They've played 49 Test Matches, are you saying they've only competed in 3 or 4 of those matches?
Well let's have a luke... for starters 4 of them were against Zimbabwe after they too had ceased to be Test-class.
Those that they lost by an innings, we can take it as read that they didn't do so here yes? All
twenty-nine of them? Out of 45.
The other sixteen were:
9 wickets on debut - will give you that, was a remarkable performance. In the next 48 OTOH...
8 wickets vs Zimbabwe in 3rd game - weren't absolutely overwhelmed here, given, but conceded a first-innings deficit of 166 and took just 11 wickets - nah.
Draw when rain severely disrupted after conceding a first-innings deficit of 324 - no way.
Another 8-wicket defeat when Zimbabwe chased 11 to win - basically the same as an innings defeat, no way.
288-run defeat to Sri Lanka - no way.
7-wicket defeat to West Indies - will give you that.
7 and 9 wickets to Pakistan - no way.
1 wicket to Pakistan - obviously yes.
7 wickets at 329 runs to England - just about, but only just.
Draw with West Indies at Gros Islet - will give you that.
8 wickets and 10 wickets to Sri Lanka - no way.
3-wicket defeat to Australia - obviously.
Draw with India at Chittagong - no way, rain completely disrupted this.
So in their 44 games against Test-class oppo after their first, they could be said to have competed really, seriously 4 times. That's seriously, seriously poor.