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

[Milo]

New Zealand and Sri Lanka didn't have to take part in this ridiculous Test Championship that requires each team to play each other on a regular basis.

Therefore (concentrating on SL because I followed their inception clearly) they did not play against the West Indies for 20 years, were never forced to go on tours that humiliated them and were able to choose their Test path once they joined in 1981.

Bangladesh must be allowed to play more test matches at home, concentrate of Asian tests (like Sri Lanka did) and not have to go to Australia at all.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Any remembers New Zealand, and Sri Lanka please. Don't also tell me that 'they weren't this bad'. Half of us probably didn't see them at the start of their test journey anyway...I don't see why there should be soo much fuss.

True but if you look at the margin of victories they suffered, and also the amount of games they managed to draw, there is a big difference. When Sri Lanka were given an opportunity they already had a number of good players, and may have been possibly at what we could call County Standard. The problem with Bangladesh is they are just about Minor County Standard. Even an average first-class team could give this squad a thrashing.

Last night I was with a mate of mine who is a Cricket coach at a top private school, his view is that his U14 team has a better technique than this team. This is the problem. It is not just the result but the sheer lack of quality in how they play.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Milo

New Zealand and Sri Lanka didn't have to take part in this ridiculous Test Championship that requires each team to play each other on a regular basis.

Spot on Milo.. as someone pointed out all Bangladesh are now doing is learning how to lose.. They haven't even learnt how to draw after 5years.. time to wake up and smell the coffee, and get these guys playing at a level taht will help them improve - playing aganist England, Australia etc will not do that...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Milo

New Zealand and Sri Lanka didn't have to take part in this ridiculous Test Championship that requires each team to play each other on a regular basis.

Bangladesh must be allowed to play more test matches at home, concentrate of Asian tests (like Sri Lanka did) and not have to go to Australia at all.

Seems a fair option to me, much better than they can't play Test cricket at all, sort of a good and less humiliating way of letting them build a Test side

[Teatime FatCat]

How will playing most of their tests at home prepare them for different conditions such as england? If they went to play alledged weaker sides such as WI, NZ and Zim, they are going to come across seaming pitches and modest seamers, they're still going to get bowled out if they can't deal with a moving ball.

Fair enough, avoid AUS, ENG and the Indians etc, but I don't see how staying at home helps. If that's what SL did, then that explains why they have so few decent seamers, and that is to their detriment.

[Ninjaman]

I agree.

I just can't stand the incessant moaning.

New Zealand started playign Test in teh 1920s and didn;t win their first one until 1956!!

India started in 1932 and didn't win one until 1952.

You can't develop in any sport until you play amongst the best in order to better yourself.

Let Bangladesh have the chance to do this without having to appease the constant stream of moaners.

The circumstances by which they got here may or may not have been correct, but they are at the Test level now so beat them, do the business and stop moaning.

[Teatime FatCat]

Agreed Ninj!

Treat them like men, and beat them well - they'll soon learn from it.

[Ernest]

It's OK Andy saying he is more interested in the Essex match, but the fact is this match is happening, and all the players are looking at selection, England for the one dayers, and the Ashes, and Bangladesh for whoever they play next.

So there are things to play for, like Hoggy would not feel that good if Jones ended up with 4/26 and himself 0/36, so even if the match should never have been played, players still have an incentive do do well.

[Andy Mellon]

I know what TTFC and Milo are saying, but another difference between now and 50 years ago is the quality of the wickets. In the days of Barnes, teams used to play on 'sticky wickets' and the sort of wickets that were much favourable to the bowlers than modern wickets, in addition, the lack of protection for batsmen such as Bradman and Hutton should not be ignored. Therefore, whilst I would agree that matches against SA (in the very early 20th century) and NZ (in the middle of the 20th century) are probably analogous to the current Bangladesh situation, I doubt they would have had as much effect on batting averages as the odds were not as stacked in batsmen's favour as they are today.

Also, by the time Bradman was playing, South Africa were not such whipping boys as they had been the generation before and provided a decent test, and I believe the Aussies didn't play the Kiwis until the 70s in an official test. Having just looked over Bradman's stats, there is an argument that his stats were distorted by South Africa (5 matches, average 201.50) and India (5 matches 178.75) but once again, I would argue that the Saffers he played were of a decent standard by the 30s. No other Aussie came near Bradman in that series, and the Saffers main strike bowlers Bell (23 wickets at 27) and Quinn (13 wickets at 39) must have presented a challenge to him

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

New Zealand started playign Test in teh 1920s and didn;t win their first one until 1956!!

True - but how many game did they actually lose - not many - there were lots of draws - plus they were not playng so many series as they do now. Numebr of Tests would be a better gauge

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

India started in 1932 and didn't win one until 1952.

Same point - India may not have won many but they certainly didn't lose so many by the same ridiculous margins...

I am not saying that Bangladesh should not be developed, I just can't see how getiing bundled out quickly and then carted allround the park actauls helps them learn. Surely playing more aganist Zimbabwe or aganist Kenya, Holand and Scotland may actually teach them how to win..

I just don't see what they will learn by this Test series...

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

but they are at the Test level now so beat them

only in the sense that are given that name - they are not there in terms of real ability.