An Uber Critical Look at the Bangladesh Cricket Team

[RazabQ]

G-man, yes. Betaar - were you at Willes?

[Zunaid]

Updated article now published as a front page article. Put on our facebook page and tweeted. Can you guys re-tweet and re-share to see if someone gets the lesson?

An uber-critical look at the Bangladesh cricket team http://t.co/hgFaI21yjo http://t.co/lDXXao0FpK

— BanglaCricket.com (@BanglaCricket) February 27, 2014

[mafizraju]

It seems to me (and I still have to thoroughly check) we are back to the old in and out team combination after roughly two years of relative stability with the team selection.

My understanding is that if a new player is successful the opposition will always work you out. This is where a good coach comes in who can help improve the skill, or help to reformulate the strategy. Best example is probably TiK in Trentbridge. I am not sure our current coaches are good enough. This might be one of the reasons why Anamul, Gazi, Nasir et al are struggling. The success against NZ or WI are due to their complete inability to handle any decent spinners.

[shakibrulz]

a) neither are big turners of the ball - which in turn means that on docile shirt-fronts they are as potent as an eunuch

Exhibit A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25SixtUl8t8
Exhibit B:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jECsmynimLo
Exhibit C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPon0gG3zs
Exhibit D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZD7zt4mOdQ

And that Warne like turn vs Ian Bell.

As someone who went through hours of footage of his to edit and upload all the major bowlinging highlights in his goddamn career, I respectfully disagree with this contention.
Unless Warne and Murali are the only people who can "turn the ball" in your books.

[RazabQ]

Mafiz, I don't think we are having whole-scale in-and-outs yet. The core is stable without being Sid-visioned into 12 players. Agree about good players being "solved" - that's why most international players go through a sophomore slump. But I'm not sure whether Nasir's recent troubles are a function of opposition bowling to his weaknesses or just an honest-to-goodness loss of form. He's missing out on his favorite cut shots. His little dabs are hitting the splice or toe-end. I'd actually have him go a couple of slots earlier so that he could play himself in. He keeps having to go in when it's go-go-go from ball 1.

[Zunaid]

Shakibrulz - that was then and this is now. Shakib's a lot flatter these days. He is still effective because of his nagging accuracy.

[shakibrulz]

And sorry Raz, I so so disagree about your "uber critical" POV because it's somewhat bordering on irrational kneejerk - which you get a LOT around here.
The matches won were NOT miracles. They were consistent and the batting was solid as ever. Nasir, Mushy, Shakib, Mominul and possibly even Tamim, Anamul contributing is a big deal. This is FAR from a minnow side. I'm not buying that.

And even the 4-0 vs NZ could've been written off as a fluke, because it was mostly Shakib's one man show and NZ being terrible. But that's been not the case with recent wins, most of them by good margins as well.

I think some objectivity is in order here.

[RazabQ]

Shakibrulz, you are taking one meaning of the phrase "turn the ball" which is to cause it to deviate from it's original path. I've been watching the guy from day one and of course he has bowled his share of unplayable deliveries. I should have been more precise about "turn the ball" - in spin parlance it often refers to the RPMs you impart on the ball, aka the rip. When you impart a lot of rip on the ball you may still not get a lot of deviation off the pitch but you will get drift and dip during flight and the ball, on a sporting surface would spit off the pitch. Big turners of the ball amongst finger spinners of recent times: Swann, Harbhajan and Murali. Leggies because they get to use the whole wrist, in general, get more of a rip. Naturally Warne would come to mind but watch even an Ish Sodhi (who is 1/10th the spinner Shak is) and you'll notice the ball comes out of his hand with more of a rip. The highlights you show have some lovely delivery but I'd argue (and I just went and checked the Willow highlights for the last 2 seasons) that he's lost whatever little explosiveness he had on his deliveries after his shin injury. For further proof, ask yourself how many of his recent deliveries has the keeper collected above the waist?

Now can you be a successful international spinner if you don't give the ball a huge rip? Well Anil Kumble is living proof that disproves that. More recently Rangana Herath has had a decent run as Sri Lanka's lead bowler and he probably rips the ball the same degree as Shak. But would you call Herath a match-changing kind of bowler?

Look Shak is the best thing we've got now but facing him on a flat pitch will not scare a good batsman.

[RazabQ]

Rulz: Those who've known of my posting pattern would contend that other than match threads (where a little leeway can be given) I'm hardly a kneejerk kind of fan.

You again are taking things literally. Yes I engaged in hyperbole when we said our wins are due to "a minor miracle", but ask yourself why do pundits always talk up Afghanistan or Ireland? Is it because they are all incorrigible romantics or Bangladesh-haters?

I do not think we are minnows. I am NOT calling our team minnows. I said "not for nothing we are _labeled_ as minnows.

[RazabQ]

and its Razab please.

[mafizraju]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Mafiz, I don't think we are having whole-scale in-and-outs yet. The core is stable without being Sid-visioned into 12 players. Agree about good players being "solved" - that's why most international players go through a sophomore slump. But I'm not sure whether Nasir's recent troubles are a function of opposition bowling to his weaknesses or just an honest-to-goodness loss of form. He's missing out on his favourite cut shots. His little dabs are hitting the splice or toe-end. I'd actually have him go a couple of slots earlier so that he could play himself in. He keeps having to go in when it's go-go-go from ball 1.

i am inclined to think that for Nasir it's a loss of form.

Cricket is a funny game. You play one loose shot in a match; next match you get out to a genuine good ball; then the opposition bowls to your weakness to make you struggle; next one you might be unlucky, and then suddenly all the chatters of you being out of form.....

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Shakibrulz, you are taking one meaning of the phrase "turn the ball" which is to cause it to deviate from it's original path. I've been watching the guy from day one and of course he has bowled his share of unplayable deliveries. I should have been more precise about "turn the ball" - in spin parlance it often refers to the RPMs you impart on the ball, aka the rip. When you impart a lot of rip on the ball you may still not get a lot of deviation off the pitch but you will get drift and dip during flight and the ball, on a sporting surface would spit off the pitch. Big turners of the ball amongst finger spinners of recent times: Swann, Harbhajan and Murali. Leggies because they get to use the whole wrist, in general, get more of a rip. Naturally Warne would come to mind but watch even an Ish Sodhi (who is 1/10th the spinner Shak is) and you'll notice the ball comes out of his hand with more of a rip. The highlights you show have some lovely delivery but I'd argue (and I just went and checked the Willow highlights for the last 2 seasons) that he's lost whatever little explosiveness he had on his deliveries after his shin injury. For further proof, ask yourself how many of his recent deliveries has the keeper collected above the waist?

Now can you be a successful international spinner if you don't give the ball a huge rip? Well Anil Kumble is living proof that disproves that. More recently Rangana Herath has had a decent run as Sri Lanka's lead bowler and he probably rips the ball the same degree as Shak. But would you call Herath a match-changing kind of bowler?

Look Shak is the best thing we've got now but facing him on a flat pitch will not scare a good batsman.

I don't think any bowler would be much of a "threat" on flat pitches, even Warne. I mean except the occassional brilliance from Murali/Warne I can't think of anyone who'd get away with their bowling on flat pitches.

And on turning pitches, he's able to turn them big. He's got enough variations. Kumble was unique. Herath does rip the ball and get decent turn, and he's also had his terrible times. And as for Sodhi giving it a good rip - I don't see that huge a different and the guy got us close vs NZ to jog your memory a bit - and that was actually a turning track. I know, control and rip are two different things, but again, just saying.

And as for how many deliveries of his has keeper collected over waist height, you play on slow flat pitches now - that coupled with your batting getting better is why you're drawing games, if you hadn't noticed. If anything the trouble was that the odd balls kept low. IMO anyways.

Originally Posted by RazabQ
I do not think we are minnows. I am NOT calling our team minnows. I said "not for nothing we are _labeled_ as minnows.

Because no one really keeps up to the development of BD as BD fans or cricket enthusiasts do. For eg. the commentary while Shakib was playing in BBL - it was completely irritating and humiliating stuff - as if they didn't give a crap.

It's your dire past mostly that's haunting you I guess, but that doesn't justify labelling you as minnows anymore. You're well, well past that stage and you should vocally oppose that instead of saying it's understandable. It really isn't.

[Beamer]

Other than the over use of the word 'sissy', don't see much fault with the analysis. You know what will instantly make us better? Find and produce a few genuine wkt taking quickies. They can mask a lot of problems and without such bowlers its difficult to win consistently against big teams. The middle over batting is so easy for seasoned class batsmen that if they don't want to get out, you won't be able to get them out. Its as easy as that. They keep wkts, rotate, find gaps, go after the weaker links and when time comes, they accelerate. Only way we can bother them on our pitches if we can post up 320+ runs. That will create automatic pressure and they would take risks. Good post. Agree with general premise.

BCB should spend all its money and resources to groom young pacers. Find them. Encourage kids to bowl fast, offer them scholarships, send them overseas to reputed academies with full paid tuition/ whatever they need. Invest in future, just like investing in higher education pay dividends later. Have to do something. You can't win consistently ( forget about tests ) without the threat of a firebrand or two intimidating or mowing down the order. Find, invest, groom, nurture, manage..

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Beamer
Only way we can bother them on our pitches if we can post up 320+ runs. That will create automatic pressure and they would take risks. Good post. Agree with general premise.

320+ runs ? Will we ever be able to do that?

We don't know how to utilize the PPs.

[Beamer]

That's more achievable than finding quickies from available resources.

[RazabQ]

Beamer - in the article, I've cleaned up the "sissy" overuse

[RazabQ]

Exactly Beamer - that's the route India has taken. Bat people out of games.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by Beamer
That's more achievable than finding quickies from available resources.

I hoipe you are right i.e. its achievable.

In phase I: under Siddon we(team) used to be happy with ~230 score.
In Phase II: under JS, we(team) are happy to score 265+
In phase III: under ???, we need to start scoring ~290+ consistently
In Phase IV: may be we may dream of scoring ~310 consistently

Note:- ofcourse we are talking about flat wickets

[Beamer]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Exactly Beamer - that's the route India has taken. Bat people out of games.

And, SL in sub-cont conditions. Good-decent start, Sanga - Mahela building partnerships, then combination of Aneglo and others doing the late forweork.

Our openers are not bad ( Tamim is capable of giving great starts ), middle is good now with Mushy and Momin ( he will come good ) doing the grunt work, then Sakib-Nasir- XXX doing it in late parts. We can put up 300 if we want to. But, we are sorry runners. Every game we get two-three run outs in the middle. We can clean it up.

Bowlers still gone begging. Nothing and nobody that scares you.

[mufi_02]

Originally Posted by Fazal
I hoipe you are right i.e. its achievable.

In phase I: under Siddon we(team) used to be happy with ~230 score.
In Phase II: under JS, we(team) are happy to score 265+
In phase III: under ???, we need to start scoring ~290+ consistently
In Phase IV: may be we may dream of scoring ~310 consistently

Note:- ofcourse we are talking about flat wickets

Its not about the coaches but the whole dynamics of ODIs have changed a lot. 10-12 years ago, 250 was a winning a target and 300 is a sure win. That's why India's 316 chase against Pak in Dhaka (1998) stood there for a long time (AUS chased 316 same year). Then the dam broke after few years and now no score is safe.

With 2 new balls, 3 PPs + restriction on fielders on boundary, it is much easier to score. BD can score 300. In 2010 we scored 290+ against India.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
Its not about the coaches but the whole dynamics of ODIs have changed a lot. 10-12 years ago, 250 was a winning a target and 300 is a sure win. That's why India's 316 chase against Pak in Dhaka (1998) stood there for a long time (AUS chased 316 same year). Then the dam broke after few years and now no score is safe.

With 2 new balls, 3 PPs + restriction on fielders on boundary, it is much easier to score. BD can score 300. In 2010 we scored 290+ against India.

Am I talking about 10-12 years ? Siddon coached us that long ago? I thought he coached us few years back. As far as I know, when Sddon was coaching, good teams were constantly scoring 300+ in flat pitch. i think the dymanics already changed when Siddon was coaching us.

two new ball can help/hurt either way. 2 PPs (from 3 PPs) theoritically helped the fielding team. I think under Siddon we had 3 PPs but one new ball, which was almost always being replaced later in the innings (with another used ball).

btw I intentionally excluded Dav's name even though he coached us less that 10 years ago.

[mufi_02]

Originally Posted by Fazal
Am I talking about 10-12 years ? Siddon coached us that long ago? I thought he coached us few years back. As far as I know, when Sddon was coaching, good teams were constantly scoring 300+ in flat pitch. i think the dymanics already changed when Siddon was coaching us.

two new ball can help/hurt either way. 2 PPs (from 3 PPs) theoritically helped the fielding team. I think under Siddon we had 3 PPs but one new ball, which was almost always being replaced later in the innings (with another used ball).

btw I intentionally excluded Dav's name even though he coached us less that 10 years ago.

You are right. Siddons left only about 2 something years ago.

I said 10-12 overs ago, 250 was winning score and now its decent at best. I think the game and run chasing psychology changed tremendously in last 4-5 years.

3 PPs have been there for a while. But 2013 additions, such as 5 compulsory fielders in 30 yard circle is a significant change. The 2 new balls getting 25 overs each essentially rules out any chance of reverse during slog overs. So I think its the new rules rather than coaches that have most effect in high scores now.

“If you see in the last one year or so, a lot of teams made 300-plus totals and a lot of teams chased down 300-plus scores,” explained Dhoni, "I don’t see any good reason why, with five fielders inside the circle all the time, they will be tempted to flight the ball. As of now, I don’t know what is the best combination given the new rules, what will be a good score. These are things that need to be considered.” http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-n...di-rules/42511

Also, New ODI rules make bowlers handicap (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/s...ms?referral=PM)

So I think our current batsmen has all the capabilities coupled with new rules to score 300+

All these only reinforces Razab bhai's argument. He explained nicely how anything below 300 against India was a par score and sending Naeem after Anamul was a mistake. Zia might have been a good option.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
All these only reinforces Razab bhai's argument. He explained nicely how anything below 300 against India was a par score and sending Naeem after Anamul was a mistake. Zia might have been a good option.

that part I beleive we all agree. Dont' expect to win against India scoring 279. Also our late order (naeem, Riyad) are not capable to accelerate run that is requested to score 300+. Alternatively as you said, we are not promoting/selecting the right capable player to do the job. Plus out of form Nasir is not also heling the cauase at present. An in form Nasir followed by Zia (instead of Naeem) could have take us close to 300 in the last game. Also recently struggling Anamul also could have given us few more runs; however no complain there, I can understand why he played the way he played, i.e. for his own survival.

[RazabQ]

I would like to highlight that I don't advocate major changes to the team. These players are the best we have got. There are no Mitchell Johnson or Dale Sten playing in the NL. Nor are there any Kohlis or ABs. My beef is with the way these folks are playing, the desire that they demonstrate, the advice and leadership that they are (or are not being given) and the longer-term planning that looks conspicuously absent. My beef is with the inability to think on our feet and in match situations.

[Alvi]

The main problem is in the youth and domestic system. Our players may have some ability but seriously lack the temperament to win matches and deal with various situations. Most world-class players have that prior to actually playing international cricket. Obviously, the financial aspect is huge, the teams with the best domestic structure also have more to offer for their players, which brings professionalism into the sport. The professionalism aspect is something that even India, up until the last couple of decades (when they became very rich), had lacked.