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

[Zainub]

That's my name, in Urdu.

[Ninjaman]

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...

And when NZ started, the game was an amateur pursuit with a non-professional outlook.

The standard between the top and the not so top was far closer.

Nowadays, the top teams have a complete structure and professionalism about them that you will not break or be able to compete with unless you absorb yourselves in it.

Go and check English league football.

In the early days you had teams from way way lower divisions doing giant killings against top flight sides and going all the way to the FA Cup.

You even had teams winning the league the year after promotion.

Nowadays, the likes of the same happening are so lslim due to the extra money in the game which has allowed the haves (Australia, England, SA) to be able to have superiority off and on the field to the have nots.

Why don;t you mention these factors in NZ's favour?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Why don;t you mention these factors in NZ's favour?

I agree, so circumstances have changed.. but that also means that they way you develop Test Teams has changed. So in years gone by you threw them in. Now you need you do something different because the stanadrd has improved?

What would be wrong in getting them to play more reaguarily against A Teams, Zimababwe and ICC Nations. Once they have proved taht they can consisitently beat these types of teams (They have only beaten Zim once) the you can start introducing them to the better teams. Throwing them in againts the Best teams is not helping them develop, anyone can se with half-a brain can see that...

[Zainub]

I think those 200 score were managed on fairly greenish wickets were they weren't expected to last beyond 50 let alone 100. Those wickets in Darwin and Cairns, even Australia and Sri Lanka have got out for low scores there. But that's not the point here. My point is that Bangladesh have improved, and right now wouldn't be any better of not playing then they are playing test cricket.

Let's look at it like this. If your go for a second tier option, where you'd get Zimbabwe, Kenya and a few others in there. But does anyone realise just how poor Kenya are? A few seasons ago they participated in the Carib Beer Domestic Competetion in West Indies, and they were losing by innings against the first class West Indian teams. Its very well possible that the results of a second tier competetion would be something like this: all the competition would be between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and the rest of the teams would keep on getting beaten by innings. I can't see that doing any good to Bangladesh. They're better of playing hard test cricket, against full test sides, but probably in lesser proportion then they are right now. They need not play more then 3 two test series in a year, and two of them should be at home. That should be about right.

And for those who don't think they're improving, I can't seem to find a link right now, but I will post it as and when I do, few months back in the Numbers Game (by S Rajesh at cricinfo) there was a piece which discussed how much B'desh had improved under Whatmore. They calculated mathematically that since Whatmore had taken over B'desh batsmen had spent on averge more time on the crease, and B'desh bowlers had conceeded fewers runs per over.

Improvement is not alway aparent, you have to see through to find it. Dav Whatmore is getting there slowly, but surely.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

A few seasons ago they participated in the Carib Beer Domestic Competetion in West Indies, and they were losing by innings against the first class West Indian teams. .

Trues, but Bangladesh got carted but Sussex by an innings, and couldn't even beat a bunch of Tax-dodgers (normally a counties whipping boys)

so how much better does taht make them than Kenya? If your logoc works why not let Kenya plays Tests, or Scotland or Holland... why not let them all in, they can all get thrashed for a number of years in the hope that it devleops there game?

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I agree, so circumstances have changed.. but that also means that they way you develop Test Teams has changed. So in years gone by you threw them in. Now you need you do something different because the stanadrd has improved?

What would be wrong in getting them to play more reaguarily against A Teams, Zimababwe and ICC Nations. Once they have proved taht they can consisitently beat these types of teams (They have only beaten Zim once) the you can start introducing them to the better teams. Throwing them in againts the Best teams is not helping them develop, anyone can se with half-a brain can see that...

Maybe you should try thibnking with all your brain!

Now I fail to remember anywhere where I have said they shouldn't be playing more cricket against A Teams, Zimbabwe or other nations.

But they ARE already playing Tests so what do we do now that they are??

Now, everyone likes to think that playing against the other ICC associates will miraculously prepare any team for the Test level.

It won't.

Even if they become the Australia of that level, when they get to Test level, they'll end up losing just like they are now.

Then what would you do??

Now considering they are at Test level, how on Earth do you think they are going to get better as a Test team if they don't play Test teams that are better than them??

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Its very well possible that the results of a second tier competetion would be something like this: all the competition would be between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and the rest of the teams would keep on getting beaten by innings. I can't see that doing any good to Bangladesh. They're better of playing hard test cricket, against full test sides, but probably in lesser proportion then they are right now. They need not play more then 3 two test series in a year, and two of them should be at home. That should be about right.

Quite right. They need to play against good teams in order to improve. Maybe the opposition should be carefully selected, so they don't play the very best teams too much.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Improvement is not alway aparent, you have to see through to find it. Dav Whatmore is getting there slowly, but surely.

And improvement isn't a smooth curve. There are setbacks and obstacles on the way. The main thing is that over the long term, Bangladesh go in the right direction.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Maybe you should try thibnking with all your brain!

Do you seriously believe that the Test at Lords, and the Thrashing they are likely to get here actually helps them?

Do you reallythink they will come away with anything - losing does help you in some cases. But they are losing so badly taht it is seriously telling them nothing.

I admit that we have to live in the situation we are in now... but they do not have a First Class Infrastructure that is capable of delivering Test Class players... The ICC should have has that inplace before they were even considered as Test class.

Why were they introduced - Money - plain and simple - they were introduced to early. Test Status was removed from Zim last year, why not do it again. Get the infrastructure right, get the playiong and winning aganist the lesser nations, then get them playing Test Cricket when they have the opportunity to develop.

Over the last 5 Years they have not got any better (one win against a very weak Zim team is not an improvment), it is madeness to think that this method is working... So the ICC need to put their hands up and do something about it

[Rachael]

I can't help feeling that some sort of division structure will be put in place sooner rather than later.. but in truth the ideal break-up for the past 5 years would have had Australia in a division of 1... possibly no-one in the second division... the majority of the Test nations in a 3rd division.. and horrible fears on the part of teams like Pakistan and the WI that they might end up playing at a level below that.. and in danger of being mixed with the basket-cases who would technically belong 2-3 divisions below that.

I really do think the onus must be on a few teams to quite clearly break away from the rest and establish a level of cricketing that really is so clearly superior as to make objection pointless: not something that looks imminent in the light of the way India imploded against Ausitralia last time around :-(

Right now I don't think countries like England, SA, Pakistan and NZ have any business whatsoever complaining about mismatches against Bangladesh: they need to consistently (over several years not, as England have so far managed, a season) show they deserve a place at the top table for themselves before they question anyone else's credibility.

[Milo]

I see absolutely no progress made by Bangladesh at all. Dav Whatmore has made no difference in my opinion. Anyone who thinks there is progress is kidding themselves. Their performances are hit and miss. Some times they play OK, and sometimes they are abject. Just like their first test match (compare the first and second innings).

I'm not talking about taking away their test status, two divisions, Kenya or A teams. What I am suggesting is something that goes like this over the next 3 years

2005/06 - Pakistan (H) 3 tests, NZ (H) 3 tests
2005/06 - Zimbabwe (A) 3 tests, SA (A) 1 test
2006/07 - India (A) 3 tests, Sri Lanka (H) 3 tests
20007/08 - WI (H) 3 tests, Pakisan (A) 3 tests, Zimbabwe (H) 3 tests

I think they would compete a lot better in these three years of cricket and hopefully see the progress which is clearly not there at the moment. Then, we might be able to see them take part in a full and varied schedule by 2012. Try to do a limited number of things well before trying to do everything adequately.