team for natwest series

[BangladeshFan]

1. javed, should play as anchor
2.aftab, stroke maker and inform
3.nafis, can play the new ball
4.ashraful, can be moved to 6 if there is a serious debacle
5.bashar, his right position according to most
6.rajin, defensive and can be moved to 4
7.rafiq, provide firepower end of innings
8.pilot, solid
9.rana, adds depth
10.nazmul/tapash
11.mashrafi

this team has depth. rana and rafiq, if they can bowl 20 overs among them with 100 runs then it is a good job. it is certainly possible, both england and australia are not that confident against spin. we have to find 20 overs from tapash, aftab, rajin and probably ash.

[esteban_loaiza]

4 bowlers = another embarrassing moment for our cricket

Taposh for Rajin.................

[cricketboy]

I dont accept Rajin's inclusion in this team. My team is:

Javed
Nafis/SHariar Nafees
Aftab
Bashar
Tushar
Ashraful
Pilot
Rafique
Topash
Mashrafe
Nazmul

Not a bad idea to include Rana even because our strengh is spin.

Edited on, June 11, 2005, 1:17 AM GMT, by cricketboy.

Edited on, June 11, 2005, 1:20 AM GMT, by cricketboy.

[esteban_loaiza]

Again 4 bowlers would not work...... if Bangladesh wants to score 200 runs then that is possible by 5 batsmen as we have it........... anyway it might be a wild idea but we could also put pilot at number 3.... he played pace bowling really well and he has a head which, by the way, works...........

[SS]

no NEED for any team..just bring them back !!! What's the point of humiliation when we are not ready.
We are not ready for the Natwest series

[esteban_loaiza]

Originally posted by SS
no NEED for any team..just bring them back !!! What's the point of humiliation when we are not ready.
We are not ready for the Natwest series

Or we could suggest that Bangladesh can bat twice in 50 overs (20 wickets) or opponent will have only 25 overs to bat or .................................................. ......... man when we are gonna play well consistently??

[amim]

Pilot tends to push at the ball rather than firmly playing strokes like Aftab. So please note that he is a wicket keeper batsman and not a good enough batsman to earn his inclusion based on his batting alone. That being said playing at no. 7 is ideally suited for him because he is not a big hitter rather an accumulator of runs. At no. 3 we need to use our specialist batsmen.

Now we need to protect few of our in-form batsmen and they are Bashar, Tushar and Aftab.

We need someone to play big shots in the last 10 overs.

But sending Bashar at no. 3 is a risk we can't take at this stage. We need to have our inform batsmen batting at no 4,5 and 6. Aftab is best suited at 6 and Bashar at 4 and Tushar at 5. Sending Tushar at no. 4 was a risk in the practice match as 2 wickets fell quickly but the move paid off well as he and bashar scored 80 runs in partnerships.

Ashraful just talked a lot but when it comes to his performance, it leaves a lot to be desired. We can use him in no. 3 so he can get his eye in, and he will get to face more balls as we can be certain that our openers won't last long in the ODIs.

Anyway my point is to protect our in form batsmen because they are the ones who can get us most of the runs. So if we are planning to score 200 runs then 160 has to come from the top 6 specialist batsmen.

We need Bashar, Aftab and Tushar scoring 120 runs.

The rest will hopefully score another 100 runs.

Edited on, June 11, 2005, 1:50 AM GMT, by amim.

[esteban_loaiza]

Originally posted by amim
Pilot tends to push at the ball rather than firmly playing strokes like Aftab. So please note that he is a wicket keeper batsman and not a good enough batsman to earn his inclusion based on his batting alone. That being said playing at no. 7 is ideally suited for him because he is not a big hitter rather an accumulator of runs. At no. 3 we need to use our specialist batsmen.

Now we need to protect few of our in-form batsmen and they are Bashar, Tushar and Aftab.

We need someone to play big shots in the last 10 overs.

But sending Bashar at no. 3 is a risk we can't take at this stage. We need to have our inform batsmen batting at no 4,5 and 6. Aftab is best suited at 6 and Bashar at 4 and Tushar at 5. Sending Tushar at no. 4 was a risk in the practice match as 2 wickets fell quickly but the move paid off well as he and bashar scored 80 runs in partnerships.

Ashraful just talked a lot but when it comes to his performance, it leaves a lot to be desired. We can use him in no. 3 so he can get his eye in, and he will get to face more balls as we can be certain that our openers won't last long in the ODIs.

Anyway my point is to protect our in form batsmen because they are the ones who can get us most of the runs. So if we are planning to score 200 runs then 160 has to come from the top 6 specialist batsmen.

We need Bashar, Aftab and Tushar scoring 120 runs.

The rest will hopefully score another 100 runs.

Edited on, June 11, 2005, 1:50 AM GMT, by amim.

Yeah.... I was also suspecting if that is a good idea..... But you are wrong about pilot's place as a batsman.... he can play as a specialist batsman, I see a no problem....Tushar just jusy played one good innings that he managed to get out after settling down..... no way we can rely on him that much...... I'd play 5 specialist batsmen

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally posted by SS
no NEED for any team..just bring them back !!! What's the point of humiliation when we are not ready.
We are not ready for the Natwest series

what's the POINT of bringing them back? will it make us "ready"?

[nasifkhan]

Originally posted by Spitfire_x86

what's the POINT of bringing them back? will it make us "ready"?

they dont need to be ready ..... they should come back and do Haal Chash in the my village.... ato taka koroch korar kono manay hoi na....

[Sam]

cricketboy, I liked your team, only Rana can be added in place of Tapash, and Aftab should be used as a regular seamer.

[Faceoff]

Javed
Nafis
Aftab
Bashar
Tushar
Ashraful
Pilot
Rafique
Taposh/Rana (if Rana plays well in the practice match then he is in)
Mashrafe
Nazmul

Rajin (12th man)



Edited on, June 11, 2005, 3:12 PM GMT, by faceoff.