Bangladesh doing what few others have...

[Maranello]

Heart-warming to see Bangladesh make an excellent start against the Aussies - as I write this, they are 208/1 off just 45 overs (rr: 4.6). Such a start would be considered exceptional even for established sides like India and England; for Bangladesh, it is nothing short of phenomenal and regardless of what happens for the rest of the series (a serious drubbing, in all probability), they can and should take heart from this morning.

20 year old Shahriar Nafis has just reaches his first Test century (or first in any form of the game!) in only his fifth Test- what a day to reach that special milestone. And what a way to reach it too - successive boundaries off Warne! In fact, Warne's figures should delight cricket lovers everywhere (well, everywhere but Australia ) - 11 overs, no maidens, 73 runs, no wickets - being hammered for almost 7 an over by the weakest Test team around!

This is actually the first time Warne is playing Bangladesh - now we know why he has been avoiding them all this while! In fact, this mauling is reminiscent (albeit on a much smaller scale) of the ones Warne has regularly received on a few previous visits to the sub-continent, notably from Salim Malik in 1994 and Tendulkar & Co on quite a few occasions since - they have succeeded by treating Warne not on reputation but on actual performance, and playing him as a leg-spinner who does not spin the leggie as much as most other leg-spinners do, and does not even have a noticeable wrong 'un.

Sure, he may go on to take 20 wickets in the two Tests here and Australia may wrap up the series inside five days; such has been their sustained dominance of all teams that one cannot rule that out - but so far, things are looking very positive indeed

[Rachael]

Has the bowling been rank or are we looking at a very slow and low pitch on which not even Clarke and Warne can get bounce? Seems highly unlikely that virtually the ENTIRE Aussie attack has been rank... so are we looking at at a pitch on which Ponting's side will score 1000+ in 2.5 days?

Good to see Gillespie returning moderately tidy figures amid the carnage...

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Has the bowling been rank or are we looking at a very slow and low pitch...

The latter I am sure is true; however, this is not the first time this Australian attack has bowled on flat tracks, and they are generally not taken apart in this manner by much better batsmen.

[Vrock]

Regardless of the pitch, I think it is an amazing performance from Bangladesh to have made the kind of score they have against the best team in the world. Bangladesh's batsmen have shown the same kind of intent that Virender Sehwag shows on flat wickets(and most ofther wickets to be honest) Instead of waiting for the bad balls you take the attack apart and show some intent. Congratulations Bangladesh, I tip my (metaphorical) cap to you.

[Rachael]

Lee has bowled on flat piches before (note: 1st day at Edgbastone - carted) but is always going to be vulnerable on slow pitches... basically because if you bowl from his (lack) of height you either need the ball to be doing something... or else you need to be a latter day Malcolm Marshall - which he ain't!

IN defence of Clarke... it seems highly likely that he's hardly EVER played on a slow and low pitch.... and as even McGrath struggles when there's no pace and carry.... it's reasonable to expect him to take some time to re-adjust.

Gillespie can be exonerated on the "carted" front:he's bowled well on the sub-continent before... and appears to have done a decent job again today: 2.8 an over is respectable on ANY pitch and suggests he's redicovered his Vaas-like ability to impose his class.

Warne? You can argue that he's played on more slow and low pitches than most... and that he's got a history of being vulnerable on such pitches (famously so on one early tour to India, but worldwide if the truth be told)... but he's generally thought to have mastered bowling faster and flatter to minimise the damage - e.g. some spells at Edgbaston and Old Trafford last summer... where he pretty much sacrificed all his normal menace in the cause of bottling up an end.

I'd probably back MacGill ahead of Warne on this track: one to watch.

Bottom line: any good batsman in world cricket would probably fancy this attack on a slow and low pitch... but as you say: this Bangladesh top order is delivering in style where in the past they may have somehow managed to muddle through or fail.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Lee has bowled on flat piches before (note: 1st day at Edgbastone - carted) but is always going to be vulnerable on slow pitches... basically because if you bowl from his (lack) of height you either need the ball to be doing something... or else you need to be a latter day Malcolm Marshall.

Akhtar (not much taller than Lee) manages to bowl genuinely threatening spells on these very wickets - no reason why Lee should not have adapted by now, he is experienced enough. The fact that he is still (apparently) so woeful adds a big question mark around his class as a fast bowler.

Originally Posted by Rachael

In defence of Clarke... it seems highly likely that he's hardly EVER played on a slow and low pitch.... and as even McGrath struggles when there's no pace and carry.... it's reasonable to expect him totake some time to re-adjust.

Agreed in that Clarke is probably not used to these conditions; however, he is hardly a 19 year old spring-chicken! He has years of first-class experience which should ensure that he is not a complete liability; its not as if he is bowling at batsmen with the improvisational skills of Lara or Inzi; there is no excuse for him leaking runs through long hops and the like.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bottom line: any good batsman in world cricket would probably fancy this attack on a slow and low pitch...

So this attack really is not as good or as versatile as it is made out to be? If Warne, Lee & Co want this attack to be mentioned in the same breath as some of the better bowling attacks through history, they need to do well precisely when conditions do not suit them - especially when bowling to batsmen who are routinely derided as "minnows".

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

AThe fact that he is still (apparently) so woeful adds a big question mark around his class as a fast bowler.

Yes aned no: no seamer should have to be as versatile as Marshall or have a slower ball as good as Akhtar's to do a job on day one of a Test.... cricket is a game for mortals not gods... and whilst I agree that Lee basically lacks class... the pitch ought to give hima chance!

Originally Posted by Maranello

there is no excuse for him leaking runs through long hops and the like.

He appears to have leaked a lot of runs through the leg side... but when you area back of a length bowler ona pitch that makes back fo a length balls sit up and say "hit me"... you are going to be bowling a very, very un-natural length - better bowlers than Clarke have been known for finding their line wandering when they change their length!

Originally Posted by Maranello

So this attack really is not as good or as versatile as it is made out to be?

I think it's an excellent attack...possibly bowling badly.. but the point I'd emphasise is that you shouldn't need an attack of supermen to make Test batting diffcult. In Ponting's shoes I'd be quite relaxed: if his attack can't make inroads..the chances are that the Bangladesh attack will not either: the outcome shouldbe no worse than a draw.

[greg]

Australia should still win this game because if Bangladesh can score so many runs how many will the Aussies be able to score easily as well.Like Rachael says the Aussies could score a ridiculous amount in just over 2 days and set up a victory as we all know they have enough ability.

The main thing is that Bangladesh are performing well and they are improving all the time.A home series victory against a more established nation can't be long in coming,though not in this series.

[Zainub]

I saw most of the day's play Rachael, its a standard sub-continent pitch, no more flat that most of the surfaces England have played on this winter in their 6 tests against Pakistan and India. Australia bowled poorly, Warne, McGill and Stuart Clarrke in particular, if B'desh had dispatched all the tripe that was bowled to them (instead of two main batsman getting out on bad balls) they'd probably have made 400-2 in the day. You can call the pitch flat if you want but if you're going to bowl rank long hops then no matter how helpful the surface is, the batsman is still going to dispatch it. A half volley remains a holf volley after all, regardless whether you bowl it on a seamer's paradise or a bowler's graveyard.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Zainub

A half volley remains a holf volley after all, regardless whether you bowl it on a seamer's paradise or a bowler's graveyard.

Yes and no: if just back of a length deliveries are sitting up and saying "hit me" instead of jumping off the seam and posing problems then a bowler who works off seam movement from exactly that type of delivery is under quite ridiculous pressure to find a fuller length...

I agree that few subcontinental pitches are that much better...but that's not saying much: the only recent pitches worthy of staging a game have been Multan and (guessing) the pitch on which Asif just ran through Sri Lanka....