Will Bangladesh ever be good?

[Perm]

People still reckon Bangladesh are going to be good one day? Personally I think they aren't too far off attaining the much revered ODI class tag.

 

[FRAZ]

Dave proved himself to be the best available for Bangladesh and after him ........ I Don't know but seriously there was a patch in the Bangs' cricket history where they seemed so promising but strangely their graph has gone down a lot . We can't just blame politics and infrastructure all the time but seriously Bangs' board proved itself to be a younger brother of PCB .

 

[James90]

They dominated many/most? of the sessions of the Multan test not the whole series.

Na I reckon they would have won as many sessions in that series as Pakistan. Too bad the few they lost they got completely smashed in. Having said that I don't think Bangladesh were test-class in that series. Pakistan were equally as horrible.

Bangladesh will make it if they're given long enough but at what cost? Really have no idea when we'll see the next significant improvement. Could be 10 years from now.

 

[Richard]

Was this thread dug to commemorate Shane Warne's 50th CW account or something?

 

[SJS]

I think Bangladesh suffers for having come to the international arena when the limited over format is so much more popular. I suspect their cricketers are not coming from a pool that is readying them for the longer version of the game. This accounts for major deficiencies in their skill sets which will reflect on their performance - always.

Unfortunately, contrary to what the 'modernist' may want to believe, the basics that you need to get right for the longer version, will help you produce consistent results in the shorter version also though you can produce some reasonable results even without them.

Thats why Bangladesh will continue to show only the odd good result in the limited over format and be very poor in Test matches.

 

[Flem274*]

Agree with SJS mostly.

In answer to the question: Who knows? The could discover the next Bradman next week, or they could be like the Welsh rugby team i.e. most popular sport in the country but they still suck.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I think SJS's comments are pretty fair. In the ODI arena at least, there is no reason why they could not be one of the world's best sides in 10, 15, 20 years' time. The country has a huge population; the facilities are improving; there is certainly plenty of 'natural' talent. I think those who have watched Bangladesh play - especially the batsmen - would say that the problems facing them are more mental than technical. Aftab Ahmed and Mohammad Ashraful can destroy any international attack on their day, but more often than not they both fall to poor shot selection early on.

The one major issue I can see permanently affecting their success is their lack of height. Coming from slow pitches back at home, the batsmen will always struggle on the quick wickets of the southern hemisphere, with taller bowlers.

I type this as Junaid Siddique and Raqibul Hasan fall to consecutive deliveries against Derbyshire...

 

[andruid]

I think Bangladesh suffers for having come to the international arena when the limited over format is so much more popular. I suspect their cricketers are not coming from a pool that is readying them for the longer version of the game. This accounts for major deficiencies in their skill sets which will reflect on their performance - always.

Unfortunately, contrary to what the 'modernist' may want to believe, the basics that you need to get right for the longer version, will help you produce consistent results in the shorter version also though you can produce some reasonable results even without them.

Thats why Bangladesh will continue to show only the odd good result in the limited over format and be very poor in Test matches.

In light of the argument above it is possible to make a case for the seeming inadequacies, failures and sucesses of the ICC preparation of its members for Test status and vis-a-vis Full membership in the ICC. Considering last three nations to aquire Test status, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, why is it that both Zimbabwe and even more so Sri lanka have taken to the test arena and become much more competitive in a 10 year time scale than Bangladesh? We shall look at these from two perspectives. The state of the game at the point of aquiring test status and 10 years into test nation-hood

With Sri lanka by the time they were made a full member of the ICC, the country had a domestic structure of cricket clubs, a 50 year old domestic Firts class tournament, and a strong tradition of playing regular FC matches against strong English and Australia and herefore it is safe to assume that the traditions of Multi innings cricket was already well embedded in their cricketing culture before exposure to test cricket therefore all the systems were in place and functioning t produce generation after generation of test class players/teams

Zimbabwe on the other hand came into International cricket at a time when ODIs were becoming mainstream, nonetheless their cricket links between the settler community in Zimbabwe and the Governrment of South Africa's through the Currie Cup, plus a smattering of ex-test players meant that at the point of they entry into International cricket they were streets ahead of all their Associate conetmporaries ( Indeed they never lost an ICC trophy match). Thus when Zimbabwe got Test status, they at least had a crop of playe who would ensure that they did not get immediately run over on entry to the Test world. That as well as a very well run Domestic Club set up that ensured that the likes of the Flower brothers, and the rest of the best of that generation of cricketers not only matured into world class players but were on hand to keep the talent stream flowing (see Hamilton Masakadza, Tatenda Taibu, Elton Chigumbura) . However with the breakdown of the political system and increasing insanity of one Mr Bob, so did break this neat little arrangement an with it any immediate hope that Zimbabwe has of progressing further for the time being.

Bangladesh on the other hand though with extensive cricketing infrastructure as part of East Bengal and then East Pakistan prior to its independence and the popularity of the sport, that it took until 1999 for the authorities to organise a domestic level could be looked at as something of a fatal flaw when looked at retrospectively. Internationally they had one ICC trophy win, two semifinal appearances and the one World Cup win to brag about and with ODIs all the rage and the ICC already buoyed by how well Zimbabwe and Sri lanka had gotten on it was probably assumed that somehow a few ODI wins would suddenly give thei Bangladeshis enough gumption to run riot in the test world


In light of the reality that unfolded after the initial hype of that Firts India test and the occasional anommaly (the Australia and Pakistan series), it is not surprising that some of the more perceptive figures in the cricketing world such as Bob Woolmer recognised the gulf in technique and mentality between the Test bations and the Associates and even attempted to find a means to remedy the situation but with the cash cow that is ODI cricket now fully mature, the biggest and probably most reliable effort to pass te necessary traditions of multi innings cricket so far has been the ICC Intercontinental Cup, which though beset with its own problems still represents the biggest effort the ICC has made to avoid 'another Bangladesh' Though still in its infancy that it has already encouraged on country to actively pursue the agenda of infusing Multi innings cricket into the local cricketing culture is enough evidence for me that it is a pursuit worth investing in.

 

[silentstriker]

The one major issue I can see permanently affecting their success is their lack of height. Coming from slow pitches back at home, the batsmen will always struggle on the quick wickets of the southern hemisphere, with taller bowlers.

Many of the greatest batsmen in history have been 5'10 or shorter. Bradman, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Lara, Ponting, have all been very short.

Being tall actually hurts you a little bit, there was an ESPN documentary on that a while back, and while there have been many Sobers-like players, the short batsmen are disproportionately represented at the highest echelon of Test players. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[cricman]

I think Under Jamie Siddons, he's trying to implement the take 20 Small Steps back in order to make 1 Giant Step Foward and I honestly believe you'll see Much better performances in the Test Arena @ Home, If they were an Experienced Side or had a bit of luck They would have had Test Wins over Pakistan (That group retired than Cycle began again), South Africa and Australia, Very remarkable feat for a bunch of 20 year olds

They didn't get a Test Match for 13 months after the Australia Tests, during that period they were lined up against Zimbabwe and Associates and Won Fairly Easily, Than Came the WC. There A Class above the Associates A class Below the Top 8

Changes are being made to the Domestic Table, Adding another FC Competition and Adding a 90 over 2 Day format matches.

I think they'll do faily well against New Zealand in their Upcoming Home Series, in Test Matches, Siddons is putting a new mentality to change them under Dav it was working to get there confidence up telling them they belong in the Top 8 and Siddons comes in and says they suck and they have to start from scratch

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Many of the greatest batsmen in history have been 5'10 or shorter. Bradman, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Lara, Ponting, have all been very short.

Being tall actually hurts you a little bit, there was an ESPN documentary on that a while back, and while there have been many Sobers-like players, the short batsmen are disproportionately represented at the highest echelon of Test players. I'll see if I can find it.

There becomes a size where people can bounce you at real pace though. If you're 6'7", the ball isn't going to be going too fast if it's going to be up around your ribcage. At 5'2", it is going to be pretty messy. I probably stressed the batting side too much before - the lack of bowlers with any height will also hurt them. Even though Indian bowlers have historically had little pace, they can still get a fair bit of bounce. Bangladesh have tried countless 'skiddy' bowlers with no success (Hasibul Hossain, Mohammad Sharif, Anwar Hossain Monir, Sajidul Islam... plenty more if I checked).

 

[zaremba]

Will Bangladesh ever be good?

Yes, just give them time. They have a large population and enthusiasm for the game. Given time and appropriate exposure to high class cricket, they will surely improve as every newcomer has in the past (including Zim before the disintegration began).

 

[SJS]

Will Bangladesh ever be good?

Yes, just give them time. They have a large population and enthusiasm for the game. Given time and appropriate exposure to high class cricket, they will surely improve as every newcomer has in the past (including Zim before the disintegration began).

Its possible but not a given.

by the way, the difference with Zimbabwe was that as Rhodesia, they did have a regular cricketing contact with South Africa (even though a large majority of the population was not included) and the culture of the longer version first class cricket remained. Also the top cricketers kept finding their way into the English domestic cricket and play during the off season at home as well as acquire the skills and attitude that professional cricket demanded.

Similarly Sri Lanka (as sri Lanka and as Ceylon) played a lot of cricket against first class sides from India. Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka had very close cricketing ties. Sri Lanka came to India to play what were termed "Unofficial Tests". I have seen some of them and trust me the standards were much higher than what one sees from Bangladesh after so many years of so called "official Test status".

Bangladesh will have to shore up its domestic cricket (the first class variety), find ways for its pool of cricketers to play the longer version of the game against those who play it well and take it from there.

It is a long path and they are not even walking it seriously. You do not get the attitude (for want of a better word) of the longer version of the game by just winning the odd limited overs game and having Test status bestowed upon you.

If Bangladesh is serious about it, the least they can do is negotiate with BCCI and have their side play the Duleep Trophy in India every year.

You need to start lower to have strong foundations. Starting at the top is an enticing prospect but will leave the foundations, forever, weak and that does not help in the format we are talking of.

 

[zaremba]

You're doubtless right SJS. I must admit to not knowing a vast amount about the domestic structure in Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

Will Bangladesh ever be good?

Yes, just give them time. They have a large population and enthusiasm for the game. Given time and appropriate exposure to high class cricket, they will surely improve as every newcomer has in the past (including Zim before the disintegration began).

No newcomers - even New Zealand in the 1930s and 1950s - have been as far below the standard as Bangladesh have. In fact, most teams weren't even really below the standard at all - Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka have been mentioned by SJS; Pakistan, India and West Indies too were all ready for the step-up when given it, possessing high-class players all.

You really have to go back to South Africa in the 19th-century to find a team so blatantly short of the required standard given Test status. Bangladesh's elevation was ridiculous, and their retention continues to be so. If they do eventually attain the required standard to merit status, the integrity of Test cricket will have been thrown to the wolves by the time it happens.

 

[zaremba]

edit: duplicate post

 

[zaremba]

No newcomers - even New Zealand in the 1930s and 1950s - have been as far below the standard as Bangladesh have. In fact, most teams weren't even really below the standard at all - Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka have been mentioned by SJS; Pakistan, India and West Indies too were all ready for the step-up when given it, possessing high-class players all.

You really have to go back to South Africa in the 19th-century to find a team so blatantly short of the required standard given Test status. Bangladesh's elevation was ridiculous, and their retention continues to be so. If they do eventually attain the required standard to merit status, the integrity of Test cricket will have been thrown to the wolves by the time it happens.

I agree with you - by "appropriate exposure to high-class cricket" I don't mean Test matches, at least not yet.

 

[mr_mister]

interesting thread

 

[Gob]

Why was Shane Warne banned?

Couldn't find any on ban announcements threads

 

[Burner]

For doping.