Mominul Haque is a rare talent in Bangladesh right now. 22 years old just made his debut about a year ago and already in 7 tests has 3 test 100s. I think he will have tonnes of success against teams Sri Lanka, New Zealand, India etc but his real test will be against teams like Australia and South Africa and of course on faster, bouncier surfaces.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Sri Lanka in Bangladesh 2014
- Thread starter Maximas
- Start date
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
Bangladesh play about 2 tests every 5 years outside the SC, so if he continues to plunder in these conditions Bangladesh would be very satisfied.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
A Bangladesh Sangakkara?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's gold.
I thought it was a poor advertisement for cricket tbh, both the decision to keep batting that long as well as the match itself as a whole . Really dull cricket except for Sanga's glorious batting.
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
Only Mominul won't get much of a chance to fail outside the SC, at least Sanga proved that he was failure outside the SC with his awful average of 40
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Sri Lanka don't owe Bangladesh the opportunity of giving them a realistic chase.
Sri Lanka gave their bowlers a realistic option of bowling Bangladesh out in a day.
I don't see how Sri Lanka were being negative here.
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
One, in spite of whether or not Sri Lanka were being 'negative' or not, Matthews cannot label a team 'defensive' for not attempting to chase over 450 in under 100 overs, that was the main point of my post.
Two, whether or not you think 1 day without Herath and Eranga is enough to bowl out Bangladesh on a typical ****ty Bangladesh pitch is a reasonable amount, the negativity stems from what I believe was them scoring too many runs and soaking up too much time in the game than necessary to ensure they wouldn't lose, this impeded their chances of winning simply because they were **** scared of losing from a very strong position, which I think is quite negative, or at least it's certainly not positive, which disappoints me
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I agree that Matthews shouldn't be labelling Bangladesh as defensive.
But I disagree with your second point. The idea that you need to bait the opposition into going for the target in order to win a test match is complete bollocks that idiots like Shane Warne trot out. You don't need to be prepared to lose to win. The ability to bowl attacking lines without fear of having to defend a target is a massive luxury. Yes, sometimes an enticing target can induce false strokes from batsmen, but more often than not, winning a test match is about being patient and taking the wickets of batsmen who are trying to save a match.
1-0 up in the series is not a time to entice the opposition into going for the win. It's a time to test if your bowlers can take the wickets of batsmen who are trying to survive. Clearly, Sri Lanka's bowlers were not up to the task, but I'd wager if you gave Australia, NZ, England, South Africa half an hour with the new ball on day 4 and a full day on day five in which the new ball would come roughly 15 overs before the close and asked them to bowl a side out, they'd do it more often than not.
But I disagree with your second point. The idea that you need to bait the opposition into going for the target in order to win a test match is complete bollocks that idiots like Shane Warne trot out. You don't need to be prepared to lose to win. The ability to bowl attacking lines without fear of having to defend a target is a massive luxury. Yes, sometimes an enticing target can induce false strokes from batsmen, but more often than not, winning a test match is about being patient and taking the wickets of batsmen who are trying to save a match.
1-0 up in the series is not a time to entice the opposition into going for the win. It's a time to test if your bowlers can take the wickets of batsmen who are trying to survive. Clearly, Sri Lanka's bowlers were not up to the task, but I'd wager if you gave Australia, NZ, England, South Africa half an hour with the new ball on day 4 and a full day on day five in which the new ball would come roughly 15 overs before the close and asked them to bowl a side out, they'd do it more often than not.
Last edited:
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
No doubt but with an attack consisting of Lakmal, Pradeep, Mendis and Perera you can't simply pretend that you're Australia or whatever. It's not about being prepared to lose to win, it's about making the game safe ASAP then getting the maximum amount of time at Bangladesh, Sri Lanka scored more runs than necessary, I think even you could agree with that.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
No, I don't agree with that.
It's about time as well as runs. If they score fewer runs, they also give extra time. Their lack of decent wicket taking bowlers is just another reason why they shouldn't risk it. 400 runs in 4 sessions is not safe at all with those bowlers.
If you can't bowl a team out on a fifth day wicket with 2 goes with the new ball and a perfect half-hour spell before stumps on day 4, what good would an extra session do? As it stood they didn't even get close to bowling Bangladesh out, and while that is hindsight, it's also indicative of the reality of the risk involved in that situation.
The whole point of batting on was so that they could tire out the opposition and give their bowlers a nice crack at it.
It's about time as well as runs. If they score fewer runs, they also give extra time. Their lack of decent wicket taking bowlers is just another reason why they shouldn't risk it. 400 runs in 4 sessions is not safe at all with those bowlers.
If you can't bowl a team out on a fifth day wicket with 2 goes with the new ball and a perfect half-hour spell before stumps on day 4, what good would an extra session do? As it stood they didn't even get close to bowling Bangladesh out, and while that is hindsight, it's also indicative of the reality of the risk involved in that situation.
The whole point of batting on was so that they could tire out the opposition and give their bowlers a nice crack at it.
YorksLanka
International Debutant
great knock from Anamul...
YorksLanka
International Debutant
great knock from Anamul...
well played to Sri Lanka, tough one for Bangladesh but a fantastic effort to get so close..
well played to Sri Lanka, tough one for Bangladesh but a fantastic effort to get so close..
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
What could possibly have motivated Chandimal to give the final over to Thisara? Shocking death bowler, lucky to get away with it this time, Kusal Perera set the game up beautifully though, and Nuwan Kulasekara was brilliant with bat and bowl, not the worst performance
YorksLanka
International Debutant
not according to the ump...
on a serious note, it looked above but then was droping and i think it was as at waist height when hit by the batsman tbh...
Last edited: