Congrats to Imrul Kayes for maiden ODI Century

[AsifTheManRahman]

Actually, after 40 overs, we were pretty nicely set up for something around 280. Too bad the lower middle order didn't fire. The bowling at death wasn't bad either, but definitely not good enough for us to only manage 43 in the last 10 overs.

[One World]

Making a ton outside sub-continent, who did in recent past. I saw the innings, and yeah lot many Bangla proverb can be uttered on it but again a ton is a ton, if it is in Christchurch by Imrul then it is special.

[wasi90lkv1]

@one world,

making a ton outside sub-continent is impressive. but we lost the series 3-0. cricket is not a one man game. scoring 100 may not help the team if the scorer wastes 130+ balls. i believe bangladesh was capable of winning the series 2-1, but we threw it away because of pathetic batting display.

i was critical about imrul's strike rate, but i have to agree that i never saw a bangladeshi opener staying in the crease for 138 balls in an ODI. imrul did fine, he just needs to make sure he wastes less balls.

[Ashraf-FTP]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
this is not the best bowling line up. new zealand did not use the same strong bowling line up they used against pakistan. grow up. only vettori is good in this line up.

bottom line is, we lost the match. we need to have as less dot balls as possible, when we bat.

maybe you watch too many matches from the 90's, cricket has changed. a strike rate below 80 is not acceptable in a small ground like christchurch.

imrul batted well, it was not good enough to beat a top team.

Well first of all, I started watching cricket from 2000's

And before you vring my age in question, I think you should read what I wrote before.

And how many of our players had a SR over 80 in this match?? Without Aftab, none of our batsmen who reached double figures had a SR of 80. And Aftab batted through the PP overs too, and scored only 18. WEll Naeem did too, but he scored 10 and again, batted mostly on the PP overs. And you talk about wasting balls?? I think that was a good thing he actually wawsted balls, cause the way the rest of the team got out, if he wasted more balls, he could have taken us to a bigger score. The balls werent wasted, our chances were. There is no need for an innings of 10 runs in 5 balls, an innings of 40 in 80 balls in ODI's is much better. And I think thats what he did.

I know he should have scored more during the PP overs, but the way Shakib and Riyad got out, put more pressure on him to charge the bowlers, and he did which eventually resulted in a fast leg-yorker from Vettori and the wicket. I know they didnt use O'Brien and others as against Pakistan, but you cant argue, the way McKay bowled in the first 2 games, made him look better than O'brien.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by Ashraf-FTP
Well first of all, I started watching cricket from 2000's

And before you vring my age in question, I think you should read what I wrote before.

anyone who follows new zealand cricket may tell you jacob oram is not a great bowler (because he has fitness issues). anyone who follows new zealand cricket may tell you mackay will not survive against top teams, anyone who follows new zealand cricket may tell you kyle mills and chris martin are two of their main bowlers instead of southee and tuffey.

new zealand had a decent bowling attack against pakistan, i am assuming you did not see that series. bangladesh should have thrashed this bowling attack.

your age is not important to me, i just want to see my team to win and if a player wastes 138 balls to score 101 our team may not win unfortunately. batsmen nowadays like to have better strike rates with good tempers, much like what guptill did.

PLEASE REREAD THIS: THE GROUND WAS NOT VERY BIG IN CHRISTCHURCH. NOT SURE WHY BANGLADESH STRUGGLED. ANYWAY, IT WAS AN IMPROVED PERFORMANCE BUT IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO BEAT NEW ZEALAND.

[Ashraf-FTP]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
new zealand had a decent bowling attack against pakistan, i am assuming you did not see that series. bangladesh should have thrashed this bowling attack.

your age is not important to me, i just want to see my team to win and if a player wastes 138 balls to score 101 our team may not win unfortunately. batsmen nowadays like to have better strike rates with good tempers, much like what guptill did.

PLEASE REREAD THIS: THE GROUND WAS NOT VERY BIG IN CHRISTCHURCH.

I never said his innings was the best in the world, I just meant that even after a great innings (from BD perspective) you dont have to go look at everything he did wrong, no one is perfect exceopt Ash's EID

And BTW, when it was 2000, I was 5 (uhh, I just told you my age )

I know Oram is not a great bowler, but he is a great Allrounder. And by great bowler I didnt mean great bowler, I meant good against BD cause anyone can be good against BD.

McKay I am sure will more than survive against Australia, he has the pace and the technique.

And yes I did not watch the NZ vs. Pakistan series. Simply I just dont have the time, I didnt watch the first 2 matches of this series either, neither the T20. But I have watched enough cricket before.

LMAOOO, you mean BD should have thrashed this bowling?? FYI,except of Zimbabwe's and WI "C" side bowling, how many bowling have BD batsmen thrashed ?? And guess which team did Guptill play his "tempered innings" against and how many people have played much better innings against that same team ? Now, Dont tell me BD bowling is better than NZ's in NZ (then I will just shutup). I dont care how big the ground is, its small so good for hitting sixes but still if you cant pick the gaps, you cant hit the fours. And even though the ground was small, the pitch was slowish, the main reason why both Naeem and Aftab got out.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by Ashraf-FTP
I never said his innings was the best in the world, I just meant that even after a great innings (from BD perspective) you dont have to go look at everything he did wrong, no one is perfect exceopt Ash's EID

And BTW, when it was 2000, I was 5 (uhh, I just told you my age )

I know Oram is not a great bowler, but he is a great Allrounder. And by great bowler I didnt mean great bowler, I meant good against BD cause anyone can be good against BD.

McKay I am sure will more than survive against Australia, he has the pace and the technique.

And yes I did not watch the NZ vs. Pakistan series. Simply I just dont have the time, I didnt watch the first 2 matches of this series either, neither the T20. But I have watched enough cricket before.

LMAOOO, you mean BD should have thrashed this bowling?? FYI,except of Zimbabwe's and WI "C" side bowling, how many bowling have BD batsmen thrashed ?? And guess which team did Guptill play his "tempered innings" against and how many people have played much better innings against that same team ? Now, Dont tell me BD bowling is better than NZ's in NZ (then I will just shutup). I dont care how big the ground is, its small so good for hitting sixes but still if you cant pick the gaps, you cant hit the fours. And even though the ground was small, the pitch was slowish, the main reason why both Naeem and Aftab got out.

the pitch was not slowish, we did not hit well probably.

we thrashed indian bowlers, we scored 296 a few days ago. if BD players do not know how to thrash ordinary bowlers, then they may not win any game for a long time. simple as that.

do not question guptill's ability. guptill scored a century in his debut match. i believe he scored 122 (source: http://www.cricinfo.com/newzealand/e...ch/366712.html). but i think NZ fans did not hype him up like what we are doing with imrul. imrul's knock was average, it was nothing special. it was not a match winning one.

we are capable of doing better than what we did in this series. that is what i was trying to say. but i hope they will do better against england in the home soil. we should do better in the test too.

[Ashraf-FTP]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
1.the pitch was not slowish, we did not hit well probably.

2.we thrashed indian bowlers, we scored 296 a few days ago. if BD players do not know how to thrash ordinary bowlers, then they may not win any game for a long time. simple as that.

3.do not question guptill's ability. guptill scored a century in his debut match. i believe he scored 122 (source: http://www.cricinfo.com/newzealand/e...ch/366712.html). but i think NZ fans did not hype him up like what we are doing with imrul. imrul's knock was average, it was nothing special. it was not a match winning one.

4.we are capable of doing better than what we did in this series. that is what i was trying to say. but i hope they will do better against england in the home soil. we should do better in the test too.

1. Pitch was slowish, I think I would take the word of few experienced commentators rather than yours.

2. This was Indias bowling lineup when we scored that 296.
Bowling
A Nehra
S Sreesanth
Z Khan
Harbhajan Singh
Yuvraj Singh
RA Jadeja
V Sehwag

I get what you mean, but you have to remember the pitch in this match was dead hard. I think Indias cruise to 297 proved it while NZ had trouble yesterday chasing 242.

3. I never said anything about Guptill or his abilities. And I think someone from our team, whos overhyped too, scored a maiden debut century. But I guess that doesnt matter here
I just dont get why you are saying Imruls knock is average. As I said, hes the only one who even scored a 50 in the whole game for BD. The first one to score a 100 on oceania. They faced much worse bowling than this before. I dont know what your expectations of a BD batsman is against G8 sides in ODI's but for me a 100 is above average, its not like in the end we were out of balls or something, we were out of wickets.

4. I know we are capable of doing better in the series, but that doesnt matter to Imruls innings. If the pitch was so batting friendly, if he can score a 100, why couldnt someone else score a mere 50?? Even when Ash and Shakib, 2 of our best players in the team got starts.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by Ashraf-FTP
1. Pitch was slowish, I think I would take the word of few experienced commentators rather than yours.

I know we are capable of doing better in the series, but that doesnt matter to Imruls innings. If the pitch was so batting friendly, if he can score a 100, why couldnt someone else score a mere 50?? Even when Ash and Shakib, 2 of our best players in the team got starts.

stop making up excuses. pitch was slowish? what about the other 2 ODIs? why do we always blame the pitches every time we lose? why do we blame the coach for? THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY WRONG WITH THE PITCH, THERE WAS WRONG WITH OUR BATSMEN'S STRIKE RATES AND TEMPERS. what we need to do is win a few matches rather than making up excuses ("pitch was slowish" is a pathetic excuse).

our bowling was great, shakib bowled fine. that was the reason why new zealand struggled. there was nothing wrong with the pitch i believe.

my expectation from BD batsmen? i believe we are capable of posting 300 runs against this new zealand bowling attack (with no kyle mills and no chris martin). we did not even manage to score 250. anyway, we should have won at least 1 game with the current team.

[Ashraf-FTP]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
stop making up excuses. pitch was slowish? what about the other 2 ODIs? why do we always blame the pitches every time we lose? why do we blame the coach for? THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY WRONG WITH THE PITCH, THERE WAS WRONG WITH OUR BATSMEN'S STRIKE RATES AND TEMPERS. what we need to do is win a few matches rather than making up excuses ("pitch was slowish" is a pathetic excuse).

my expectation from BD batsmen? i believe we are capable of posting 300 runs against this new zealand bowling attack (with no kyle mills and no chris martin). we did not even manage to score 250.

Control your own temper buddy

I am not that desperate that I will go look for reasons to prove you that the pitch was slowish. If you dont believe me, go search or maybe someone else you trust from BC could prove me right (or maybe wrong, as you wish )

And what do you mean, if Imrul wasted 20 less balls, we would have won?? Ouch, that is so not true, I think you have showed enough cricket knowledge to know by yourself why.

Well we havent scored 300 against any G8 sides yet in ODI's.

[wasi90lkv1]

i did not ask you to prove me wrong. you know you can not prove me wrong because you do not have enough facts to back up your comment. i was not talking about imrul only in my last comment, i was talking about all the batsmen in general. anyway, i am assuming imrul kayes is more important to you than bangladesh team.

because of our shitty fans (not all fans, but majority of them) and pathetic media, most of our players do not perform when they need to perform. we have the talent, we just hype up our players before they even start their careers. we need to make sure these players do not get carried away. but it is in our culture i guess.

I NEVER SAID IMRUL'S KNOCK WAS BAD, I SAID IT WAS NOTHING SPECIAL. IT DID NOT HELP THE TEAM TO WIN (I AM NOT ANGRY, JUST USING CAPS LOCK SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT WELL).

[Ashraf-FTP]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
i was not talking about imrul only in my last comment, i was talking about all the batsmen in general.

because of our shitty fans and pathetic media, our players do not end up being good players. we have the talent, we just hype up our players before they even start their careers.

okies, good. Im off, cya.

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
i was not talking about imrul only in my last comment, i was talking about all the batsmen in general.

because of our shitty fans (not all fans, but majority of them) and pathetic media, most of our players do not perform when they need to perform. we have the talent, we just hype up our players before they even start their careers.

tbf this is true in a few cases. what age did ash and mushy get to the national team? in fact how old were most of the current nastional teamers when they first got there? most were from about 16-19 which is really really young for international cricket. some people already want anamul haque in the team as the keeper and he's about 16/17 and hasn't played much 1st level domestic cricket if any.

but it's not just that we bring them in too early and hype them up, the infrastructure isn't there to develop them regardless of how old they are. in fact you could probably debate that getting into the national team that young is better than staying in domestic cricket because you get much better support and coaching in the national team than not in the national team. in the better test countries top level domestic teams still give great support to their players, not really the case in BD.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by Gowza
tbf this is true in a few cases. what age did ash and mushy get to the national team? in fact how old were most of the current nastional teamers when they first got there? most were from about 16-19 which is really really young for international cricket. some people already want anamul haque in the team as the keeper and he's about 16/17 and hasn't played much 1st level domestic cricket if any.

but it's not just that we bring them in too early and hype them up, the infrastructure isn't there to develop them regardless of how old they are. in fact you could probably debate that getting into the national team that young is better than staying in domestic cricket because you get much better support and coaching in the national team than not in the national team. in the better test countries top level domestic teams still give great support to their players, not really the case in BD.

it is about hyping them up. i believe mushfiqur and ashraful are capable of thrashing any bowling attack, but they are not mentally strong. they have too many distractions, i know these problems because i was born in this same country. for example, shakib and kamal incident. this type of incident should not occur at any stage. people should leave shakib al hasan and other players alone for the sake of bangladesh cricket.

i believe we have a fine cricket team now, but for some unknown reason we are not winning.

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
it is about hyping them up. i believe mushfiqur and ashraful are capable of thrashing any bowling attack, but they are not mentally strong. they have too many distractions, i know these problems because i was born in this same country.

i'm not from BD so i guess i'm considered an outsider, and form and outsiders point of view there certainly was a time when new young players were plucked from u19s and expected to almost be the saviour of BD cricket. i think that mentality isn't quite as strong anymore, less people think that the new debutant will or should be the saviour. it might be about hyping them up but that certainly can't be the only reason why they don't develop. why are they weak mentally? probably because of the environment they grew up in, hype is part of that but BD doesn't have a strong domestic system (coaching, facilities, standard, culture etc) and the domestic system plays a major role into how a player develops from age group cricket to open professional cricket.

[One World]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
@one world,

making a ton outside sub-continent is impressive. but we lost the series 3-0. cricket is not a one man game. scoring 100 may not help the team if the scorer wastes 130+ balls. i believe bangladesh was capable of winning the series 2-1, but we threw it away because of pathetic batting display.

i was critical about imrul's strike rate, but i have to agree that i never saw a bangladeshi opener staying in the crease for 138 balls in an ODI. imrul did fine, he just needs to make sure he wastes less balls.

The bolded part is the end of my post. The elongated discussion on series whitewash, commitment of players and capability to application ratio can be discussed each redundantly in separate threads.

[paagla]

@WASI:

1: "U said strike rate under nowdays 80 is not good enough."

I assume by nowdays u mean till 2001 when the ODI is catered to batsman with more PP overs, ball changing after 34 overs, harsher rule on ball tempering.

However, there are still batsman like Sangakara, Collingwood and even the golden boy Michael Clarke whose SR's are under 80.

2: "U said we should have scored more runs in this ground"

Please, be more specific by more runs. We all know we are about 30 runs short. But, that is no reason to say Kayes innings weren't good enough. His innings was good enough given the circumstances. We were well set till 40 overs. It was other batsman fault that we couldn't get to a higher total. Now just because the ground is small doesn't mean we had to score 300 runs. Matter of fact, in last 10 innings in this ground only 2 were over 300+. NZ themself have a SR of 5.62 in this ground.

@Zeeshan:

Yes, WASI said in his post, his innings wasn't good enough. Yes, it wasn't a great innings. But, that wasn't his statement. The innings was definitly a good innings. And even good enough to take us to that total. I can undrestand u guys blaming the other batsman for not getting to score of 270, but Kayes innings was definitely good enough.

Lastly, everyone has their preferences. However, everyone should be careful with the statements they make. Such as SR under 80 isn't acceptale these days. Batsman got too many chances without stating when and how he got chances. Not middling the ball even after scoring a century with a SR of 74 (i really don't even know how's that even possible). 7 lives, smaller ground, pitch wasn't a big deal. When someone makes comments such as, others will definitely ask questions and present their opinions.

[wiseshah]

Originally Posted by Ashraf-FTP
I never said his innings was the best in the world, I just meant that even after a great innings (from BD perspective) you dont have to go look at everything he did wrong, no one is perfect exceopt Ash's EID

And BTW, when it was 2000, I was 5 (uhh, I just told you my age )

I know Oram is not a great bowler, but he is a great Allrounder. And by great bowler I didnt mean great bowler, I meant good against BD cause anyone can be good against BD.

McKay I am sure will more than survive against Australia, he has the pace and the technique.

And yes I did not watch the NZ vs. Pakistan series. Simply I just dont have the time, I didnt watch the first 2 matches of this series either, neither the T20. But I have watched enough cricket before.

LMAOOO, you mean BD should have thrashed this bowling?? FYI,except of Zimbabwe's and WI "C" side bowling, how many bowling have BD batsmen thrashed ?? And guess which team did Guptill play his "tempered innings" against and how many people have played much better innings against that same team ? Now, Dont tell me BD bowling is better than NZ's in NZ (then I will just shutup). I dont care how big the ground is, its small so good for hitting sixes but still if you cant pick the gaps, you cant hit the fours. And even though the ground was small, the pitch was slowish, the main reason why both Naeem and Aftab got out.

FYI,

all west indies C side bowlers are main bowlers now.

kemar roach
darren sammy
bernard
tonge
rampaul
plus travis drowlin

[simon]

Best thing about Imrul is that he wants to stay in the middle.
Once he improves his technique,I believe he will score runs more often.
Already 70 vs Ind & 101 vs NZ shows that he doesn't want to throw his wckt away after scoring 50.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by paagla
@WASI:

1: "U said strike rate under nowdays 80 is not good enough."

I assume by nowdays u mean till 2001 when the ODI is catered to batsman with more PP overs, ball changing after 34 overs, harsher rule on ball tempering.

However, there are still batsman like Sangakara, Collingwood and even the golden boy Michael Clarke whose SR's are under 80.

2: "U said we should have scored more runs in this ground"

Please, be more specific by more runs. We all know we are about 30 runs short. But, that is no reason to say Kayes innings weren't good enough. His innings was good enough given the circumstances. We were well set till 40 overs. It was other batsman fault that we couldn't get to a higher total. Now just because the ground is small doesn't mean we had to score 300 runs. Matter of fact, in last 10 innings in this ground only 2 were over 300+. NZ themself have a SR of 5.62 in this ground.

@Zeeshan:

Yes, WASI said in his post, his innings wasn't good enough. Yes, it wasn't a great innings. But, that wasn't his statement. The innings was definitly a good innings. And even good enough to take us to that total. I can undrestand u guys blaming the other batsman for not getting to score of 270, but Kayes innings was definitely good enough.

Lastly, everyone has their preferences. However, everyone should be careful with the statements they make. Such as SR under 80 isn't acceptale these days. Batsman got too many chances without stating when and how he got chances. Not middling the ball even after scoring a century with a SR of 74 (i really don't even know how's that even possible). 7 lives, smaller ground, pitch wasn't a big deal. When someone makes comments such as, others will definitely ask questions and present their opinions.

so you are still saying strike rate under 80 is acceptable? i guess then you will be satisfied with a 220 score. wake up. imrul should have played more aggressively after 40 overs, that is where my problem is.

i hope you never become involved with BCB, you will turn my decent cricket team into a bigger joke. imrul's innings was not good enough to beat a top team, i repeat. but his innings was good enough to save a team from an embarrassment.

do not compare michael clarke with imrul kayes, do not hype imrul up for the sake of Bangladesh cricket.

GUPTIL'S 91 > IMRUL'S 101 (in terms of usefulness to the team).

[LateCut]

I have watched his innings. It is good that he score a ton and it will bolster his confidence. But if you study his innings closely you will will notice that his innings was full of miscues and edges, and he certainly did not look like a batsman who was in control. In this instant he rode his luck to a century. His wild aerial drives fell just short of fielders. His edges beat the McCullum repeatedly and raced to fine leg boundary. In a normal day, he will score his normal share of runs (10-20) not much more unless he corrects his problems. I have noticed three problems. He has little to no footwork. He often turns his bat little too prematurely while trying to cut too fine thereby causing edges. He has a tendency to cover drive uppishly. I would think it is done not with a purpose but rather unintentionally. If so, it may point to a timing as well as a footwork problem mentioned above. Finally, he is failing to pick up the slower balls and going through his both on and off drives actions little early.

[Raynman]

Originally Posted by LateCut
I have watched his innings. It is good that he score a ton and it will bolster his confidence. But if you study his innings closely you will will notice that his innings was full of miscues and edges, and he certainly did not look like a batsman who was in control. In this instant he rode his luck to a century. His wild aerial drives fell just short of fielders. His edges beat the McCullum repeatedly and raced to fine leg boundary. In a normal day, he will score his normal share of runs (10-20) not much more unless he corrects his problems. I have noticed three problems. He has little to no footwork. He often turns his bat little too prematurely while trying to cut too fine thereby causing edges. He has a tendency to cover drive uppishly. I would think it is done not with a purpose but rather unintentionally. If so, it may point to a timing as well as a footwork problem mentioned above. Finally, he is failing to pick up the slower balls and going through his both on and off drives actions little early.

Are you describing Imrul's innings or the famous Ash innings against AUS?

[magic boy]

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
so you are still saying strike rate under 80 is acceptable? i guess then you will be satisfied with a 220 score. wake up. imrul should have played more aggressively after 40 overs, that is where my problem is.

you should also wake up mate.....you have seen only one innings of Imrul Kayes scoring 100 of 70 SR and made up your mind that he can't play with better strike rate. dude this isn't end... watch more of this Imrul... he isn't definitely that much boring like Javed Omor/Rok...after all he scored a century. they haven't neither Aftab.

i hope you never become involved with BCB, you will turn my decent cricket team into a bigger joke.

Its not only your cricket team lolzz....and current cricket team led by BCB isn't decent enough.

imrul's innings was not good enough to beat a top team, i repeat. but his innings was good enough to save a team from an embarrassment.

HIS INNINGS WAS SO FAR GOOD TO PRAISE HIM....any Aussi batsman would do the same after 124/3 and after mini collapse during 35th overs. was he only batman there??? why dint other batsmen go after scoring with mind blowing SR ? they failed Imrul did...slowly.

also Bowlers had to do their duty accordingly...only Shakib took 4 wickets...what about other bowlers? Mushfiq dropped a match winning catch....winning a match doesn't depend on only a batsman.

do not compare michael clarke with imrul kayes, do not hype imrul up for the sake of Bangladesh cricket.

for the sake of BD cricket - we should appreciate the real contributing player and stop being over hyped for Aftab/Ash.

GUPTIL'S 91 > IMRUL'S 101 (in terms of usefulness to the team).

Guptil's 91 > Imrul's 101 because BD Bowling < NZ bowling also consider home ground+bowler friendly pitch, where other BDbatsman struggled

so now which one is better? imo Imrul's 101 >>> Guptil' 91 cuz triple digit is far far nicer than double digit ...after all its century !! and one batsman cant win a match unless other 10 players help.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by magic boy
you should also wake up mate.....you have seen only one innings of Imrul Kayes scoring 100 of 70 SR and made up your mind that he can't play with better strike rate. dude this isn't end... watch more of this Imrul... he isn't definitely that much boring like Javed Omor/Rok...after all he scored a century. they haven't neither Aftab.



Its not only your cricket team lolzz....and current cricket team led by BCB isn't decent enough.


HIS INNINGS WAS SO FAR GOOD TO PRAISE HIM....any Aussi batsman would do the same after 124/3 and after mini collapse during 35th overs. was he only batman there??? why dint other batsmen go after scoring with mind blowing SR ? they failed Imrul did...slowly.

also Bowlers had to do their duty accordingly...only Shakib took 4 wickets...what about other bowlers? Mushfiq dropped a match winning catch....winning a match doesn't depend on only a batsman.

Guptil's 91 > Imrul's 101 because BD Bowling < NZ bowling also consider home ground+bowler friendly pitch, where other BDbatsman struggled

so now which one is better? imo Imrul's 101 >>> Guptil' 91 cuz triple digit is far far nicer than double digit ...after all its century !! and one batsman cant win a match unless other 10 players help.

australia wins games, bangladesh does not. how hard it is to understand? we should not compare our players with australians.

ashraful had an useful partnership with imrul, without that partnership i think imrul would have been out. put yourself in the ashraful's spot, you will do worse i think.

bowlers did enough in that match, the ground was small.

by the way, i never hyped ashraful or aftab. i am assuming you said that based on what you saw in my signature. i am not hyping aftab, i am saying aftab is better than rakibul.

i repeat, imrul needs to keep this form but with a better strike rate (if bangladesh wants to beat a top team).


other batsmen got out because they just came to the crease and they needed time to settle. imrul was a set batsman and he should have scored better after 40 overs.

[Fazal]

Sorry I couldn't resist...

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
australia wins games, bangladesh does not. how hard it is to understand? we should not compare our players with australians.

... who is bringing other stronger team's comparison in this discussion in the first place?

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
ashraful had an useful partnership with imrul, without that partnership i think imrul would have been out. put yourself in the ashraful's spot, you will do worse i think.;

... and what is Ash's SR in this game while you are bitching about Imrul's SR?

... and how Imrul was out in 2nd ODI? Who was responsible?

and how Ash's partnership helped Imrul not to be out in 3rd ODI? You may think lot of things, but for us to believe what you think need more logic to back it up

Originally Posted by wasi90lkv1
the ground was small.

.. are you saying the ground was small for imrul and BIG for Ash? Then How Ash has even lower SR in this game? How do you explain that?