FULL TOSSES or REFUSAL of Taking more than SIngles

[al-Sagar]

what ever happened in the bowling and who could have bowled and how he could have bowled can be an endless debate and we will have those debates all along our career as fans. i don't want to get in that debate here. i am putting up my thoughts what was the reason we failed to achieve the target.

the target of 198 was there and it was tough for us. we had a great start. we had a chance but we could not finish and fell only 18 short and realized in the 20 overs we actually had a lots of chances where those 18 runs could have been scored.

First the FULL TOSSES.

i think any other format TEST or ODI, mahmudullah would have hit at least two of those full tosses for boundary. remember how mushfiq took a big step in the victory against india in asia cup when he hit those boundaries agaisnt irfan pathan who bowled some juicy full tosses ???? mamudullah surely has the ability to dispatch like mushfiq can.

but yesterday all those full toss balls, mahmudullah had one thing he needs to tonk, and tonk hard and get a six. because that was the demand of the game and demand of t20 format. so he tried to tonk hard and mistimed. he never first saw where the ball is and decide to play it in his merit. he was standing firm and just looked for the mid wicket region.

but if it was some other format perhaps he would have not been in a mindset of tonking hard for six. he could have cleverly swept or placed it in the gaps. the same thing he did in the last ODI.

BUT more than the inability of dispatching full tosses the thing that HURT us more was their REFUSAL of Taking more than SIngles

tamim on the other side was not running well. if riadh had placed a shot in a gap even if there was a chance to take 2s or 3s tamim was only fit for a single.

thats why both tamim and mahmudullah realised they cant place or chip or scoop the ball in gaps and run 2s or 3s. because they would get only 1 run. all they need to is get boundaries. so all of the time they had only boundaries in mind. they never tried to play the ball with its merit and try to run 2s or 3s. never attempted an innovative shot.

ok, tamim said they tried to hit and if they cant hit no body could have. well may be that is true. none of us in BC where out in the pitch and none of us could tell actually how hard it was to hit in those conditions.

BUT WAS TAMIM AND MAHMUDULLAH TRYING TO RUN HARD ???? no they were not. that was the main reason we lost. at least 10-15 times, tamim and riadh never even attempted the second runs which was on. and also when both saw that they cant run 2s or 3s, they stopped attempting clever innovative shots and running for 2s or 3s. they were only looking for the big hits over mid wicket and long on but never tried to steer through third man or sweep through square/fine leg or scoop over wicet keeper.

seriously may be the next batsman may have not hit like tamim and riadh for boundaries but they could have played those innovative shots and run well and score at a higher run rate.

well we had a good overall series againt WI. in fact we had a good over all year. the players have sometimes done exceptionally well, but again some time have done very poor. and what hurts is we do some very basic things wrong. but we are improving and our expectations are increasing too. now we dare to expect us to score 300, chase 300 where us a few years ago even if opponent scored 225+ we accepted defeat.

we hope our players learn the lessons and our cricket takes the next steps next year.

[jeesh]

Two very good observations al-Sagar. Its a problem with us not just in T20's but also in ODI's. I reason why i admired Steve Tikolo was his mindset. Our guys will leave a few, block a few, or simply slog to get their eye in and be familiar with the conditions. Steve Tikolo in comparison used to plug the gaps from ball, get singles and get set. In T20's dot balls are taboo. Our guys just dont seem concerned by this. Their approach is very much boundary oriented. Not only they dont take enough singles, they cant convert 1's to 2's, and 2's to 3's. I dont know whether its laziness, lack of fitness, or they are too nervy to test the fielders.

The second problem with relation to full tosses. If you think about it the problem is shot selection. Except Tamim all other 10 batsmen are bottom handed players who can only hit over deep mid wicket. Thats their six or boundary zone. Unless you have the strength of Zia or Mashrafee its difficult to clear that part everytime, particularly from full tosses. This is where our guys need to expand their zones. Instead of targeting deep mid wicket, why not hit it over the bowlers head like what Tamim realized later on. What not paddle or flick it through fine leg. You cannot look to hit it the same place everytime, you become predictable as a batsman. Look at Samuel's sixes, he hit it everywhere. Rubel didnt know where to bowl.

[Jadukor]

Two points from moi related to Mushy and his tactics:
Mahmudullah had a wonderful ODI series. He came in at difficult situations where we were 3 to 5 wickets down and did the rebuilding. He is a great player for a situation like that.
Last night we were already off to a flyer. We were scoring at close to 14 runs an over. Did we really need the services of Mahmudullah at that stage?

Rubel was hit for runs in the ODI series. He is short on confidence and Shafiul is high on confidence having put in a wonderful spell in the final ODI. When as a captain you have seen all your bowlers bowl 3 overs, who should you pick to bowl the final over?

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by al-Sagar
what ever happened in the bowling and who could have bowled and how he could have bowled can be an endless debate and we will have those debates all along our career as fans. i don't want to get in that debate here. i am putting up my thoughts what was the reason we failed to achieve the target.

the target of 198 was there and it was tough for us. we had a great start. we had a chance but we could not finish and fell only 18 short and realized in the 20 overs we actually had a lots of chances where those 18 runs could have been scored.

First the FULL TOSSES.

i think any other format TEST or ODI, mahmudullah would have hit at least two of those full tosses for boundary. remember how mushfiq took a big step in the victory against india in asia cup when he hit those boundaries agaisnt irfan pathan who bowled some juicy full tosses ???? mamudullah surely has the ability to dispatch like mushfiq can.

but yesterday all those full toss balls, mahmudullah had one thing he needs to tonk, and tonk hard and get a six. because that was the demand of the game and demand of t20 format. so he tried to tonk hard and mistimed. he never first saw where the ball is and decide to play it in his merit. he was standing firm and just looked for the mid wicket region.

but if it was some other format perhaps he would have not been in a mindset of tonking hard for six. he could have cleverly swept or placed it in the gaps. the same thing he did in the last ODI.

BUT more than the inability of dispatching full tosses the thing that HURT us more was their REFUSAL of Taking more than SIngles

tamim on the other side was not running well. if riadh had placed a shot in a gap even if there was a chance to take 2s or 3s tamim was only fit for a single.

thats why both tamim and mahmudullah realised they cant place or chip or scoop the ball in gaps and run 2s or 3s. because they would get only 1 run. all they need to is get boundaries. so all of the time they had only boundaries in mind. they never tried to play the ball with its merit and try to run 2s or 3s. never attempted an innovative shot.

ok, tamim said they tried to hit and if they cant hit no body could have. well may be that is true. none of us in BC where out in the pitch and none of us could tell actually how hard it was to hit in those conditions.

BUT WAS TAMIM AND MAHMUDULLAH TRYING TO RUN HARD ???? no they were not. that was the main reason we lost. at least 10-15 times, tamim and riadh never even attempted the second runs which was on. and also when both saw that they cant run 2s or 3s, they stopped attempting clever innovative shots and running for 2s or 3s. they were only looking for the big hits over mid wicket and long on but never tried to steer through third man or sweep through square/fine leg or scoop over wicet keeper.

seriously may be the next batsman may have not hit like tamim and riadh for boundaries but they could have played those innovative shots and run well and score at a higher run rate.

well we had a good overall series againt WI. in fact we had a good over all year. the players have sometimes done exceptionally well, but again some time have done very poor. and what hurts is we do some very basic things wrong. but we are improving and our expectations are increasing too. now we dare to expect us to score 300, chase 300 where us a few years ago even if opponent scored 225+ we accepted defeat.

we hope our players learn the lessons and our cricket takes the next steps next year.

That's a very good post.

If you want a team to continue to develop, mistakes must be talked about, accepted and corrected. Baby sitting, Denials and self promotion is detrimental to development. While we appreciate an overall performance, we must accept mistakes, learn from that and move on...

[Isnaad]

Absolutely spot on here. When we look at the scoreboard, it might look as if we did well to get to 179 in 20. But having seen the game, we know how many scoring opportunities have been missed.

[Sohel]

Dom nai bhai, dour'haibo kyamne?

[WarWolf]

Top post Sagar bhai. You just spoke my mind.

Regarding boundaries, they didn't take enough risk. We have seen them taking unnecessary risks even during test matches when the risk is not need. Yesterday they did the opposite. They could try to play scoop shots or inside out shots. They didn't try it. This is where the question comes.

Regarding running hard...you all know the reason. Don't bother to type it again.

[shuziburo]

Originally Posted by Jadukor
Two points from moi related to Mushy and his tactics:
Mahmudullah had a wonderful ODI series. He came in at difficult situations where we were 3 to 5 wickets down and did the rebuilding. He is a great player for a situation like that.
Last night we were already off to a flyer. We were scoring at close to 14 runs an over. Did we really need the services of Mahmudullah at that stage?

Rubel was hit for runs in the ODI series. He is short on confidence and Shafiul is high on confidence having put in a wonderful spell in the final ODI. When as a captain you have seen all your bowlers bowl 3 overs, who should you pick to bowl the final over?

Who should have been sent after Amanul? How about Zia?

[Jadukor]

Originally Posted by shuziburo
Who should have been sent after Amanul? How about Zia?

My first choice would have been Mushfiq as he is able to run the quick singles and also shift gears and hit those big shots under pressure

[betaar]

Originally Posted by Jadukor
My first choice would have been Mushfiq as he is able to run the quick singles and also shift gears and hit those big shots under pressure

Mine would have been Nasir. I think Mushy is already low in confidence with those dropped catches and his choice of Rubel for the last over instead of Razzak.
I know I am dead against promoting Nasir in the ODI or test since he seems to thrive under pressure (and not so good with shinny ball moving) but so does Riyadh. So why choose Nasir over Riyadh since the latter did tremendously in the ODI series? Because, what Nasir has is the fearless attitude that Riyadh does not. Since it's a T20, taking such risk with Nasir would make sense. But it's easy for us to say now since Riyadh could not deliver the win despite his good form. I do not think Mushy did anything wrong by picking his inform player to finish the job, it's Riyadh's fault to fail to deliver...and Tamim as well.

[Navo]

The thing is, even if someone fleet of foot like Nasir was sent up the order it would have failed as his running partner, Tamim, would not have been able to keep up and/or would have continued to refuse doubles and triples. (This in turn would put off Nasir who would probably get out trying to force a boundary)

I think sending Mushfiq and then Zia would have been good to continue with the momentum. Riyad has been in form but the ODI series required innings of a completely different pace than what was required in the T20i.

If we would have been able to crack a hundred within the first 10 overs - very much on after 43/0 after 3 overs - it would have eased the pressure on Nasir/Riyad/Mominul to score the remaining 97 later on, even if there was a collapse of wickets.

[M.H.Rubel]

Originally Posted by shuziburo
Who should have been sent after Amanul? How about Zia?

I was thinking about Shohag for pinch hitting to use field restriction. I was thinking to send Zia as the last trump card.

[betaar]

Originally Posted by Navo
The thing is, even if someone fleet of foot like Nasir was sent up the order it would have failed as his running partner, Tamim, would not have been able to keep up and/or would have continued to refuse doubles and triples. (This in turn would put off Nasir who would probably get out trying to force a boundary)

I think sending Mushfiq and then Zia would have been good to continue with the momentum. Riyad has been in form but the ODI series required innings of a completely different pace than what was required in the T20i.

If we would have been able to crack a hundred within the first 10 overs - very much on after 43/0 after 3 overs - it would have eased the pressure on Nasir/Riyad/Mominul to score the remaining 97 later on, even if there was a collapse of wickets.

If you agree it's Tamim who is at fault here in keeping up with his partner then how does it make a difference if Mushy went in instead of Riyadh. If anything Mushy takes more singles and twos.

If we want to mitigate the running between the wicket issue, then a stroke maker such as Nasir would have been the perfect foil since he plays shots from the very get go. He could've gotten out playing shots, but at least if he didn't it would've worked to keep the RRR down.

Zia is not a good option; that type of hitters are better to come more so in the 15th over when RRR is 15 or so. Zia has not bat through out the whole series and asking him to come that early on would have definitely confuse him and would've made him not play his natural game.

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by shuziburo
Who should have been sent after Amanul? How about Zia?

Originally Posted by Jadukor
My first choice would have been Mushfiq as he is able to run the quick singles and also shift gears and hit those big shots under pressure

Mushy
Then, Nasir, Zia, Mullah

Tamim is lazy when it comes to running between the wickets, Mullah is lazyer IMHO.
Team MGT did a huge mistake by sending Mullah sesond dowm.


Nice analysis Sagar

[Navo]

Originally Posted by betaar
If you agree it's Tamim who is at fault here in keeping up with his partner then how does it make a difference if Mushy went in instead of Riyadh. If anything Mushy takes more singles and twos.

If we want to mitigate the running between the wicket issue, then a stroke maker such as Nasir would have been the perfect foil since he plays shots from the very get go. He could've gotten out playing shots, but at least if he didn't it would've worked to keep the RRR down.

Zia is not a good option; that type of hitters are better to come more so in the 15th over when RRR is 15 or so. Zia has not bat through out the whole series and asking him to come that early on would have definitely confuse him and would've made him not play his natural game.

Nasir can be a stroke maker but I find that he relishes rotating the strike rapidly and looks uncomfortable not doing so. He's also had trouble batting up the order recently. Mushy, as someone who has had success in playing the Windies attack in the ODI series recently and as someone who has demonstrated his hitting prowess in T20s, might have been a better foil for Tamim at that particular moment.

But we're dwelling on 'what ifs...' Either Nasir or Mushy could have done well...I only mention Zia as I think his slogging might have helped continue the momentum generated at the time.