Wickets in the hand means nothing

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Arguement can be made both sides. We have lost more games for not having enough wickets than the wins with a good rrr.
Let me remind you some of the chases we had were the runrate was fine but wicket fell early and often.

There is no "both side". The point is not to put lower price on wicket, but keeping wickets at hand without letting the RRR go out of control.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausv...ch/336204.html
The most recent against Australia 3rd ODI. 198. Lost too many wickets too early. Our 4.18 rr (that includes Abdur Razzak's 36 ball 14) was better than Australia's 3.98. We shouldn't have lost that game. There was no deamons on that Darwin pitch.

It was an exception, like the last game was another kind of exception. Typical BD run chases involve both scoring slowly and losing lots of early wickets. Both exceptions are BAD, just like the usual scenario (even worse, taking the raised expectation of win into account)

WC games:
Against Eng: could not finish 50 overs were allout in 37.2 overs for 143. Had we wickets in hand certain victory was there in the match. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc20...ch/247494.html

Batting first scenario, not relevant to the topic.

Against Ireland: Need I say more?
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc20...ch/247498.html

We can't chase 240+, because of our inability to score fast enough without losing too many wickets. Fact.

Against WI:
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc20...ch/247502.html

We scored 52 in first 20 overs, like the last match. It wasn't like we scored 40+ for 0-1 wicket in the first 10 overs, then the sudden collapse made the RRR dip like that.

+++

Wickets in hand is as important if not more than RRR in chasing (ODIs). For certain the heading is wrong in calling as NOTHING.

I see nothing wrong with a bit colorful heading, as long as people read the post as well

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
i must say, i have to agree with tigers eye here...at least for the most part.

you are correct, keeping RRR under control definitely improves chances of winning. there is no freaking doubt about it. however, the RRR in the match of reference was around 7.5 when things fell apart.

That's an 80% increase from initial RRR, which is HUGE. That kind of RRR means the batting was way below par for 2/3rd period of the innings. It's hard to win games with this kind of batting, even more when you're chasing. 7.5 RRR is acceptable for last 15 overs, if your initial RRR is around 6 (only 25% increase from initial RRR). It means you're batting well (Of course assuming you haven't lost 2/3rd of your batting line-up in the process), and the conditions have been good for batting throughout the match.

that equates to 75 runs being scored in the last 10. this is something that we have done many times before, whether setting a score or chasing one. the plan hinged on ashraful sticking around till the end, which is the reason for his super-cautious batting. i must commend him for at least sticking to the gameplan. wickets weren't falling till quite late.

We did that only once when mattered (while chasing), that's in the "once in a lifetime" game by our standards.

scoring 75 in the last 10 overs is not at all incredible. its common place. even for us. and if our plan had worked (no plan is guaranteed to work i.e you can never know beforehand if it will work or not, thats why the game is played) we all know that ash can score any amount of runs when he's in slog mode.

the plan was fine. it just wasn't executed perfectly, because there are few, if any examples of us doing this before.

ash and the others should have scored a tad bit faster than 2.5 an over for an even better plan. but even at that rate, 75 in the last 10, with a powerplay in there, is daal-bhath for even bangladesh's batting lineup. unfortunately ash got out before it could be taken.

It takes only 1 ball to get any batsman out. With a target in mind, without much confidence in the remaining batsman, it's very hard to play with the kind of freedom that is necessary to get those runs in quick time.

i'll agree that the australia run chase was a miracle, but our whole objective is taking the miracle (winning against top sides) and making them more commonplace, isn't it? in that case, winning some games chasing 8 an over in the last 10 or 15 overs shouldn't seem like such a hopeless exercise.

No miracle was necessary in the last match, even by our standards. We made the miracle necessary.

[yaseer]

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
The point is not to put lower price on wicket, but keeping wickets at hand without letting the RRR go out of control.

This summarizes the thought.

You never really want ur RRR to go to a stage when it becomes impossible while chasing, in that point wicket in hand can do you no good.

while chasing, you must have wickets in hand, but also need maintain a decent RRR so that it does not go out of control. You cannot go to 4th gear from 1st gear, so you gotto keep up with the pace. also to play in the 4th gear for some time in the final overs, you need wickets to finish it off.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
There is no "both side". The point is not to put lower price on wicket, but keeping wickets at hand without letting the RRR go out of control.

RRR 5-7 after 30 overs is fine providing if we have wickets.

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
It was an exception, like the last game was another kind of exception. Typical BD run chases involve both scoring slowly and losing lots of early wickets. Both exceptions are BAD, just like the usual scenario (even worse, taking the raised expectation of win into account)

Our RR is most of the time good in first 10 overs. It is the wickets that we can't keep in hand. And to mend the damage we have to consolidate. Not only us. See the two NZ batting. Oram - Vettori had to consolidate because of the early wickets right?

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
We can't chase 240+, because of our inability to score fast enough without losing too many wickets. Fact.

This was Ireland. Certainly we chased over 240+ against minnows. Where is Shariar Nafees?

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
We scored 52 in first 20 overs, like the last match. It wasn't like we scored 40+ for 0-1 wicket in the first 10 overs, then the sudden collapse made the RRR dip like that.

Fall of wickets1-13 (Tamim Iqbal, 6.2 ov), 2-21 (Aftab Ahmed, 8.5 ov), 3-23 (Shakib Al Hasan, 10.5 ov), 4-34 (Mohammad Ashraful, 14.4 ov), 5-35 (Javed Omar, 16.1 ov), 6-52 (Habibul Bashar, 20.4 ov),
Early wickets bro. Not RRR in that game.

+++

Originally Posted by Spitfire_x86
I see nothing wrong with a bit colorful heading, as long as people read the post as well

Then I have no gripe. Time to time we all do that.

SL, India had done it to us many times. We took few early wickets, they slowed down. Then once they got settled the balooned. 250/300 easy koirey felsey. Last'er 10/15 over'a bash diya charsey. Wickets in hand is hugely important.

You may have narrowed down the criteria by saying chasing, but wickets in hand and a slower RR always allows for playing catchup in the wanning overs of the preset target (by the team management or by the opponents).

[Pundit]

spitfire has unfortunately tried to overly generalize his thesis. Doing that, is an oxymoron in its self. He is arguing over one specific scenario, but more improtantly, he is suggesting that good teams always do the right thing, whereas in Bangladesh's case, it should be - by doing the right thing, they become a good team.

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
RRR 5-7 after 30 overs is fine providing if we have wickets.

As I said, it depends on the initial RRR (a indicator of how difficult it is to get runs), and strength of lower order. Our lower order is nowhere near the Australia/New Zealand standard.

Take a look at this match. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/iccc...ch/249757.html. Chasing 241, NZ was reduced to 35/6 after 15 overs. Still they gave Aus a real fight because they didn't just survive, they were also picking up runs, which shows the value of keeping RRR in control. The final result (34 runs defeat) emphasizes the value of keeping both RRR in control and not losing too many early wicket. On both accounts, NZ completely failed upto 15th over (like we did in the WI match in WC 2003). Rest of the match points out the difference between our lower order and NZ lower order.

This was Ireland. Certainly we chased over 240+ against minnows. Where is Shariar Nafees?

IIRC, the highest score we chased against minnows is 237, which was in some pre-historic age (1998!!).

Fall of wickets1-13 (Tamim Iqbal, 6.2 ov), 2-21 (Aftab Ahmed, 8.5 ov), 3-23 (Shakib Al Hasan, 10.5 ov), 4-34 (Mohammad Ashraful, 14.4 ov), 5-35 (Javed Omar, 16.1 ov), 6-52 (Habibul Bashar, 20.4 ov),
Early wickets bro. Not RRR in that game.

I'd say both, as in no stage we were scoring faster than 2.5 per over. The difference between that match and the last match? No wickets fell in last match between 10th and 20th over, but the final score and match was practically same. The Australia match (and the infamous Canada match of 2003) was only time we were scoring ahead of required rate, but poor temperament was solely responsible for big defeat.

SL, India had done it to us many times. We took few early wickets, they slowed down. Then once they got settled the balooned. 250/300 easy koirey felsey. Last'er 10/15 over'a bash diya charsey. Wickets in hand is hugely important.

They usually score much faster than us without losing too many wickets. Once in a while, when we set them a challenging target, they either totally blow us away or just win without showing any sign of nerve (like we did against India in WC and this time against NZ). We win whenever they can't do that (score fast + keep wickets at hand), example being Pakistan in 1999, India in 2004, South Africa in 2007.

[crikfreak]

what has passed has passed.. now instead of brooding over it.. i think we should concentrate more on tomorrows match.. we still have a very good chance of winning this series..

[Pundit]

I think many cricket fans have shown propensity towards a disdainful attitude, be it against the coach, or singled out players, or match situations.

I am sure most of the time the players try there best, its just that right now the gulf between trying the best and what needs to happen, is just too large most times.

I picture one of the NZ openers brooding over spitfire, and thumping him into the ground, and he continues to make his point...

..enjoy the games..our cricket loving past generations dared not even dream of what we see now. Let the players work hard, and we fans enjoy.

[knocked_up]

Ok here is a thought!

3rd ODI: Bangladesh 60/5 (20 ov) [without hitting]
2nd ODI: Bangladesh 60/2 (20 ov) [hitting]

which one do you like more!!

you what wickets in hand means? NO i dont mean for stupid Bangladesh Team, for some real team. it means if they have wickets in hand, last 10-15 overs, you can make up those last 30-35 overs. but now? on 3rd odi? what we got? wicket o ni...run o ni...lost both ends

and at the end run amount is the SAME! and RR is UNDER 2!!! and we wont be able to pass 100. NOT EVEN


wickets in hand means a LOT, may be you "BOOM BOOM" fans dont like that cricket...but thats the real cricket...

[knocked_up]

how much did Ash make today? 8 of 7 bowls! yaay SR is over 114!! yeah i bet you like that..."BOOM BOOM"
he tried one "Boom Boom" scop shot and got out "BOWLED"

and when he didnt "boom boom" he made 40 runs! and if he did that today and stayed till the 45th over! SR would have gone up too and we could have won! both the games

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally Posted by knocked_up
how much did Ash make today? 8 of 7 bowls! yaay SR is over 114!! yeah i bet you like that..."BOOM BOOM"
he tried one "Boom Boom" scop shot and got out "BOWLED"

and when he didnt "boom boom" he made 40 runs! and if he did that today and stayed till the 45th over! SR would have gone up too and we could have won! both the games

Both today and in the last match bad batting cost us the match, just in a different way. Yes, Ash's SR was going up gradually in the 2nd match, like from 15-20% to 40%!!! You could say Ash needed to bat like he did in the first match. Unfortuantely like you, Ash and many of our players don't realize there's a middle ground between "BOOM BOOM" and "BLOCK BLOCK", which goes by the name of "sensible batting".

Few more players needed to bat like Tamim batted today, and one of them needed to get a big score. That's how every team does it, chasing a challenging but very much chase-able target.

[knocked_up]

i do understand...thats why i brought it up. and bat like Tamim? he was almost out for Zero on the 1st bowl of the innings. AGAIN! and on the next bowl, what he does? he swings Again! no Fear...he got THREE LUCKS to make that 35!
whos gona give him that many luck every time?? he should have made use of the 1st luck he got and make his stupid 40-50 into 70-80. Because every one wanted from him today, we needed one from him today. Because we knew Ash and Z wont play 3 in a row. and It was Tamims day. and he wasted it. BIG TIME.

i would rather have you out for DUCK on the 1st bowl then, make 35 with 3 lucks

[knocked_up]

Lets keep all the wickets under our BUTTS now...then in hands...that might work...

[Spitfire_x86]

Originally Posted by knocked_up
i would rather have you out for DUCK on the 1st bowl then, make 35 with 3 lucks

He got only 1 life, that's in the 1st ball. Twice more the ball was in air, but those weren't catches, it could happen to anyone. Most of his runs were scored with reasonably safe good shots, unlike the shot that got Ash dismissed. He also rotated strike after getting boundaries. That's what I meant by "few more batsmen should've played like Tamim".