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

[Milo]

Their batsmen need to learn how to score runs, from this brings confidence. They are most suited to scoring runs at home. Once they can reguarly put up totals of 250 (and often 300) then they will be better equipped to making more regular tours. I'm not saying stop them touring. I said most (65% or so). This would clearly still allow them tours of WI, NZ etc - but as part of a clearly focussed development plan. A series to England should be one test and about 7 first class games. This tour is **** about face. Two tests and about two first class games. This helps noone. Bangladesh simply get destroyed.

Sri Lanka learnt from scoring runs in batsmen friendly situations. They could never bowl and never will develop bowlers good enough to take wickets all around the world - just like India (Murali was a one-off). They are now a difficult side to beat at home and put up a good show on tour without ever really looking like winning many tests - because they can score runs.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Bangladesh should start with setting themselves mini targets. Like aiming to bat at least 90 overs in an innings, or scoring 250 or 300, and then take it from there. Watching Habib-ul-Bashar must be frustrating to watch for the Tiger fans, everyone goes around saying he is good enough, and from some of the batting I saw him do against Sami and Shoaib, he did look like he was good enough, but he's been really quite so far. In big games, like when you're on your first ever tour to England, and every journalists asks you a hundred times 'if you think Bangladesh should be playing test cricket' , then you need some big player to (cliche coming up) step up & iperform. He is due some runs.

Zainub, have you ever considered international coaching? Cos, I don't know what Whatmore tells the batsmen before they go out there, but they could do with reading your comments here. I agree that Bangladesh are better off concentrating on achievable improvements. I'm not sure they benefit from playing the likes of Australia and England, as it's difficult for them to measure any progress from so far behind. But I think that, no matter who they are playing, they can make themselves more difficult to beat. I notice even this morning they set off scoring at 4/over but lost three early wickets.

I think back to England in 1999, when we were bottom of the pile. Hussain insisted we made it difficult to beat us. OK, it wasn't pretty and much of our play was defensive, but it worked. We wouldn't be no.2 now if we hadn't taken those steps 5-6 years ago. Bangladesh should do the same. Forget about trying to pull good length balls through midwicket. They should, as Zainub says, try to bat for 90 overs. Even if they're only just above 2/over, that's a score of around 200. Better than what they're getting now.

[Rachael]

Well.. having (Jones apart) not really done anything particularly encouraging in their initial bowling stints in the last Test... the England crew have got off to a far more encouraging start here. Harmison has finally produced a decent spell with a new ball (is that the first ever? not sure). Equally encouragingly, Vaughan's felt confident to move quickly to Jones and Jones has let the ball do the talking on the pitch: he's been saying for some time that he's been working towards being a new-ball bowler (having always had problems on that front) and he came on after just 3 overs from Hoggard and has done well.

With Hoggard having looked like the only opening bowler on offer for the last 12 months it now looks like England are moving to a position where they are spoilt for choice!

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

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

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

The point is NZ and India, for example, were given the opportuinty to develop as Test nations.

By continually playing against the better teams, they might not have won, but they learnt how to play better cricket which is what you need to win against better teams.

If they had been shunned and had to learn to play against weak teams, they would still be trying to win games now

[b]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...

Learning how to win, doesn't exist.

There is no such thing. Just fancy speech that sounds good.

Bangladesh should be learning how to play better cricket.

That in turn, will lead them on to better performances which will then produce better results (i.e. wins)

Playing against the likes of Kenya and Holland, will only teach them to play on that level not Test level.

[Zainub]

Ironically when Bangladesh went to Australia they actually won a few hearts and minds. Cliche apart, they did actually manage to play about alright, Justin Langer was impressed with what he saw in a few players, Mushrafe Murtaza I think, I remeber him being very positive about facing Bangladesh in his columns for the BCC. Quite a lot of people beleived Bangladesh didn't do as badly as everyone thought they would. In fact, I remember the press treating the Bangladesh much more kindly in Australia then they are being currently in England. I don't even remember as many fans and explayers whining about the lack of competition then they are now.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

With Hoggard having looked like the only opening bowler on offer for the last 12 months it now looks like England are moving to a position where they are spoilt for choice!

I'm not sure we can say we're spoilt for choice. Yes, it's encouraging to see Jones bowling accurately and getting some good swing with the new ball. And it's good to see Harmison seemingly getting it in the right place first time, rather than using his first spell as target practice. However, both these guys still seem more comfortable when brought on as 1st / 2nd change.

As a bowler, as with batsmen, you get to feel more comfortable in a certain place within the line up. Some bowlers thrive on being given the new ball. Other like to have a bit of time in the field and are better coming on after 10-15 overs or so. I think Harmison should be a natural new-ball bowler, with his pace and bounce. He still needs to work on his accuracy from ball 1 though, and to keep pitching it up. I think Jones will remain a first change bowler. It's good that he's there as an option, but I think he'll be most useful to the team bowling with the older ball and getting reverse swing. Perhaps not so much early in the English season, but wait till we go to Asia.

At least we've got some versatility with the bowling. Although neither Harmison, Jones nor Flintoff seems to be at home opening the bowling, they can all do it if called on.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Learning how to win, doesn't exist.

There is no such thing. Just fancy speech that sounds good.

Ninj,

Don't even think they need to learn how to win, they need to learn how to compete.. Not convinced that getting thrashed by other Test teams who are vastly superior can do this.

When New Zealand started they may not have won - but they atleast competed.. Drawing three games in the first series - Bangladesh haven't drawn three games in 5 years!!!

Juts think there has to be a better way - this is not doing it...

[Teatime FatCat]

Zainub, what's your little squiggly signiature?

[Milo]

They lost by an innings in both matches, were boweld out for uner 100 in the first test and passed 200 once in four knocks.

It is all well and good being impressed with the potential....but it is very easy to dampen and often extinguish potential if you are not careful. A case in point is the performances of Habibul Bachar. He has disappeared over the last 18 months and looks a shadow of the player I saw in Australia.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Ninj,

Don't even think they need to learn how to win, they need to learn how to compete.. Not convinced that getting thrashed by other Test teams who are vastly superior can do this.

When New Zealand started they may not have won - but they atleast competed.. Drawing three games in the first series - Bangladesh haven't drawn three games in 5 years!!!

Juts think there has to be a better way - this is not doing it...

The ICC can play a part here. They clearly want Bangladesh in test cricket. Otherwise they would not have stuck with them for 5 difficult years. What Bangladesh needs is a good infra-structure of first class cricket, with top quality coaching. Surely the ICC has expertise and personnel on hand that can help them to do this? I think Bangladesh will move forward under Whatmore. He's an experienced and successful coach who should bring a degree of prefessionalism to the team's approach. But this needs to backed up lower down in the domestic game. Top coaches can train the future Bangladesh test players and pass on their coaching skills too, until Bangladesh cricket can truly stand on its own feet. The players and the passion are there. They just need the right guidance and structure. The potential is there for them to be genuine players in test cricket. That would be good for the game.