facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Cricket > Cricket

Cricket Join fellow Tigers fans to discuss all things Cricket

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6, 2004, 01:38 PM
hbashar hbashar is offline
Street Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 9
Default Winning Our first Test Match

We shouldnt be negative about Bangladesh's performance as many teams have taken a very long time to win their first test match. These are the first test match wins for each country.

45th match after over 26 years for New Zealand
25th match after nearly 20 years for India
14th match after 3 1/2 years for Sri Lanka
12th match after nearly 7 years for South Africa
11th match after 2 1/2 years for Zimbabwe
6th match after nearly 2 years for West Indies
2nd match after 12 days for England
2nd match after 10 days for Pakistan
1st match on first day for Australia

Bangladesh has so far played 32 matches and havent won for 4 years.

I can guarantee we wont take as long as India or New Zealand did to win our first match.

So next time anyone tells u Bangladesh are taking too long to win a match throw these facts at them.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old December 6, 2004, 01:45 PM
Mr-khan's Avatar
Mr-khan Mr-khan is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: September 18, 2004
Location: Canada, toronto
Posts: 1,833

If bd can Improve batting performance may be they can get a good result. Good result means draw.I hope we will get our first test win against Zimbabe.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old December 7, 2004, 07:20 PM
bourny3 bourny3 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: August 4, 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 3,199

hbashar i hope you mean years to win. Because if you meant tests we have already gone past India.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old December 7, 2004, 07:30 PM
AsifTheManRahman's Avatar
AsifTheManRahman AsifTheManRahman is offline
Super Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 12, 2004
Location: Canada
Favorite Player: Ice Man, Chatter Box
Posts: 27,675

see the thing is...when you play lots of matches in a very small space of time, you hardly have the time to identify your mistakes and regroup before the next tour. that's probably the problem bangladesh are having at the moment.
however, when you play just a few matches per year, you get the time to improve, and if you haven't won a test match in 26 yrs, you suck.
that being said, the opposite is also true, and so in my opinion there should be a balance between the number of matches played per year and the amount of time new teams get to regroup after a bad outing.
however, i still think bd should go on playing at the rate they are - i dont want tours to be cut down. it will have adverse effects at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old December 7, 2004, 10:24 PM
DJ Sahastra DJ Sahastra is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 20, 2004
Location: US
Posts: 2,847

This is slightly tangential but i must quote it anyways.

Too often people blindly quote India winning after 20 years and 26 tests. What they really miss are points which are very relevant.

Point 1:
In those 20 years that India played Cricket, Cricket was a Royal sports confined to a rare few clubs and a few players. My grandfather didn't know what was Cricket and nor did my father know about it. India was not even a free country and cricketering infrastructure was non-existent except for the royal-societies which had a fascination for this "white-men's game".

India was in short introduced as a whipping boy for England and Australia. It's remarkable that the whipping boys grew up too fast and starting hitting back sonner than later.

Point II:
Atleast till Independence, The Indian Cricket team represented a combined team for what is today India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. Or, they represented really nobody. So it is just a statistical matter that India has to own up the pre-independence statistics.

Also, by the time Pakistan played it's first test, it had all the international experience in reality. Most of Pakistan's player were players who had played for India or were on verge of playing for India. Pakistan Cricket's history is as old as India's except that their disowning of the pre-independence statistics really makes them look far better as the new baby of the test playing nation.

Point III:
Another relevant detail about the "test cricket" for India in those days. A test-series would really happen like one series every 2-3 years. So what you did in the last series, good or bad, was never carried to the next series. Playing matches spaced so far apart was a huge disadvantage in sense it was a fresh start every time the team played a series.

Just look at the stats:
1932 - 1 test, 1 series
1933/34 - 3 tests, 1 series
1936 - 3 tests, 1 series
1946 - 3 tests, 1 series
1947/48 - 5 tests, 1 series
1948/49 - 5 tests, 1 series
1951/52, 5 tests, 1 series

From the time India played it first test to it's first win, it played 7 series in 20 years or an average of a series every 3 years!!! It also comes out to slightly more than 1 test per year. Players and teams talk about "rustiness" in few weeks on not playing cricket. Here we are talking about years!

There really was too little to carry over from one series to another.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point here is, using the data from the pre-80s to prove that your team is doing better than the teams that debuted in that era is farcical at best. The way cricket is played changed drastically in post-80s era. A more realistically comparative benchmark for BD should be the statistics for Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe.

Even in those days when Indian team was the whipping boy for the cricket-giants England And Australia, there were many significant achievements. For those who would like to know,

1. India drew it's very 3rd test. It was a draw as in a proper draw. And the opponents were England, the heavyweight of that era by miles.

2. India took first innings lead over england in the very 5th test that it played.

3. After losing the inaugural test with Australia, India hit back to gain the first inning lead over Australia in the very next test. The match was a draw due to rain. This was India's 9th match.

4. India could declare an inning in as early as it's 10th match.

5. By the time India was in it's 20+ test matches, it was already dominating the proceedings against the rival England even if the matches were ending in a draw.

Here is the last 5 matches leading to India's win in it's 26th match.

1 WI 286 104.2 - D 5th Test v WI in Ind 1948/49 at Mumbai (BS) [311]
2 Ind 193 88.4 - D
3 WI 267 107.3 - D
4 Ind 355/8 107 361 D

1 Eng 203 102.3 - D 1st Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Delhi [339]
2 Ind 418/6d 175 - D
3 Eng 368/6 221 - D

1 Ind 485/9d 139 - D 2nd Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Mumbai (BS) [342]
2 Eng 456 207.1 - D
3 Ind 208 83.1 - D
4 Eng 55/2 36 238 D

1 Eng 342 159.5 - D 3rd Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Kolkata [344]
2 Ind 344 149.1 - D
3 Eng 252/5d 120 - D
4 Ind 103/0 29 251 D

1 Ind 121 61.5 - L 4th Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Kanpur [346]
2 Eng 203 95.1 - W
3 Ind 157 66.5 - L
4 Eng 76/2 19.2 76 W

1 Eng 266 121.5 - L 5th Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Chennai [348]
2 Ind 457/9d 153 - W
3 Eng 183 75.5 - L

Another point worth noting was that in the lead-up to those first 25 test matches that India played before winning the first test, it had 12 losses and 13 draws. It lost fewer than 50% of the matches played. Also, it lost only 4 tests by an innings, with 3 of them coming against Australia ina single series.

Finally, bear in mind that India had no minnows or lesser team to beat. It only played England and Australia, and a debut series againt West Indies in the lead-up to it's first win.

As i have said before, statistics never tell the full story. To those who have really lived through that era or are in a position to compare, they would find the statistical use of data to prove that it "really sucked that India took 20 years to win it's first test" quite incomprehensible. India was a potent threat at all times and it was only a matter of time before it got them.

The records speak for themselves.

Edited on, December 8, 2004, 3:44 AM GMT, by DJ Sahastra.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old December 8, 2004, 07:58 AM
arafath79 arafath79 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 29, 2004
Location: Hatfield, Herts, UK
Favorite Player: MashrafeRazzakShakib(atm)
Posts: 3,482

We will win against Zimbabwe in coming test series. Don't worry guys!
We will win in ODI as well.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old December 9, 2004, 01:09 AM
vv_sunil vv_sunil is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: February 4, 2004
Location: Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
Posts: 1,220

Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Sahastra
This is slightly tangential but i must quote it anyways.

Too often people blindly quote India winning after 20 years and 26 tests. What they really miss are points which are very relevant.

Point 1:
In those 20 years that India played Cricket, Cricket was a Royal sports confined to a rare few clubs and a few players. My grandfather didn't know what was Cricket and nor did my father know about it. India was not even a free country and cricketering infrastructure was non-existent except for the royal-societies which had a fascination for this "white-men's game".

India was in short introduced as a whipping boy for England and Australia. It's remarkable that the whipping boys grew up too fast and starting hitting back sonner than later.

Point II:
Atleast till Independence, The Indian Cricket team represented a combined team for what is today India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. Or, they represented really nobody. So it is just a statistical matter that India has to own up the pre-independence statistics.

Also, by the time Pakistan played it's first test, it had all the international experience in reality. Most of Pakistan's player were players who had played for India or were on verge of playing for India. Pakistan Cricket's history is as old as India's except that their disowning of the pre-independence statistics really makes them look far better as the new baby of the test playing nation.

Point III:
Another relevant detail about the "test cricket" for India in those days. A test-series would really happen like one series every 2-3 years. So what you did in the last series, good or bad, was never carried to the next series. Playing matches spaced so far apart was a huge disadvantage in sense it was a fresh start every time the team played a series.

Just look at the stats:
1932 - 1 test, 1 series
1933/34 - 3 tests, 1 series
1936 - 3 tests, 1 series
1946 - 3 tests, 1 series
1947/48 - 5 tests, 1 series
1948/49 - 5 tests, 1 series
1951/52, 5 tests, 1 series

From the time India played it first test to it's first win, it played 7 series in 20 years or an average of a series every 3 years!!! It also comes out to slightly more than 1 test per year. Players and teams talk about "rustiness" in few weeks on not playing cricket. Here we are talking about years!

There really was too little to carry over from one series to another.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point here is, using the data from the pre-80s to prove that your team is doing better than the teams that debuted in that era is farcical at best. The way cricket is played changed drastically in post-80s era. A more realistically comparative benchmark for BD should be the statistics for Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe.

Even in those days when Indian team was the whipping boy for the cricket-giants England And Australia, there were many significant achievements. For those who would like to know,

1. India drew it's very 3rd test. It was a draw as in a proper draw. And the opponents were England, the heavyweight of that era by miles.

2. India took first innings lead over england in the very 5th test that it played.

3. After losing the inaugural test with Australia, India hit back to gain the first inning lead over Australia in the very next test. The match was a draw due to rain. This was India's 9th match.

4. India could declare an inning in as early as it's 10th match.

5. By the time India was in it's 20+ test matches, it was already dominating the proceedings against the rival England even if the matches were ending in a draw.

Here is the last 5 matches leading to India's win in it's 26th match.

1 WI 286 104.2 - D 5th Test v WI in Ind 1948/49 at Mumbai (BS) [311]
2 Ind 193 88.4 - D
3 WI 267 107.3 - D
4 Ind 355/8 107 361 D

1 Eng 203 102.3 - D 1st Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Delhi [339]
2 Ind 418/6d 175 - D
3 Eng 368/6 221 - D

1 Ind 485/9d 139 - D 2nd Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Mumbai (BS) [342]
2 Eng 456 207.1 - D
3 Ind 208 83.1 - D
4 Eng 55/2 36 238 D

1 Eng 342 159.5 - D 3rd Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Kolkata [344]
2 Ind 344 149.1 - D
3 Eng 252/5d 120 - D
4 Ind 103/0 29 251 D

1 Ind 121 61.5 - L 4th Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Kanpur [346]
2 Eng 203 95.1 - W
3 Ind 157 66.5 - L
4 Eng 76/2 19.2 76 W

1 Eng 266 121.5 - L 5th Test v Eng in Ind 1951/52 at Chennai [348]
2 Ind 457/9d 153 - W
3 Eng 183 75.5 - L

Another point worth noting was that in the lead-up to those first 25 test matches that India played before winning the first test, it had 12 losses and 13 draws. It lost fewer than 50% of the matches played. Also, it lost only 4 tests by an innings, with 3 of them coming against Australia ina single series.

Finally, bear in mind that India had no minnows or lesser team to beat. It only played England and Australia, and a debut series againt West Indies in the lead-up to it's first win.

As i have said before, statistics never tell the full story. To those who have really lived through that era or are in a position to compare, they would find the statistical use of data to prove that it "really sucked that India took 20 years to win it's first test" quite incomprehensible. India was a potent threat at all times and it was only a matter of time before it got them.

The records speak for themselves.

Edited on, December 8, 2004, 3:44 AM GMT, by DJ Sahastra.

Thanks mr.sahastra. the perfect reading. u are absolutely right by saying

"statistics never tell the full story. To those who have really lived through that era or are in a position to compare, they would find the statistical use of data to prove that it "really sucked that India took 20 years to win it's first test" quite incomprehensible. India was a potent threat at all times
and it was only a matter of time before it got them. "

it is a bitter fact that bangladesh has perfomed poorly except the test against Pakistan, and we have accept the fact.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket