***Official*** Australia in Bangladesh 2017

[Burgey]

He doesn't need to learn from his mistakes because he knows they will just keep picking him everywhere based on his home stats, which are outstanding. Whilst at the same time dropping Khawaja on the SC because "horses for courses". No consistency at all.

 

[straw man]

He's bowled a very significant number of overs on desperately unresponsive Bangladeshi pitches that were designed to produce draws. This notion of Bangladeshi pitches being overwhelmingly favourable to spin hasn't been true for a lot of the 33 tests he's played at home. He's had to toil away on pitches that have offered him nothing many times, particularly in Chittagong. He's also had to deal with being the only bowler of quality in the side a lot of time, trying to remove set batsmen who've plundered runs off other bowlers. And in the first half of his career, there would have been a fair few times he didn't get to bowl in the fourth innings because his team weren't able to take the game that far.

There's a lot more nuances to this than you're acknowledging.

I agree - when I think of Bangladesh pitches I think of slow puddings that aren't really good for anyone, including spin bowlers. More recently than Gillespie's double, the not very illustrious Trent Boult scored a fifty there purely by propping on his front leg and playing with a straight bat every ball - he could be confident that nothing would bounce above the knee roll or turn or spit or do anything at all.

So while it sounds like the more recent tests in Bangladesh against England and now Australia have been on more spin-friendly (and more interesting) wickets, Shakib would have spent a lot of time bowling on the former low, slow, boring wickets too.

 

[Black_Warrior]

And the fastest to get there. WAFG. IDK why people are still reluctant to rate him as the qualiteh player that he is.

because he plays for a team that does not make news, very few people here watch or follow or are aware of their matches, achievements or records.

This series is not talked about, will not be talked about and will be forgotten within a week irrespective of the result, and along with it all the achievements of the individuals in this series. As a result, the next time Sky Sports panel or C9 panel or Cricinfo panel or the dumb ****s at Cricinfo Youtube channel get together and talk about the best players in the world today or the best all rounder today or the Current best XI, neither Tamim or Shakib will make that list. Neither Akash Chopra nor Ian Chappell will write articles about them.

They will start with Warner at 1, and the allrounder debate will be between Stokes, Ali, Ashwin and Mitchell Marsh. You can also throw in Hardik Pandya there.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Anyway, my point is only that the fact that Shakib plays for Bangladesh has worked in his favour as an all-rounder. I think most other countries (particularly South Africa, England and Australia) would probably have developed him more into a specialist batsman and kept his spin part time. He'd be a 50 average batsman who picked up 2 wpm @ 40 instead of a 40 average batsman and a 33 average bowler picking up 3.6 wpm. Alternatively he'd average 30 with both bat and ball and pick up 4 wpm.

But Shakib plays for Bangladesh who have no other bowlers who've taken 50 wickets or more that average less than Shakib's 33. So he gets an average of 23 overs per innings, which is a full time bowling workload (Lyon gets an average of 20 by comparison).

Just like Warner playing for Australia has worked in his favour that he gets to play majority of his cricket on the flattest of decks and gets away with an average of 47 which hides his dismal record outside of Australia and South Africa?

The problem with your argument is that the parameters you are applying to Shakib "if he played for Australia or England or South Africa" are only selectively applied on these 'smaller teams'

We don't ever play the "if Warner, Handscomb, Renshaw, Khawaja, Lyon, Agar did not play for Australia" game. Would Voges average 60 if he didn't bat on the flattest decks in the world?

 

[Burgey]

And the problem with thisargument is no one here is defending Warner in any way, shape or form, nor does anyone here rate Voges as anything more than an accident of history for whom the stars gloriously aligned for 18 months.

 

[Black_Warrior]

If Shakib was an Aussie he would barely be bowled. He's only taken so many wickets because his teammates have not been test standard, much like Smith compared to the rest of Australia's batting in the subcontinent.

Under done along with poor selections as well.
Maxwell Finch Renshaw Smith Handscomb Cartwright Nevill Agar Okeefe Cummins Lyon would be my picks with Maxwell and Finch with a T20 licence.

To say there have been poor selections and then suggest Finch and Maxwell opening is ITSTL

 

[cnerd123]

Agar's proven me wrong so far. Definitely wasn't expecting much of him. Hopefully he continues to perform and we can boot Lyon for good.



Nah I'm talking mostly ****. Steve O'Keefe has been the most effective bowler in Australia over the last decade by some margin and he doesn't really get much overspin. In theory if O'Keefe is successful so should Shakib and Jadeja.

I remember PEWS theory in this was that O Keefe bowling sidespin got enough turn and had enough guile that he could trick domestic batsmen into falling for the straighter one over and over, but against high quality batsmen that trick wouldn't work, and he didn't have the ability to extract drift and surprise bounce that an over-spinner would, and usually that is what gets high quality batsmen out in Australian pitches

However we do seem to be playing in an era of batsmen not adept at playing spin. Or really batsmen who just lack a good attritional game in general.

 

[Burgey]

I remember PEWS theory in this was that O Keefe bowling sidespin got enough turn and had enough guile that he could trick domestic batsmen into falling for the straighter one over and over, but against high quality batsmen that trick wouldn't work, and he didn't have the ability to extract drift and surprise bounce that an over-spinner would, and usually that is what gets high quality batsmen out in Australian pitches

However we do seem to be playing in an era of batsmen not adept at playing spin. Or really batsmen who just lack a good attritional game in general.

I think that's why Renshaw stands out like dog's balls. His temperament for such a young bloke is pretty rare in this day and age.

 

[stephen]

Just like Warner playing for Australia has worked in his favour that he gets to play majority of his cricket on the flattest of decks and gets away with an average of 47 which hides his dismal record outside of Australia and South Africa?

The problem with your argument is that the parameters you are applying to Shakib "if he played for Australia or England or South Africa" are only selectively applied on these 'smaller teams'

We don't ever play the "if Warner, Handscomb, Renshaw, Khawaja, Lyon, Agar did not play for Australia" game. Would Voges average 60 if he didn't bat on the flattest decks in the world?

Yeah I think you have misunderstood my point, which is that playing for Bangladesh has allowed Shakib to reach his potential as an all rounder. If he was playing for one of the better nations he would have been forced more down the specialisation path.

 

[the big bambino]

Shakib is an Asian spinner, like Jadeja. If he was Australian he'd barely take a wicket in the Shield let alone play in the international side. From what i've seen lately to be a successful Asian spinner more than anything you have to be accurate and don't need to do too much with the ball, because the wicket will help you. But to be a successful spinner in Australia you need to do more with it and get more overspin especially.

Don't get me wrong, he's better than Lyon, but they are very different kinds of spinners. This is why guys like Jadeja and Ashwin who are probably the best spinners in the world are next to useless outside Asia. It takes a different kind of spinner IMO.

I'm probably just talking **** but whatever

Nah not this time. I think you have a point.

 

[Burgey]

Have been pleasantly surprised by Agar this test. Sure he's come on to bowl when things have hardly been out of hand, but he's done a decent job, and his batting really is easily test standard. Would love to see him develop into a number seven spinning all rounder, but his bowling seems to still have a long way to go.

 

[quincywagstaff]

The disappointing thing about Warner is that in the 2013-14 period it looked like he had become a batsman who could prosper in all conditions, even scoring a century during Australia’s forlorn 2014 away series v Pakistan.

But he’s become a total FTB in the last 3 years. He’s actually scored more runs in the last 3 dead rubber SCG Tests (395 in 5 innings) than he has in his last 15 Test innings in Asia (364).

Probably been listening too much to the Channel 9 comms drooling over him whenever he scores a run-a-ball SCG Ton or in a ODI on a belter at Adelaide Oval.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Have been pleasantly surprised by Agar this test. Sure he's come on to bowl when things have hardly been out of hand, but he's done a decent job, and his batting really is easily test standard. Would love to see him develop into a number seven spinning all rounder, but his bowling seems to still have a long way to go.

That’s one of the downsides of using a nightwatchman when you have a long battling lineup; Agar was way too low at 9 and he was left stranded when he looked like he could’ve replicated his Test debut knock.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yeah I think you have misunderstood my point, which is that playing for Bangladesh has allowed Shakib to reach his potential as an all rounder. If he was playing for one of the better nations he would have been forced more down the specialisation path.

And my point is that this is true for every other player in the world. Every player is a product of the conditions, cricket culture and requirements of the country they play for. Ultimately everyone benefits from it. Ashwin benefits from playing for India and not Australia. Anderson benefits from playing for England and not Sri Lanka. Skillsets don't develop in vacuum. Shakib is the player he is because he plays for Bangladesh, just like Anderson has the skills he has because he plays for England. Playing for England has allowed Anderson to fulfill his potential as a swing/seam bowler.

Where it becomes disingenuous is when it is only ever used for the 'smaller teams' and not for the rest.

 

[Spark]

And my point is that this is true for every other player in the world. Every player is a product of the conditions, cricket culture and requirements of the country they play for. Ultimately everyone benefits from it. Ashwin benefits from playing for India and not Australia. Anderson benefits from playing for England and not Sri Lanka. Skillsets don't develop in vacuum. Shakib is the player he is because he plays for Bangladesh, just like Anderson has the skills he has because he plays for England. Playing for England has allowed Anderson to fulfill his potential as a swing/seam bowler.

Where it becomes disingenuous is when it is only ever used for the 'smaller teams' and not for the rest.

What does being made to take an unusually large amount of the workload for both batting and bowling have the slightest bit to do with Bangladeshi pitches? Is there something about Bangladesh that makes its cricketers unusually good all-rounders?

 

[Burgey]

That’s one of the downsides of using a nightwatchman when you have a long battling lineup; Agar was way too low at 9 and he was left stranded when he looked like he could’ve replicated his Test debut knock.

Yeah true that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And my point is that this is true for every other player in the world. Every player is a product of the conditions, cricket culture and requirements of the country they play for. Ultimately everyone benefits from it. Ashwin benefits from playing for India and not Australia. Anderson benefits from playing for England and not Sri Lanka. Skillsets don't develop in vacuum. Shakib is the player he is because he plays for Bangladesh, just like Anderson has the skills he has because he plays for England. Playing for England has allowed Anderson to fulfill his potential as a swing/seam bowler.

Where it becomes disingenuous is when it is only ever used for the 'smaller teams' and not for the rest.

Who knows maybe if Shakib wasn't "forced" to be a genuine all rounder because he played for Bangladesh he could have developed into an ATG Test Batsman averaging 55+ because he didn't have to worry about his bowling.

That’s one of the downsides of using a nightwatchman when you have a long battling lineup; Agar was way too low at 9 and he was left stranded when he looked like he could’ve replicated his Test debut knock.

Nah if he can make 98 from no. 11 he should be able to make double-tons from no. 9

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Let's take a moment to appreciate the good work done by one of their workhorses: Taijul Islam.

The dude has a hattrick on debut in ODIs, and yet we hardly ever hear about him.

#asset
#bestbangforyourbuck

 

[Black_Warrior]

What does being made to take an unusually large amount of the workload for both batting and bowling have the slightest bit to do with Bangladeshi pitches? Is there something about Bangladesh that makes its cricketers unusually good all-rounders?

Check the posts above. The whole argument is that Shakib has these stats because he plays for Bangladesh and not Australia, England or South Africa. So I'd suggest you pose this question to them.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah I think you have misunderstood my point, which is that playing for Bangladesh has allowed Shakib to reach his potential as an all rounder. If he was playing for one of the better nations he would have been forced more down the specialisation path.

do you think Kumar Sangakarra would be a great player in any Test team around the world?