Answering Richard McInnes, the U19 coach. (Thank you for your post)

[adnan]

Dear Coach,
Thank you very much and to my great surprise answering my article. It’s been absolutely improvising they way you came out of no where and answered my tiny little post. It was a great honor to me feeling that we made you answer some questions, which even the media in BD failed. I would like to excuse me if any comments on my last post was taken as a personal attack or misused only because of my wrong use of words; you know English is not my native language.

Well, because you have answered my post, now its my turn to review your points once more. I will try to be very specific and try not to present any more “myth”.

The comment on our coaches left you very unpopular in BD media but that is not very important. I think you will get over it, if you are right on your views.

The explanation that you provided about match pressure, the crowd and expectation, all were the reasons which played in the minds of our players. Our players have lost many times in front of the native crowd in the past, and therefore, I do believe you worked on this to get them out of this mental pressure in the last six months.". But we have been overwhelmed on both big occasions against India and NZ, doesn’t it show that even with your mental therapy, we have not been able to overcome this problem yet? If someone asks for more time, I would be wondering what that may bring us in future because the U19 WC is over already for us and we can only show our mental strength against some non test playing countries. The country where you are from, have shown many times in the past that they can bear the crowd sentiment at the top level. Now you worked on the boys and the job is yet to be done.

Let us come to point of where you have mentioned we lost to a “mighty” India. Not a single player in this team played at the top level whereas we had 3 test playing players in the squad. The batting average of 3 of our players at first class level are also above 40. I put a comparison chart of the batting averages here (source www.Cricinfo.com):

India Banglaedesh
Player First class Avg. Player First Class Avg.
Ambati Rayudu 45.97 Nafis Iqbal 40.10
Sunny Singh 50.25 Ashiqur Rahman 47* (all not outs)
Suresh Raina 49.63 Nadif Chowdhury 24.28
Rakesh Solanki 32 Nazimuddin 29.37
Dinesh Karthik 26.00 Aftab Ahmed 44.00
Praveen Gupta 10.7
Shikhar Dhawan none
Robin Uthappa 11.8

The table shows no huge difference between the averages of the two teams. Which refutes the coach's claim that India has very high averaged batsmen. The fact is that two batsmen who got runs against BD are Robin (avg.11.8) and Dhawan (yet to play in first class). Not the other three big players.

Bowling first against India. The point you have mentioned is the match between IND vs. NZ where you said the pitch played a lot and that is why you decided for batting second. To my great surprise, India won the toss on that match and elected to bat. Although they struggled in the first 10 overs where they lost two quick wickets, they finally recovered and won the match in style. Also interesting to note that NZ also lost two quick wickets in the first 10 overs.

The second point that I am protesting is that you mentioned India would also bat second had they won the toss. Their captain mentioned after the game that he would bat first (source Daily Janakantha) and that’s what they did before on both of their last two matches and on the same venue.

Now come to the NRR point. This is where you said “We scored 96 off 12 overs which was actually worth more than NZ 380 and just less than India’s 425”. Let us justify your comment with my example here:

The point is to show which one is better.
BD NRR was 1.77 after the match against Scotland so I will not calculate it again. Lets think BD makes 389 against Scot instead of 96 in 12.2 overs and the Scottish all out for 149 as they were against NZ. Now what would be our NRR!

Runs for = 202+389 in 100 overs. NRR (For) =5.91

Runs against 204+149 in 49.2+50 overs. NRR (Against) =3.554.

Final Cumulative NRR= 5.91-3.554 = 2.356 which is much higher than what it was in real (1.77).


This definitely proves that we should have batted first, because the weight of playing 50 overs is much higher than play only 12 overs.

Does it clear my point Sir? If not then I am sorry; but at this level, a coach is also supposed to know this fact behind NRR.

The selection of Ashique surprised many people. You have defended him as a strong captain able to judge pressure situations. However, why was he seen leaving the field during the game several times? Did he really get the freedom to take decisions on his own?

And what about your comment about 600% improvement? That doesn't make much sense.

Nevertheless, some points that you made clear were really good and appreciable. However, there are still many technical things yet to be answered. I enjoyed reading your article and so do most of our forum members. Actually, most of them were happy to see you answering me. I hope that you will show up again and defend yourself to the point.

[Edited on 2/21/2004 by adnan]

[Edited on 2/21/2004 by adnan]

[Edited on 2/21/2004 by adnan]

[Edited on 2/21/2004 by adnan]

[Edited on 2/21/2004 by adnan]

[Edited on 2/22/2004 by adnan]

[Nasif]

Adnan check your email.

[adnan]

corrections made nasif, thanks.

[Optimist]

Well done Adnan! It was a great gesture from McInness to come to this board and explain his viewpoints. But I was surprised by his comments on NRR. As you have shown his explanation on this has a major flaw. And I don't understand how he fails to understand that!!!!

However I would not critisize him for the decision to bat second. These decisions are always easy prey to critics if it does not work. And contrary to your believe, I believe Bangladesh has definetely improved. This is going to be a subjective debate at this stage. Because some people will pick up negative past examples like matches against Canada and Nepal to show the improvement and some others (like you) will pick up India (all of these games were from last U19 WC). It is certainly premature to judge the improvement at this stage. McInnes (and any coach) should be given moretime to work with his wards.

[adnan]

http://www.prothom-alo.net/newhtmlne...ate=2004-02-21

[bhobishshot]

adnan,

Your NRR calculation is base on a lot of ifs and I am not sure whether you can really use words such as "definitely" when you have argument based on if.

If "if" is used as a base for an argument then I could say the following:

"If" Bangladesh had managed to bowl out India under 170 then we would have definitely won that match.

[bhobishshot]

adnan,

Your argument based on the first class stats is not acurate because it assumes that BD first class and Indian first class cricket have the same level of competitiveness.

[Tehsin]

I didn't read the whole post but here's a quick one - a simple explanation really.

You can NOT make comparison between first class averages between BD and India or any other test country for that matter. Simple reason - our first class cricket is years behind the rest of them. Take a look at our A teams performances in Pakistan and West Indies. Keep in mind that their national players were not even playing in those leagues but their first class teams and players were far ahead of ours.

And India is mighty for us. We need a little more time to get to that point and believe me, we will get there soon. We needed to beat NZ and move into the next round, we lucked out.



====Adnan wrote==
Let us come to point of where you have mentioned we lost to a “mighty” India. Not a single player in this team played at the top level whereas we had 3 test playing players in the squad. The batting average of 3 of our players at first class level are also above 40. I put a comparison chart of the batting averages here (source www.Cricinfo.com):

India Banglaedesh
Player First class Avg. Player First Class Avg.
Ambati Rayudu 45.97 Nafis Iqbal 40.10
Sunny Singh 50.25 Ashiqur Rahman 47* (all not outs)
Suresh Raina 49.63 Nadif Chowdhury 24.28
Rakesh Solanki 32 Nazimuddin 29.37
Dinesh Karthik 26.00 Aftab Ahmed 44.00
Praveen Gupta 10.7
Shikhar Dhawan none
Robin Uthappa 11.8

[adnan]

The NRR is not based on "if".
Its a "definite" mistake made by the team management not to bat first against Scotland.

As long as we consider India's First class is mighty for us, then I have nothing to say more. I only wonder why we expect to win against india. Also wonders, how could we beat them 4 years ago. Also, in my statistics, I showed that the 2 players who got score against BD were Shikhar Dhawan and Robin Uthappa. First one is yet to play in First class and second one averages 11.8

[Optimist]

Just felt like supporting adnan in NRR calculation; There is no if; under that circumstances, it was better to bat first; It is simple mathematics. NRR is kind of weighted average and agianst weaker opponents it is better to bat first so that a higher run rate can be sustained for a longer term. If anyone has doubt please make as many hypothetical calculations as you can and things will be clear. But if McInness thought Bangladesh does not have the ability to sustain runrates like NZ then the whole debate is pointless!!

And while Ronji trophy is definitely better than bangladesh first class structure....adnan's point is still partially valid. Please check how many of the Inidan U19 players have more than a few Ranji match experience. (Only Rayadu has more than 11 match experience)

But IMHO we should wait atleast a year before judging the performance of the coach.

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by Optimist]

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by Optimist]

[bhobishshot]

optimist and adan,

BD NRR was 1.77 after the match against Scotland so I will not calculate it again. Lets think BD makes 389 against Scot instead of 96 in 12.2 overs and the Scottish all out for 149 as they were against NZ. Now what would be our NRR!

Here you did not use the word "if" but an assumption was made that we would have scored 389 and scots would have been out in 149. There are other possibilities. May be we would have scored 369 and scots would have scored 170. Or, may be we would have scored 299 and scots would have had a magnificant day and scored 250. Or, what ever. My point is, you have ignored a whole set of possibilites to calculate your NRR.

[adnan]

Here you did not use the word "if" but an assumption was made that we would have scored 389 and scots would have been out in 149. There are other possibilities. May be we would have scored 369 and scots would have scored 170. Or, may be we would have scored 299 and scots would have had a magnificant day and scored 250. Or, what ever. My point is, you have ignored a whole set of possibilites to calculate your NRR.

This assumption was taken to answer Maclnees article. If you read that it may help.
He claimed that we had a better NRR because of making 96 in 12.2 overs which is even better than NZ's 389 in 50 overs.

My calculation showed that he was wrong. Because though we had better run rate against Scot than NZ considering only that particular game, thats true, but on a weighted average it differs a lot and even in the other way.

[Edited on 2/22/2004 by adnan]

[bhobishshot]

Originally posted by adnan
http://www.prothom-alo.net/newhtmlne...ate=2004-02-21

I really did not understand the math in this article. It equates US$ 55000 = 50 lakh. At US$ 1 = 58.6 TK, it comes out to be 32 lakh.

However way you want to look at it, importing all these equipments for our cricket development can only be good for our cricket future.