***Official*** Bangladesh in New Zealand

[James]

Ashraful wasn't out, Bell and Fulton were

Have to disagree with you there and although I haven't see it Brian Waddle and the other radio commentators have clearly said both weren't out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Interesting day at the cricket today. The missus got nicely sunburnt and so I've have had to head home.

Average from Bangladesh, and I thought McCullum had a shocker with the gloves today. Despite taking some catches, he gave away 5 with a wild throw at the stumps, missed a couple of straight ones (which went away for byes) and generally had a disappointing day by his standards.

 

[Smudge]

Haha, saw the Bell dismissal on the replay on the news. Not even close to hitting the gloves or bat.

Ashraful wasn't out either.

Didn't see enough replays on Fulton to say one way or the other, and didn't look that closely.

 

[Prince EWS]

Rajin unselected; Bangladesh fold like oragami. Well, they probably would have anyway, but it would have been less likely.

Saqibul in the team as a specialist spinners is ITSTL. He's a decent cricketer IMO and somewhat under-rated, but Bangladesh have definitely have better spinners to choose from - they've pretty much removed the only strength their team has with that selection.

 

[Craig]

Gutted Fulton didn't kick on, wish him to do well which is putting the mockers on him.

 

[Perm]

Rajin unselected; Bangladesh fold like oragami. Well, they probably would have anyway, but it would have been less likely.

Saqibul in the team as a specialist spinners is ITSTL. He's a decent cricketer IMO and somewhat under-rated, but Bangladesh have definitely have better spinners to choose from - they've pretty much removed the only strength their team has with that selection.

Enamul Haque Jr is far from a strength at the moment, if he bowls the way he did in Dunedin. Was very poor and incredibly defensive. Agree with your thoughts on Saqibul though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Enamul Haque Jr is far from a strength at the moment, if he bowls the way he did in Dunedin. Was very poor and incredibly defensive. Agree with your thoughts on Saqibul though.

Why not pick Razzak or Rafique, then? I know Rafique is not on tour but that just adds to my criticism of their selection, really. If Razzaq is not regarded as a more threatening bowling at test level than Saqibul, then Rafique should certainly be in the squad ahead of him.

If Bangladesh do have a strength, it's the left-arm spinners. Why spoil any possible advantage that could bring by picking a batting allrounder as the sole specialist spinner?

 

[Perm]

Haha, saw the Bell dismissal on the replay on the news. Not even close to hitting the gloves or bat.

I reckon Bell thought he got something on it. Did you see how he dropped his head straight away and looked very disappointed and angry at himself? Not many batsmen do that after missing a pull shot.

 

[Craig]

Is baffling selection policies a curse for all Sub-continent countries?

 

[Perm]

Why not pick Razzak or Rafique, then? I know Rafique is not on tour but that just adds to my criticism of their selection, really. If Razzaq is not regarded as a more threatening bowling at test level than Saqibul, then Rafique should certainly be in the squad ahead of him.

If Bangladesh do have a strength, it's the left-arm spinners. Why spoil any possible advantage that could bring by picking a batting allrounder as the sole specialist spinner?

Oh, I see your point. Having Saqibul as the specialist spinner is a poor decision, even if the pitch looks like it'll suit fast bowlers much more than spinners. Saqibul should be in the side, but not taking the spot of Razzak, Haque or Rafique.

I thought you were referring to Enamul Haque Jr as being a specific strength, and although he's been good in the past, appears to suffer heavily from the way Bangladesh operate. Only plays Test matches, and doesn't get to push his claim in FC cricket a great deal beforehand.

 

[Perm]

Is baffling selection policies a curse for all Sub-continent countries?

Not just sub-continent countries. New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa, England.

Really Australia are the only ones who are any good at selecting Test sides, and even they make a couple of interesting calls, but don't usually get exposed as much as other countries.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is baffling selection policies a curse for all Sub-continent countries?

A curse for all counties in general of late, really.

O'Brien over a multitude of players, Fernando over Malinga, Fernando over Vaas, Bopara over Shah, the Prior dropping, Broad over Tremlett, Nel over Pollock, Lewis over anyone who has even been to the West Indies and seen a cricket ball.... all regarded as bad selections by virtually all those except the selectors themselves. I actually think India have a pretty good job of selecting their teams of late; there's at least some consistency in policy there and the selections make some sense even if we disagree with them. Continuity and consistency are the keys to good selections policies so players know what they need to do to get in the team and what they've done wrong if they find themselves out of it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not just sub-continent countries. New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa, England.

Really Australia are the only ones who are any good at selecting Test sides, and even they make a couple of interesting calls, but don't usually get exposed as much as other countries.

Yeah - the difference between a good and a bad selection in Australia just isn't as obvious. If someone gets picked, even if they shouldn't be, and even if there are better options, they tend to do decently anyway, because the depth is better in general. It's also easier to do a credible job (albeit harder to stand out) in a really strong team.

 

[Perm]

Yeah - the difference between a good and a bad selection in Australia just isn't as obvious. If someone gets picked, even if they shouldn't be, and even if there are better options, they tend to do decently anyway, because the depth is better in general. It's also easier to do a credible job (albeit harder to stand out) in a really strong team.

Definitely. You've got several guys putting runs on the board who have had fine FC careers, such as Katich, Rogers, David Hussey and Hodge, yet Symonds is still performing. In the other countries, they've almost invariable got good performers at home who are being ignored, while lesser players are being persisted with, despite being pretty poor. It's almost as though selectors over the world don't care about domestic performances. One example that springs to mind is JP Duminy playing ODI cricket for South Africa. Do the selectors even realise that Duminy averages just above 30? Same applies to the calls from some posters that Jesse Ryder should be in the Black Caps ODI team. Really does grind my gears, contemplating starting a thread ITBT.

 

[Craig]

Have people seen O'Diren bowl much at FC level? On paper his record his very handy, a 177 FC wickets @ 24 but there is no way he should be playing for the Black Caps, does he bowl on very bowler friendly wickets or just crap batsmen?

 

[Perm]

Have people seen O'Diren bowl much at FC level? On paper his record his very handy, a 177 FC wickets @ 24 but there is no way he should be playing for the Black Caps, does he bowl on very bowler friendly wickets or just crap batsmen?

Pretty much a combination of both. O'Brien bowls between 135 and 140kph, which is quickish by New Zealand standards and on pitches that suit swing and seam, it's no surprise to see him do so well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have people seen O'Diren bowl much at FC level? On paper his record his very handy, a 177 FC wickets @ 24 but there is no way he should be playing for the Black Caps, does he bowl on very bowler friendly wickets or just crap batsmen?

I think the fact that he absolutely dominates at first class level (even moreso than those stats suggest in recent seasons, too) says a lot about the standard of pitches and/or batsmen in domestic cricket. It makes the records of Fulton and Sinclar look all the more impressive though, so I hope they're given a decent run in the middle order.

 

[NZTailender]

I reckon Bell thought he got something on it. Did you see how he dropped his head straight away and looked very disappointed and angry at himself? Not many batsmen do that after missing a pull shot.

Nah, he looked like he was annoyed with himself for not playing the shot better. His reaction when given out says it all. he looked like "oh you've got to be kidding me, i didn't get anything on that!"

 

[Smudge]

I reckon Bell thought he got something on it. Did you see how he dropped his head straight away and looked very disappointed and angry at himself? Not many batsmen do that after missing a pull shot.

Oh, so he looked disappointed? Well, **** it, he's out then. Let's just deal with the hard facts - his bat and gloves did not come into contact with the ball. That much is blatantly obvious from the replay.

 

[Perm]

Oh, so he looked disappointed? Well, **** it, he's out then. Let's just deal with the hard facts - his bat and gloves did not come into contact with the ball. That much is blatantly obvious from the replay.

So very mature Voltman.

FTR I wasn't suggesting he was out because he looked disappointed, I was suggesting he was out because I thought that the ball brushed the glove on the way through to the wicket-keeper.