It seems like Bangladesh is winning their 'minnow' battle against England

[Swervy]

I would say it is reasonable to say that Ireland and Bangladesh have not been too far from the standard required to beat or at least compete with England, overall.

 

[steds]

Really shows that among the minnows Bangladesh is marginally better than England and Ireland.

 

[Anil]

Only because there's that many more matches played nowadays than in the past.

why the "only"? there are more matches played now than in the past....so time is really not that big a factor anymore...

 

[Anil]

Anil, quality players won't emerge straightaway when your team has got test status. IT takes a little time to get used to everything that goes with international cricket. Esp. for a team like Bangladesh, who are not exposed to top class training or infrastructure right off the bat. Given all that, I think Bangladesh are doing as well as any nation once they got test status. It generally takes a second-generation team to get a new side to be competitive due to a variety of reasons.

i am not even talking about tests right now...even in one dayers their current record is still utterly dire for a side that has been supposedly non-minnow for the past 6-7 years or so....

 

[Swervy]

i am not even talking about tests right now...even in one dayers their current record is still utterly dire for a side that has been supposedly non-minnow for the past 6-7 years or so....

I would say that B'desh are at a level similar to what Sri lanka were 7 years after they were made a test playing nation. Right at the moment, it is possible to see B'desh really being a top side within 5 years in ODIs (by the next World Cup in fact), at this stage for SL, it was very hard to see Sri Lanka getting anywhere near to the required standard (given they were probably getting even worse than they were like in the mid 80s), and they were predictably crap in the 92 WC.

So infact the rate of improvement for B'desh is probably faster than Sri lankas was, and probably even faster than that of India from when they started playing ODIs (because they were bad for a long time)

 

[Anil]

I would say that B'desh are at a level similar to what Sri lanka were 7 years after they were made a test playing nation. Right at the moment, it is possible to see B'desh really being a top side within 5 years in ODIs (by the next World Cup in fact), at this stage for SL, it was very hard to see Sri Lanka getting anywhere near to the required standard (given they were probably getting even worse than they were like in the mid 80s), and they were predictably crap in the 92 WC.

So infact the rate of improvement for B'desh is probably faster than Sri lankas was, and probably even faster than that of India from when they started playing ODIs (because they were bad for a long time)

i am tired of repeating this, during the same period, they have played 3,4 times more matches than the others did when they came in, with much, much poorer results so far...after playing a zillion more matches, they might become a good team some day(maybe in 5 years), so how does that prove your point in any way?

 

[Swervy]

i am tired of repeating this, during the same period, they have played 3,4 times more matches than the others did when they came in, with much, much poorer results so far...after playing a zillion more matches, they might become a good team some day(maybe in 5 years), so how does that prove your point in any way?

ah maybe I missed the point, I am not trying to prove anything...but you cant really use the games played arguement, because the team/squad develops with time and not always with the number of games played, in that the weaker players are replaced by younger more talented players over the years. The other teams had the benefit of time to mature, Bangladesh have just had a lot of games...but what does look to be happening is that because B'desh have played so much it is accelerating the development process and so where it took Sri lanka 10 years to reach a ceratin level, Bangladesh look like getting there a bit faster but without the established game SL (and Zimb) benefitted from in the early days.

My feeling is that this Bangladesh 'experiment' (I will call it that, given no team in the past has ever been thrust into international cricket in the way they have) will be looked back on in 10 years time as a real success

 

[Anil]

ah maybe I missed the point, I am not trying to prove anything...but you cant really use the games played arguement, because the team/squad develops with time and not always with the number of games played, in that the weaker players are replaced by younger more talented players over the years. The other teams had the benefit of time to mature, Bangladesh have just had a lot of games...but what does look to be happening is that because B'desh have played so much it is accelerating the development process and so where it took Sri lanka 10 years to reach a ceratin level, Bangladesh look like getting there a bit faster but without the established game SL (and Zimb) benefitted from in the early days.

you are kidding right? how does time "mature" you if you are not playing international cricket regularly? and you just contradicted yourselves in the course of one sentence, first, its just a lot of games....then, they played so much it "accelerated the development process"...you should really make up your mind which you want to choose... ....my point is that stats-wise(or else facts-wise) there has been no acceleration of any development, in fact it has been painfully slow so far given the opportunities they've had.....and for the other teams you can use the same argument the other way as well, they just didn't get the 1/3 the same opportunities that bangladesh got in their developing years, and as i said before, it's not just time that matures you, it's opportunites and infrastructure and support....

 

[tigerPassion]

you are kidding right? how does time "mature" you if you are not playing international cricket regularly? and you just contradicted yourselves in the course of one sentence, first, its just a lot of games....then, they played so much it "accelerated the development process"...you should really make up your mind which you want to choose... ....my point is that stats-wise(or else facts-wise) there has been no acceleration of any development, in fact it has been painfully slow so far given the opportunities they've had.....and for the other teams you can use the same argument the other way as well, they just didn't get the 1/3 the same opportunities that bangladesh got in their developing years, and as i said before, it's not just time that matures you, it's opportunites and infrastructure and support....

It takes a few yeas before young players come through. Exposure, funding and other things come after test status and it takes a few years to produce the quality cricketers. That few years cannot be reduced even if they play test cricket every single day.

 

[Anil]

Hey Anil always meant to ask, whose the bloke in your avatar ?

mark hamill

 

[marc71178]

why the "only"? there are more matches played now than in the past....so time is really not that big a factor anymore...

Well the likes of NZ took about 25 years or something ridiculous to win their first Test.

In that time they played barely 30 games or something but there was time for the infrastructure to grow.

Bangladesh have had 5 years, which isn't long enough for the infrastructure.

 

[Richard]

Just a shame, really, that in both cases the promotion was made before the infrastructure was sufficient.

 

[Perm]

Well the likes of NZ took about 25 years or something ridiculous to win their first Test.

In that time they played barely 30 games or something but there was time for the infrastructure to grow.

Bangladesh have had 5 years, which isn't long enough for the infrastructure.

Exactly, New Zealand took a huge amount of time before we won our first Test. I can't comment on what the attitude was like towards us at the time, but when people I know start slagging off Bangladesh I just remind them how crap we were for so long.

 

[Richard]

Well one thing that is true is that a new cricket fan looking at this World Cup in isolation would find it difficult to differentiate Bangladesh from one of the so called "up to standard" ODI sides. They've beaten all the true "minnow" sides and have pulled off two fairly comfortable victories against the other "up to standard sides".

Indeed. Shows the folly of looking at one tournament in isolation, really.

Will be interesting to see how Bangladesh go in their next few events.

 

[marc71178]

Just a shame, really, that in both cases the promotion was made before the infrastructure was sufficient.

Without the exposure no infrastructure is sufficient...

No modern side has come into International Cricket and competed immediately, but they've all been given the time to learn what's needed, and the world game is better for it.

 

[Richard]

Every side bar New Zealand and Bangladesh has deserved Test status when given it.

Well, except South Africa but I don't tend to consider Tests in the 1880s in the same vein as those in the 20th and 21st century in any case.

 

[Anil]

Well the likes of NZ took about 25 years or something ridiculous to win their first Test.

In that time they played barely 30 games or something but there was time for the infrastructure to grow.

Bangladesh have had 5 years, which isn't long enough for the infrastructure.

first of all, nz is an exception, isn't it? secondly how does infrastructure, talent(especially talent), funding etc grow when your country plays an average of 1 international a year for 25 years or something like that(based on what you gave above)? very, very slowly...besides you can't compare the selection processes and coaching techniques of the 30s and 40s with the late 90s and the 2000s...

 

[Miraz]

There is no need to hype.

England is a much better team compared to Bangladesh but performed badly in this world cup.

Hoping for that bad patch to continue (in fact except CWB series it's continuing for quite a while) until the end of Bangladesh clash.

Bangladesh is progressing and after ensuring a gulf of difference between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, our next target will be England and WI. (Ranked 7 & 8th in ODI table).

 

[silentstriker]

Just a shame, really, that in both cases the promotion was made before the infrastructure was sufficient.

Except you couldn't get the infrastructure without the money coming in from the promotion.

 

[Richard]

How did India, West Indies and Sri Lanka manage it then? And Pakistan and Zimbabwe, too, really, even though they were part of existing cricket ecosystems prior to becoming separate entities.