Can you make the case to an unbiased observer that Bangladesh's test status should not be revoked?

[Dhurr]

Can you?

When I say unbiased observer, I mean someone who is not rooting for or against Bangladesh. That would rule out pretty much anyone in this forum. Explain to such a person why Bangladesh should retain its test status. Please try to keep the emotional posts to a minimum and hopefully, we will have a good thread.

Personally, the best reason I can think of is a Bushesque "stay the course". Please state your reasons.

[mac]

Bangladesh does well in the home soil. So,I think an unbiased obeserver will probably suggest BD to play test only in BD.

[Dhurr]

Originally Posted by mac
Bangladesh does well in the home soil. So,I think an unbiased obeserver will probably suggest BD to play test only in BD.

Well, you should say what "well" means.

Also, can a country retain its test status just so it can play home games?

[Sovik]

Originally Posted by mac
Bangladesh does well in the home soil. So,I think an unbiased obeserver will probably suggest BD to play test only in BD.

that won't improve anything. we need to look at our domestic league and make it better.

[Spitfire_x86]

Not playing tests is not the solution, Zimbabwe is the shining example. Maybe our cricket didn't improve as much as it needed to in last 10 years, but our current team is definitely far better than the team we had 10 years ago. Without test status I don't think it could happen.

We always play 2 test series regardless of the opposition. IMO we should play 3 test series against weaker teams like WI/NZ. They don't have very busy schedule, so it's not unrealistic.

[Sovik]

we could invite pakistan for a long series

[mac]

Originally Posted by Dhurr
Well, you should say what "well" means.

Also, can a country retain its test status just so it can play home games?

Against the NZ we almost won one. and earlier this year almost the same thing happened against SA..
ok vaia..my bad.
that 'well' means just better than 98/8!!!

And about retaining the test status, it never happened before. But, atleast it would be better than getting kicked out of the test teams.

[mac]

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
Not playing tests is not the solution, Zimbabwe is the shining example. Maybe our cricket didn't improve as much as it needed to in last 10 years, but our current team is definitely far better than the team we had 10 years ago. Without test status I don't think it could happen.

We always play 2 test series regardless of the opposition. IMO we should play 3 test series against weaker teams like WI/NZ. They don't have very busy schedule, so it's not unrealistic.

I second that! totally agree!

[bharat]

Originally Posted by mac
Bangladesh does well in the home soil. So,I think an unbiased obeserver will probably suggest BD to play test only in BD.

• I agree, play majority(most/all) at Home and build a formidable home side.
• Have prolonged ODI's instead of Tests overseas
• Send frequent A teams wherever possible
• Make the Current players play in India ,England Australia
• If possible revert to the policy of sending a team to India's Duleep trophy
• Create a bigger pool of players
• Dont blood new players for the sake of getting them in.Be patient with the ones you have[Alok,JO,Rafiq and Pilot are a casuality because of this]

[Dhurr]

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
Not playing tests is not the solution, Zimbabwe is the shining example. Maybe our cricket didn't improve as much as it needed to in last 10 years, but our current team is definitely far better than the team we had 10 years ago. Without test status I don't think it could happen.

Is it really "far better"? Spitfire, I would say that statistically, we are only marginally better than we were a decade ago, and that marginal difference may matter to you or me, since we are fans of the Bangladeshi team, but to someone who isn't, is that marginal difference enough to warrant their support to let Bangladesh keep its test status?

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
We always play 2 test series regardless of the opposition. IMO we should play 3 test series against weaker teams like WI/NZ. They don't have very busy schedule, so it's not unrealistic.

Originally Posted by bharat

• I agree, play majority(most/all) at Home and build a formidable home side.
• Have prolonged ODI's instead of Tests overseas
• Send frequent A teams wherever possible
• Make the Current players play in India ,England Australia
• If possible revert to the policy of sending a team to India's Duleep trophy
• Create a bigger pool of players
• Dont blood new players for the sake of getting them in.Be patient with the ones you have[Alok,JO,Rafiq and Pilot are a casuality because of this]

I like both your solutions. I am trying to get a discussion going about why Bangladesh warrants a place as a test team, not how we can improve in the future. They are good solutions nonetheless and I like them.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Dhurr
Can you?

When I say unbiased observer, I mean someone who is not rooting for or against Bangladesh. That would rule out pretty much anyone in this forum. Explain to such a person why Bangladesh should retain its test status. Please try to keep the emotional posts to a minimum and hopefully, we will have a good thread.

Personally, the best reason I can think of is a Bushesque "stay the course". Please state your reasons.

emotional reponse:

ALL of the BD players should be drafted into the US army and sent to afghanistan without body armor, guns, food, or a map. all active BC members, myself included, should be hung from a noose to take us out of our misery.

rational response:

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.

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). 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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

[Dhurr]

Originally Posted by mac
Against the NZ we almost won one. and earlier this year almost the same thing happened against SA..
ok vaia..my bad.
that 'well' means just better than 98/8!!!

And about retaining the test status, it never happened before. But, atleast it would be better than getting kicked out of the test teams.

I will quote the article RazabQ posted.

Ah, but what about when South Africa were bowled out for 170 in their first innings at Mirpur, earlier this very year? I would retort that for every short-lived Mirpur “mirage” there is also a reality-check Chittagong, where the Proteas passed 400 without loss of a wicket, just a few days on, and duly won the series 2-0 anyway. Ho-hum and ho-hum again.

You see, we may win sessions and gain moral victories, but to an unbiased observer, is that reason enough to watch this team toil through three or four (and in the rarest of occasions, five) meaningless days of test cricket where the outcome is as one-sided as it gets?

[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.

[Tigers_eye]

ato gorom kano? fan'er swtich koi?

Overseas recent record: (Current match infact vs SA test 1)
SA 1st innings lost last 8 wickets in 142 runs.
BD 1st innings lost last 8 wickets in 127 runs.

Being in foreign condition, only played a two day practice match you expect better? How did NZ fare last they visited SA?

We deserve the status more so now than before if we are to be an elite team in near future. Not all teams are like SL with an already built in cricket infra structure.

We are few pieces away from being a decent team. mainly a good captain (consistant and sensible), a fast strike bowler and an opener.

[al Furqaan]

dhurr, bhai, sorry, but i barely understood anything you said.

it seemes that you just basically refuted everything i said, without providing any evidence to back yourself up. i also get the feeling that you want me to admit something. is this correct? i don't know what it could be other than admitting bangladesh doesn't deserve test status, something which i think i made abundently clear in my post.

*********

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

at some point a comparison has to be made. otherwise how do we know that we are playing poor cricket? i think comparisons are necessary, and besides, everyone else will use it to their benefit, might as well join the bandwagon now.

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.

i agree, but what exactly is this saying? asides from proving that we suck, which is of course the premise of this entire thread.

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.

i meant competitive when i said "strong".

but even that is not a good expectation given the facts: bangladesh was gifted test status due to political reasons. of course i support it, and i would oppose revoking test status, but fact is fact, and we didn't earn it. hence we suck. let a bangladesh miskin off the street run a fortune 500 company, and if the company goes under, it should be expected. if one wonders why, then i have nothing to say...

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?

it makes a case against granting bangladesh test status, but it says nothing about whether it should be revoked. cases can on that matter can be made either way, and from my BIASED opinion, retention of status is the better method of action.

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.

not apples to oranges. maybe tangerines to oranges.

i'd imagine subcontinent teams got raped at the WACA for the better part of those 160 years. regardless, it comes down to the same thing, we simply aren't ready for test cricket. the issue should be now 2 things:

can we be ready for test cricket? and if so, how?

given that cricket is not american football or basketball (sports which bangladesh and 95 % of nations have no chance in) and that cricket relies more on skills rather than athleticism or physical stature, we can learn to play the game. only question is how. that remains to be seen, and i think time is the single biggest factor.

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

simple defense mechanism, nothing more and nothing less. and i can prove it with numbers as well.

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

we need STRONG domestic competition - something which we are unlikely to get in the near future. NCL has been around for 9 years and so far its only product has been some talented, but nothing else cricketers. but talent alone is nearly nothing. its a start, but very basic. i am sure america has loads of latent cricket talent, doesn't mean one thing.

and talent is not at all a product of the NCL...the NCL is merely an avenue for its expression. talent is innate, and godgiven. its a product of that one lucky sperm which fuses with an egg. talent brings wasim akram, not the pakistani domestic structure. talent created sachin tendulkar, the indian domestic structure merely moulded him. domestic structure cannot create a dale steyn, it can create a chaminda vaas, but not a muraitharan.

and talent is based on probability on chance and luck. if you have a big enough sample size, one or two are bound to be talented.

of course the NCL is important and i don't think it should be neglected. one day it may become relevant, but today it is irrelevant. otherwise imrul would be scoring 50s here and faisal hossain would be be a national team stalwart.

[Raynman]

The question isn't only for Bangladesh but Test in general. If the format is important to save then it needs to be expanded and you can't start taking away status from countries because they are not performing well. I think a 3yr FTP between two divisions makes sense instead of a 6yr FTP for all members. Assuming ZIM gets their status back ICC can split the teams to 1 to 5 (per ranking) and 6 to 10 and have the teams in their division play each other in the 3 yr period. Following that the top two of division two can qualify for division 1 and the bottom two in D1 can be demoted to D2. This will keep (hopefully) matches more competitive and teams better incentives to improve. If other series like the Ashes, IND-AUS are so important to the teams and they are not in the same division it is up to them to find the time to have those series.

Honestly, I don't see a bright future for test cricket based on modern day demands. I wouldn't mind seeing BD spending more effort on ODI and T20 because thats where the future is and thats where we can catch up faster.

[Tigers_eye]

I want to close this case.

Played at New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg, on 8,9,10,11 November 2007 (5-day match)
Result South Africa won by 358 runs

New Zealand 1st innings			R	M	B	4s	6s	SR
		CD Cumming	lbw b Steyn	12	48	41	1	0	29.26
		MHW Papps	c de Villiers b Ntini	2	23	14	0	0	14.28
		SP Fleming	c de Villiers b Ntini	40	73	48	5	1	83.33
		SE Bond	b Steyn	1	25	20	0	0	5.00
		SB Styris	c Smith b Kallis	11	67	49	0	0	22.44
		LRPL Taylor	c Gibbs b Kallis	15	60	28	2	0	53.57
		JDP Oram	c Kallis b Steyn	1	8	7	0	0	14.28
		BB McCullum	lbw b Steyn	9	38	24	1	0	37.50
		DL Vettori	c Harris b Ntini	7	18	10	0	0	70.00
		IE O'Brien	not out	14	15	7	2	1	200.00
		CS Martin	c Harris b Steyn	0	2	2	0	0	0.00
		Extras	(lb 5, nb 1)	6
		Total	(all out; 41.3 overs; 191 mins)	118	(2.84 runs per over)

Fall of wickets1-16 (Papps, 5.6 ov), 2-40 (Cumming, 11.3 ov), 3-54 (Bond, 17.4 ov), 4-64 (Fleming, 22.2 ov), 5-83 (Styris, 32.1 ov), 6-84 (Oram, 33.3 ov), 7-88 (Taylor, 34.5 ov), 8-102 (Vettori, 38.5 ov), 9-118 (McCullum, 41.1 ov), 10-118 (Martin, 41.3 ov)

	Bowling	O	M	R	W	Econ
	DW Steyn	14.3	3	34	5	2.34	(1nb)
	M Ntini	14	3	47	3	3.35
	A Nel	9	1	21	0	2.33
	JH Kallis	4	0	11	2	2.75

New Zealand 2nd innings (target: 531 runs)			R	M	B	4s	6s	SR
		CD Cumming	c Smith b Steyn	7	20	17	0	0	41.17
		SP Fleming	c Smith b Nel	17	42	31	3	0	54.83
		SB Styris	c Boucher b Steyn	16	64	28	3	0	57.14
		LRPL Taylor	c Kallis b Nel	4	4	2	1	0	200.00
		BB McCullum	c Gibbs b Steyn	26	79	61	4	0	42.62
		JDP Oram	c Nel b Harris	40	128	83	5	0	48.19
		MHW Papps	c de Villiers b Kallis	5	34	14	1	0	35.71
		DL Vettori	not out	46	79	58	5	0	79.31
		IE O'Brien	c Amla b Steyn	0	16	7	0	0	0.00
		CS Martin	b Steyn	0	9	6	0	0	0.00
		SE Bond	absent hurt	-
		Extras	(b 7, lb 1, w 2, nb 1)	11
		Total	(all out; 51 overs; 240 mins)	172	(3.37 runs per over)

Fall of wickets1-12 (Cumming, 4.6 ov), 2-34 (Fleming, 9.3 ov), 3-39 (Taylor, 9.5 ov), 4-60 (Styris, 18.3 ov), 5-90 (McCullum, 26.1 ov), 6-109 (Papps, 33.1 ov), 7-154 (Oram, 45.4 ov), 8-170 (O'Brien, 48.5 ov), 9-172 (Martin, 50.6 ov)

	Bowling	O	M	R	W	Econ
	DW Steyn	17	1	59	5	3.47	(1nb)
	M Ntini	13	0	42	0	3.23
	A Nel	12	1	37	2	3.08	(2w)
	JH Kallis	3	0	15	1	5.00
	PL Harris	6	2	11	1	1.83

+++++++++++
Test #2:

Played at SuperSport Park, Centurion, on 16,17,18 November 2007 (5-day match) Result South Africa won by an innings and 59 runs

	New Zealand 1st innings			R	M	B	4s	6s	SR
		CD Cumming	retired hurt	48	151	107	8	0	44.85
		MHW Papps	c Gibbs b Ntini	9	32	22	2	0	40.90
		L Vincent	c Harris b Steyn	33	96	64	4	1	51.56
		SP Fleming	c Prince b Kallis	43	97	57	6	1	75.43
		SB Styris	lbw b Steyn	3	11	8	0	0	37.50
		LRPL Taylor	c Prince b Nel	17	38	20	4	0	85.00
		BB McCullum	c de Villiers b Nel	13	43	28	1	0	46.42
		DL Vettori	not out	17	36	30	2	0	56.66
		MR Gillespie	lbw b Steyn	0	10	3	0	0	0.00
		IE O'Brien	c Gibbs b Steyn	0	3	1	0	0	0.00
		CS Martin	c Kallis b Ntini	0	5	3	0	0	0.00
		Extras	(lb 2, nb 3)	5
		Total	(all out; 56.4 overs; 261 mins)	188	(3.31 runs per over)

Fall of wickets1-26 (Papps, 7.6 ov), 2-88 (Vincent, 29.4 ov), 2-101* (Cumming, retired not out), 3-105 (Styris, 35.5 ov), 4-147 (Taylor, 43.1 ov), 5-165 (Fleming, 48.6 ov), 6-184 (McCullum, 52.6 ov), 7-187 (Gillespie, 55.3 ov), 8-187 (O'Brien, 55.4 ov), 9-188 (Martin, 56.4 ov)

	Bowling	O	M	R	W	Econ
	DW Steyn	14	5	42	4	3.00	(1nb)
	M Ntini	15.4	4	52	2	3.31
	JH Kallis	11	2	35	1	3.18	(2nb)
	A Nel	13	3	42	2	3.23
	PL Harris	3	0	15	0	5.00

New Zealand 2nd innings			R	M	B	4s	6s	SR
		L Vincent	lbw b Steyn	4	2	4	1	0	100.00
		MHW Papps	lbw b Steyn	1	12	8	0	0	12.50
		SP Fleming	lbw b Steyn	54	138	85	9	1	63.52
		SB Styris	c de Villiers b Kallis	29	78	58	6	0	50.00
		LRPL Taylor	run out (Amla)	8	8	6	2	0	133.33
		BB McCullum	c Smith b Steyn	21	50	34	2	0	61.76
		DL Vettori	c de Villiers b Ntini	8	17	6	2	0	133.33
		MR Gillespie	c Kallis b Steyn	0	4	4	0	0	0.00
		IE O'Brien	b Steyn	0	8	3	0	0	0.00
		CS Martin	not out	0	2	0	0	0	-
		CD Cumming	absent hurt	-
		Extras	(b 1, lb 9, nb 1)	11
		Total	(all out; 34.3 overs; 162 mins)	136	(3.94 runs per over)

Fall of wickets1-4 (Vincent, 0.4 ov), 2-9 (Papps, 2.3 ov), 3-69 (Styris, 19.5 ov), 4-78 (Taylor, 20.6 ov), 5-117 (Fleming, 30.6 ov), 6-128 (McCullum, 32.2 ov), 7-128 (Gillespie, 32.6 ov), 8-136 (Vettori, 33.6 ov), 9-136 (O'Brien, 34.3 ov)

	Bowling	O	M	R	W	Econ
	DW Steyn	10.3	1	49	6	4.66	(1nb)
	M Ntini	12	4	39	1	3.25
	A Nel	7	2	20	0	2.85
	JH Kallis	5	2	18	1	3.60

+++++++++
Ar kono kotha asey? Why only BD would get the stick?

[tonoy]

Tiger's Eye, you're comparing one bad series with constant bad series. That is a poor excuse to prove why we should keep our status.

[mijanur]

new zealnd much better den bd

[WarWolf]

Tonoy, Mijan bhai is showing us that SA is always tough condition to adopt. You need to get yourself accustomed in that condition. So we should not draw conclusion so far.

[tonoy]

All the conditions are tough for us isn't it? Every team plays on foreign condition and they eventually gets accustomed to it. If you cant do that on an international level then nothing much more can be said then...

All I am trying to say is that other team's failure should not be the excuse for our survival. We are using the analogy of a boy not being punished for stealing cookies because his friend has done it too. Sounds pathetic right?

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by tonoy
Tiger's Eye, you're comparing one bad series with constant bad series. That is a poor excuse to prove why we should keep our status.

Shall I bring in their (NZ) England tour? Luckily they didn't visit Pakistan. Do you still want to argue on one bad series? This is where the cricket family needs to focus on.

1) How many years NZ is playing test? Why aren't they world beaters or can't compete on an away tour?
2) What is their (players) average age?
3) Infrastructure?

All points to be patient. Away tours are not easy especially without enough match practice. Adapting to the environment is difficult in foreign conditions. We have already bettered their mark and some others within the last 8 years. Even with the constant change of our national team. That is the fact.

[smashyboy]

I have not seen any improvement in BD cricket. I dont see that happening in foreseeable future. Sending Bangladesh A team is not the solution. When your main team itself is much much inferior to A teams of lot of countries it is better you send your main team rather than A team. Otherwise bd will continue to make a mockery of competitive cricket. Teams like Windies, NZ also struggle. But they are far better than Bangladesh.

[Nadim]

even west indies and new zealnd lost to SA in SA badly.......why it is too much for bd

[smashyboy]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Shall I bring in their (NZ) England tour? Luckily they didn't visit Pakistan. Do you still want to argue on one bad series? This is where the cricket family needs to focus on.

1) How many years NZ is playing test? Why aren't they world beaters or can't compete on an away tour?
2) What is their (players) average age?
3) Infrastructure?

All points to be patient. Away tours are not easy especially without enough match practice. Adapting to the environment is difficult in foreign conditions. We have already bettered their mark and some others within the last 8 years. Even with the constant change of our national team. That is the fact.

Not a good excuse after losing to them and in the second test almost rolled over. But rain saved BD. They are bad. But they are far better than BD.