2nd Test: England v Bangladesh: Chester-le-Street 2-6 June

[Rachael]

Something more positive for you, Zainub: one bit of the TMS coverage I was unable to hear properly yesterday seemed to involve a notion that at least 3 of the Bangladesh side were worthy of a place in some sort of grander Test side... I'm not sure what the context was but it might even have been a combined Bangladesh-England XI... and there was even one line I caught where I thought I heard them say Dav Whatmore was upset that Mortaza didn't make the preliminary RoW squad for the Test series against the Aussies.

[Zainub]

Thanks for the correction OF, and for the positives Racheal, just that this B'desh rant has not gone too well with me. I'd be back to supporting England for the Ashes as soon as all this is over

[Victor Frankenstein]

much better display by bangladesh, and i didn't feel we bowled badly either, i do think our bowlers are bowling within themselves so as not to get injured but no bowler likes to go for runs so they're still bowling properly.

funny though, 297-8 is the kind of good score i'd expect from england against australia, and i can certainly see us being bowled out a couple of times for ~100-ish scores so i wonder if people will be calling for england to have their test status revoked by the end of the summer?

(i'm still a member of ernest's unbelievable ashes victory club, but we got those sort of scores against south africa too)

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

This B'desh rant has not gone too well with me.

Nor with me. Bangladesh are a test playing nation, and it strikes me that the efforts should be directed at helping them to perform at that level, not at revoking that status. I also think that there is a distinct lack of respect being shown by those commentators who are campaigning for test status to be revoked. (Richie Benaud's article in the News of the World last week was very disappointing.)

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

funny though, 297-8 is the kind of good score i'd expect from england against australia, and i can certainly see us being bowled out a couple of times for ~100-ish scores so i wonder if people will be calling for england to have their test status revoked by the end of the summer?

I wouldn't put money on that one, Vic! It's a fair point you make, though.

[Occasional Fan]

And would anyone have bet on Bangladesh getting that close to forcing a second innings when the match started? I don't think I would, and I'm not even sure that Dav Whatmore would.

Good effort by Bangladesh, good effort by England, and undoubtedly the better team won in the end.

[Kirsty Harris]

It was an improved effort by Bangladesh, which was nice to see, but they have still been hammered in this game. Still, getting 300 on the board was a good effort from them.

It's a shame that for the sake of 15 minutes, everyone has had to come back to the ground this morning, but that's the way it goes.

Man of the match should be Bell, and Trescothick will be Man of the Series (if you can call it a series..)!

[Zainub]

Glad I'm not alone in my sympathies for Bangaldesh OF. Well done England and B'desh both, I feel sorry for Ahmed, he deserved a ton.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

(if you can call it a series..)!

You certainly can, and indeed you certainly should. All these comments about it not being a real or meaningful competition are just disrespectful of Bangladesh.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

You certainly can, and indeed you certainly should. All these comments about it not being a real or meaningful competition are just disrespectful of Bangladesh.

Actually, I was refering to the fact that it was only two games. I hope I have NOT been making disrespectful comments about Bangladesh.

[Occasional Fan]

Not you, Kirsty: a few contributors here and a few professional commentators who should know better. Your point about two being a series is taken - but I can't think of a better term!

Now, MOTM: Hoggard takes it. And I hear that this was chosen by TV viewers and commentators. Does this really make sense? I'm not making a point in this specific case, but surely public voting for this sort of award favours the flamboyant over the grafters somewhat?