Analysis of All Bangladesh Test Innings

[babubangla]

Today I was looking at the overall picture of all Test Innings played by Bangladesh National Team. The picture I got at the end was really heart-breaking. In 36 test matches, Bangladesh players played in total 768 individual test innings. When I categorized these 768 Test Innings into Score Range, I got the following picture:

[align=center] [/align]

It was really painful to see almost 51% of all test innings played by our players is below 10!

621 Innings out of 768 is within 0 to 29 run score range. That means almost 81% of all test innings played by our players is below 30!

Just DUCK innings account for 133, which is almost 18% of all out test innings. (Note: 15 of those 133 is Not Out "0" innings).

I also have detailed count for the number of DUCKS played by each individual player, let me know if you are still interested to see those chart.

We certainly have a long way to go!!

[Tintin]

Fine work. You should start writing a regular column.

[Tintin]

>> I also have detailed count for the number of DUCKS played by each individual player, let me know if you are still interested to see those chart.

I am

[Red Cherry]

i'm sure Hannan Sarkar and Rokon will fight for the top spot

[Sham]

Its pretty pathetic isn't is? This kind of proves that there is a general lack of ability, rather than what we usually like to think, lack of temperament, lack of patience, irresponsibility etc. If most of our scores were in the 20s and 30s, that could have been said - 'our batsmen have the ability, they get starts but they don't have the temperament to go on, they get impatient, they play irresponsibly blah blah.' But when over half our scores are below 10 and over two-thirds are below 20, it just shows that our batsmen aren't really good enough for the top level. The new bunch might change that in years to come, but when you see something like this, you know why all this talk of 2-tiers go on!

[mahbubH]

The stats tell the same thing as the batting averages of our test players, 15-25 per innings.

[Tintin]

Originally posted by sports_fan_bd
The stats tell the same thing as the batting averages of our test players, 15-25 per innings.

Bill Frindall in his BBC column :

In descending order the batsmen's average runs per wicket in Test cricket (to 14 February 2005) are: Australia 33.48; West Indies 32.96; India 32.39; Pakistan 32.16; England 31.68; Sri Lanka 31.27; South Africa 30.46; New Zealand 27.96; Zimbabwe 27.36; Bangladesh 20.79.

[mahbubH]

Did not expect Zimbabwe and NZ are that close. Otherwise that is consistent .

[Sorry]

i should have better career prospect in statistics!

[Sorry]

Originally posted by banglar_dorbesh
i should have better career prospect in statistics!

sorry, i mean you

[oracle]

babubangla- kindly check your u2u.

[Ishtylish cricketer]

Sham did you know that it New Zeland 26 years for them to win a test match? It took us, 5. You claim that we beat a team that really had no superstar but regardless it is an accomplishment. Cricket unlike any sports, it is less about skill it is more about technique, patient, shot selection and temperment. Without these 4 things, even superior skills won't get it done. For instance, how do you explain our batsmen getting out to Pathan's inswing ball numerous time in a similar fashion? Lack of ability? No, lack of technique and judgement. Gavaskar himself once said to be a good batsman you need the basic ability to hit the hard which our batsmen do. Nonetheless, the lack in other aspects of batting such as the 4 i mentioned, is accountable for causing the downfall our batsmen. Simply analyse the fashion in which they get out. I hope you will get your answer indoing that.

[Ishtylish cricketer]

Corrections to my last post:
It took New Zealand -- not it New Zealand
You could claim -- not you claim
Regardless -- not but regardless

Sorry guys for making silly mistakes. I was watching Tv as i was typing it...

[BangladeshFan]

Originally posted by Ishtylish cricketer
Sham did you know that it New Zeland 26 years for them to win a test match? It took us, 5.

i guess the number of years gave us a false indication, because teams played lot less tests in a year than. the question is how many tests it took Nz (or india) to win the first test, and as far as I know thats lot less than Bd.

[Zephaniah]

Originally posted by BangladeshFan

i guess the number of years gave us a false indication, because teams played lot less tests in a year than. the question is how many tests it took Nz (or india) to win the first test, and as far as I know thats lot less than Bd.

It took NZ 45 tests to register their first win.

[chinaman]

Good piece of work, umpire Please keep it up.

I think comparative analysis of pre and post Whatmore era, instead of the 'one shot' will yield a better and more realistic picture. The learning curve was virtually non-existant in the earlier days. In a way, we started to play testing tests AW (After Whatmore) only.

[couger]

Not a pretty picture.

[Fazal]

"0 to 9 Run Range == 50.78:" Tells the whole story (ok alteast most of the story).

[Sham]

I know very well how many years and how many Tests it took New Zealand! Two things to say about that. One, New Zealand didn't lose the number of Tests we lost and definitely not by the kind of margins we lost by. Secondly, we got a tad bit lucky with the Zimbabwe crisis, otherwise it might have taken us a year or two longer. But winning a Test match in 5 years as opposed to 26 is not the point. The point is, there is a big gap between the rest of the Test cricketing nations (Zimbabwe apart) and Bangladesh.

As to the rest of what you wrote, can you please define ability? Aren't technique, shot selection and judgement all a part of ability? You say, getting out in similar fashion several times is not lack of ability, but lack of shot selection and judgement. Well, what is ability distinct from shot selection and judgement? Ability includes all those things! You can say, ability means being able to play the shot. But what good is being able to play a shot if you don't know when to play it?

The thing is, I am a blind supporter of Bangladesh like everyone else. But being an unconditional supporter doesn't mean that we shouldn't be objective in our analysis of our team. We may want to believe many things, but the truth is, till now, our batsmen have not been up to playing Test cricket. Like I said, that might change with Ashraful, Nafees, Rajin, Aftab but thats a different matter!

Edited on, February 26, 2005, 3:56 PM GMT, by Sham.

[Arnab]

babubangla, extend this analysis to only the current regulars and make a bar chart comparison.

[couger]

I would also like to see an analysis of partnerships.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by couger
I would also like to see an analysis of partnerships.

What would you like to see?

[Sham]

I like Arnab's idea. Lets look at the current players in the team, and then more specifically, just the current batsmen + Mashud.

[Arnab]

Sham, give me the names of teh current batsmen you want to see.

[Sham]

Javed, Nafees, Bashar, Ashraful, Rajin, Aftab and Mashud. Seems like this is our top seven for the time being.