and Sanwar would never have put on another 61 runs for 17 overs after we were 32/2 to score 93/2. They aren't that good.

Had we lost 8 wickets, the winning total would have been 205 after 25 overs according to D/L. Even more impossible.

Basically, the more wickets we would have lost before the 25 overs were up, the higher our required total to win would have been.

WIFAN · #12 February 19, 2003, 11:33 AM

I hate to sound biased or unfair, but I dont think therew is a chance in hell you would have won that match. Did you see how Dillon was bowling!!!! How the heck does anyone get 100 of 25 overs off that sort of bowling. I think it is very unreasonable to suggest that Bang;ladesh could have won that math, as most media outlets are suggesting that it was the Windies that were robbed of 2 points!

fwullah · #13 February 19, 2003, 11:57 AM

I agree with WIFAN completely.

Shubho · #14 February 19, 2003, 12:06 PM

Dude, the other guys just misunderstood the target. Chill. If the winning target was 93 full stop, we would have had a marginal chance of winning after 25 overs FOR THE LOSS OF ALL OUR WICKETS. But it wasn't that simple. We had to have 8 wickets in hand at the end of the 25 overs, as well as a score of 93 on the board. Everybody agrees that that would have been impossible. It's just that we're all confused about this Duckworth Lewis jobby that's doing our heads in.

Orpheus · #15 February 19, 2003, 12:52 PM

[align=center]DILLON SUCKS[/align]

Ball mare ekjaigai, Jai arekjaigai... Eita to unfair ... NO BOWLING

[Edited on 19-2-2003 by Orpheus]

Shubho · #16 February 19, 2003, 12:55 PM

If so, then Monju rules.

Sham · #17 February 19, 2003, 05:21 PM

So I was right after all! I knew 93 in 25 overs didn't make sense. But who cares, the game is over, we got 2 points. Time to move on to South Africa.