*Official* Bangladesh in New Zealand 2016/2017

[cnerd123]

That's the difference, their history of results does count for me, & they need more than 1 home test win and one good innings total of a road for me to change that view.

okay

you're wrong but okay

 

[indiaholic]

That's the difference, their history of results does count for me, & they need more than 1 home test win and one good innings total of a road for me to change that view.

Why does it count when evaluating performances against them in this series? It only counts when evaluating them as a team over a period of time, no?

 

[Zinzan]

Why does it count when evaluating performances against them in this series? It only counts when evaluating them as a team over a period of time, no?

I don't think it's unreasonable of me still thinking of them as minnows on the back of one home Test win, on their mud heaps too which btw NZ players stated are the hardest decks to adapt to of all those in the SC.

Suppose it comes down to the definition each of us have of what's essentially been a hi-jacked term used in the context of cricket.

 

[indiaholic]

I don't disagree. You can call them minnows based on their performance in the past. But I don't think you should be underrating the performance of NZ players based on how Bangladesh have played in the past. That evaluation should be based on how Bangladesh are playing now.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't think it's unreasonable of me still thinking of them as minnows on the back of one home Test win, on their mud heaps too which btw NZ players stated are the hardest decks to adapt to of all those in the SC.

Suppose it comes down to the definition each of us have of what's essentially been a hi-jacked term used in the context of cricket.

Nah. BD are clearly on par with SL and WI. You either call all three minnows, or none minnows. To only call BD that doesn't suggest a misunderstanding on the term minnow and how to apply it, but a disagreement on where BD rank in world cricket at the moment. You think they should be ranked lower based on their history. Rest of us disagree. That's the confusion.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't disagree. You can call them minnows based on their performance in the past. But I don't think you should be underrating the performance of NZ players based on how Bangladesh have played in the past. That evaluation should be based on how Bangladesh are playing now.

It's not even that I'm going out of my way to place a weighting on previous results or anything like that. I'm just not quite yet convinced enough yet based on a couple of competitive Test match at home on their decks. I'd like to see a little more.

 

[cnerd123]

It's not even that I'm going out of my way to place a weighting on previous results or anything like that. I'm just not quite yet convinced enough yet based on a couple of competitive Test match at home on their decks. I'd like to see a little more.

I'd understand this too if the discussion was 'Have BD finally turned the corner, or is this a purple patch"

But the discussion is "Are BD currently playing as a Test standard side worthy of their place in International cricket", and the answer to that doesn't need any reference to past cricket or hypothetical future cricket. It's just to evaluate them as they are now and their current performances.

 

[indiaholic]

See a little more before elevating them from minnows to a bad team? So if they perform better over the next year you will retroactively rate NZ's performance higher?

 

[DriveClub]

Bangla on par with WI and SL atm, NZ only slightly better

 

[Zinzan]

Nah. BD are clearly on par with SL and WI. You either call all three minnows, or none minnows. To only call BD that doesn't suggest a misunderstanding on the term minnow and how to apply it, but a disagreement on where BD rank in world cricket at the moment. You think they should be ranked lower based on their history. Rest of us disagree. That's the confusion.

No it is a different interpretation of the term & how it's applied because I do factor historical performance as well, without changing on a whim after one Test that they appeared more competitive.

Now if you want to talk about 'rankings' instead, there's a reason why BD are behind both SL & the Windies, even if it's not a perfect rankings system, it is indicative.

 

[cnerd123]

No it is a different interpretation of the term & how it's applied because I do factor historical performance as well, without changing on a whim after one Test that they appeared more competitive.

Yea you've said this a lot. But it's still so weird. "Yes they played well, but I'm not going to call them a team that is playing well, because historically they haven't played well, so I'm going to hold off and wait to see them play well some more before I agree that they were a team that is playing well in the current test match"

 

[Burgey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_cricket_team_in_Sri_Lanka_in_2016#Test_series

Probably the lowest single point in Australian cricket history tbh. The difference, I think, is that Australians and their cricket team alike consider consider results like that unacceptable. When countries like SL and NZ suffer those results overseas they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. You hope Bangladesh, as they develop, don't settle for that sort of dross from their side.

 

[Zinzan]

Yea you've said this a lot. But it's still so weird. "Yes they played well, but I'm not going to call them a team that is playing well, because historically they haven't played well, so I'm going to hold off and wait to see them play well some more before I agree that they were a team that is playing well in the current test match"

No, my thought process was more like 'Okay they've managed to finally win a Test on their low bouncing mudheaps at home, but I'd like to see a little more before I change my view that they're no longer a minnow." Sorry you're so weirded out by that.

By your logic, we should have all said Bangers were no longer an ODI minnow when they managed to beat Australia in that ODI in England in 2005, I didn't get carried away with that at the time and I'm not getting carried away quite yet.

People also forget Bang were well on top of Australia at home in a Test match in 2006 when Jason Gillespie scored the famous double ton. Should we have said they were no longer minnows at that point too? They might not have won, but they were competitive for much of that Test.

You're just more fickle than I.

 

[Zinzan]

Probably the lowest single point in Australian cricket history tbh. The difference, I think, is that Australians and their cricket team alike consider consider results like that unacceptable. When countries like SL and NZ suffer those results overseas they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. You hope Bangladesh, as they develop, don't settle for that sort of dross from their side.

Tbf, I may be wrong, but I don't think NZ have ever been decimated 3-0 by SL.

 

[Burgey]

They would be if they went there now. They're worse than us, and we are far from very good.

 

[cnerd123]

BD definitely stopped being ODI minnows around 2005-2007 fwiw. They were starting to win games more frequently, knocked India out the WC, and were showing genuine progress that had everyone hyped. Then they lost some players to the ICL, developed a choking streak, and regressed a bit before correcting themselves at around 2010. But they did shed the 'minnow' tag in ODIs during that time.

 

[DriveClub]

Probably the lowest single point in Australian cricket history tbh. The difference, I think, is that Australians and their cricket team alike consider consider results like that unacceptable. When countries like SL and NZ suffer those results overseas they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. You hope Bangladesh, as they develop, don't settle for that sort of dross from their side.

Do losses in India and UAE count?

 

[Zinzan]

They would be if they went there now. They're worse than us, and we are far from very good.

Our last visit there was a 1-1 draw & SL were a better side then than now. I'm sure you would have said the same when NZ visited UAE to play Pakistan after you guys were whitewashed by them in late 2014, but NZ drew that series 1-1 as well,

NZ were horrendous against a very strong Indian side & have played awful Test cricket for 18 months or so now, but let's not pretend Australia have generally been a better SC touring side than NZ in the last 5 years or so, that would be silly.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

They would be if they went there now. They're worse than us, and we are far from very good.

It was 1-1 last time we went (just like our tour to the UAE). India aside, NZ is much better going to Asia than to Aus or SAf.

EDIT: What Zinzan said

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Probably the lowest single point in Australian cricket history tbh. The difference, I think, is that Australians and their cricket team alike consider consider results like that unacceptable. When countries like SL and NZ suffer those results overseas they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. You hope Bangladesh, as they develop, don't settle for that sort of dross from their side.

I guess in that way, Australians and their cricket team are like a poor man's version of NZers and the All Blacks. We lost to Ireland for the first time ever last year (after about 111 years of playing them) and I'm still annoyed about it.