***Official*** Australia in Bangladesh 2017

[CricAddict]

All those things you're talking about are literally just one team playing better than another, not exactly what I think he meant by "things going for them".

An example of "things going for them" would be winning the toss on a deteriorating wicket, or playing a touring side that had their only warm-up game washed out, or having your opposition's leading fast bowler injured half way through an innings.


Playing well and making a hundred, bowling better, not dropping catches, someone who's been injured in the past not getting injured --> these are not the same kind of "things going for them", it's just playing better.

Yes, these points too.

 

[the big bambino]

Wishing for an opposition player to be banned is right up there with wishing for rain or injury.


Then again, can't expect any better from fans of a minnow nation can I.

On reflection, and since I've just checked the score, I agree. He can play.

 

[honestbharani]

Wow.. what a performance here from the Aussies. But very bad day to go back to #BadBangla for the Tigers. Good to see Lyon do well again though.

 

[the big bambino]

Surely a half second clip of him rubbing his hands and the ball on the ground is a bit of a storm in a tea cup?

Really your opinion on a transgression shouldn't be decided on which team is doing it.

 

[Burgey]

Lyon's all over these batsmen like a fat kid on cake here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

All Bangla need to do is get 60-70 in front to be in the game here

 

[Gnske]

If only Bangladesh had a few women in the side to mitigate the O'Keefe threat

 

[cnerd123]

All those things you're talking about are literally just one team playing better than another, not exactly what I think he meant by "things going for them".

An example of "things going for them" would be winning the toss on a deteriorating wicket, or playing a touring side that had their only warm-up game washed out, or having your opposition's leading fast bowler injured half way through an innings.

Playing well and making a hundred, bowling better, not dropping catches, someone who's been injured in the past not getting injured --> these are not the same kind of "things going for them", it's just playing better.

I'm pretty sure that's the implication. The way Howe_zat said it, he said BD can only win if:

> Tamim, Shakib, Rahim score runs
> Mehdi and Shakib take wickets on a pitch that suits them
> They win the toss

And like, 2/3rds of that is basically saying 'If BD play well, they win'. Of course if a teams key players perform they win, just as if they don't perform the team loses. It's kind of how cricket works. BD are not unique in that sense.

I don't think the Toss is that relevant because, as we see here, you can bat second and win in these conditions if you are good with the ball on Day 1. Lyon did what I expect Mehdi to be capable of - rip apart a side on a Day 1 spinning pitch with the new ball. I don't think the toss is as crucial as it is being made out to be. This myth existed with playing India in India until teams kept winning tosses, batting first and still losing. These are similar conditions and I think the same theory applies.

Aus lacking prep is definitely an advantage that BD got, ut basically all sides lack any real prep before they tour overseas now days anyways. No one wants to prop that excuse up for when SL or WI or BD lose overseas. A side getting to have proper prep pre-series is considered a luxury, not a pre-requisite, and therefore a lack of prep isn't some advantage in a way that is extremely unlikely and unique to the situation.

I'll give you that BD got fortunate with Haze getting injured midway. That was definitely lucky. But do you really think BD lose that Test if Haze hadn't pulled up lame at that point? He bowled 15 wicketless overs in the first innings, and by the time he pulled up hurt BD already had a 50 odd run lead. Cummins only bowled 14 overs in that innings anways as Agar and Lyon did most of the work. They even drafted in a third spinner here instead of a second quick. They were fortunate, sure, but that wasn't a match-defining moment.

 

[Burgey]

I'm pretty sure that's the implication. The way Howe_zat said it, he said BD can only win if:

> Tamim, Shakib, Rahim score runs
> Mehdi and Shakib take wickets on a pitch that suits them
> They win the toss

And like, 2/3rds of that is basically saying 'If BD play well, they win'. Of course if a teams key players perform they win, just as if they don't perform the team loses. It's kind of how cricket works. BD are not unique in that sense.

I don't think the Toss is that relevant because, as we see here, you can bat second and win in these conditions if you are good with the ball on Day 1. Lyon did what I expect Mehdi to be capable of - rip apart a side on a Day 1 spinning pitch with the new ball. I don't think the toss is as crucial as it is being made out to be. This myth existed with playing India in India until teams kept winning tosses, batting first and still losing. These are similar conditions and I think the same theory applies.

Aus lacking prep is definitely an advantage that BD got, ut basically all sides lack any real prep before they tour overseas now days anyways. No one wants to prop that excuse up for when SL or WI or BD lose overseas. A side getting to have proper prep pre-series is considered a luxury, not a pre-requisite, and therefore a lack of prep isn't some advantage in a way that is extremely unlikely and unique to the situation.

I'll give you that BD got fortunate with Haze getting injured midway. That was definitely lucky. But do you really think BD lose that Test if Haze hadn't pulled up lame at that point? He bowled 15 wicketless overs in the first innings, and by the time he pulled up hurt BD already had a 50 odd run lead. Cummins only bowled 14 overs in that innings anways as Agar and Lyon did most of the work. They even drafted in a third spinner here instead of a second quick. They were fortunate, sure, but that wasn't a match-defining moment.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm pretty sure that's the implication. The way Howe_zat said it, he said BD can only win if:

> Tamim, Shakib, Rahim score runs
> Mehdi and Shakib take wickets on a pitch that suits them
> They win the toss

And like, 2/3rds of that is basically saying 'If BD play well, they win'. Of course if a teams key players perform they win, just as if they don't perform the team loses. It's kind of how cricket works. BD are not unique in that sense.

I don't think the Toss is that relevant because, as we see here, you can bat second and win in these conditions if you are good with the ball on Day 1. Lyon did what I expect Mehdi to be capable of - rip apart a side on a Day 1 spinning pitch with the new ball. I don't think the toss is as crucial as it is being made out to be. This myth existed with playing India in India until teams kept winning tosses, batting first and still losing. These are similar conditions and I think the same theory applies.

Aus lacking prep is definitely an advantage that BD got, ut basically all sides lack any real prep before they tour overseas now days anyways. No one wants to prop that excuse up for when SL or WI or BD lose overseas. A side getting to have proper prep pre-series is considered a luxury, not a pre-requisite, and therefore a lack of prep isn't some advantage in a way that is extremely unlikely and unique to the situation.

I'll give you that BD got fortunate with Haze getting injured midway. That was definitely lucky. But do you really think BD lose that Test if Haze hadn't pulled up lame at that point? He bowled 15 wicketless overs in the first innings, and by the time he pulled up hurt BD already had a 50 odd run lead. Cummins only bowled 14 overs in that innings anways as Agar and Lyon did most of the work. They even drafted in a third spinner here instead of a second quick. They were fortunate, sure, but that wasn't a match-defining moment.

I was just giving you examples of what I thought he meant, not trying to argue with you dude.

However I disagree with your logic re. the toss. Just because you can bat second and win, doesn't mean that batting first isn't still a significant advantage, depending on the wicket of course.

 

[morgieb]

All Bangla need to do is get 60-70 in front to be in the game here

I think you need 130-140 minimum to be competitive unless it's a complete minefield, which I don't think this is.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes, I am doing the quoted line. BD win only when things are in their favour. Australia is a much better side than BD and do not lose to BD unless all things go against them. BD is too reliant on Tamim and Shakib. In the first test, both of them fired together and amazingly awesome at that. Also, Smith is this generation's Don. It is rare for him to fail twice in a test.

In my post, I am talking about consistency. If this was a 5 match series, BD would not have won more than the first test since the first test is when all things came together for them.

This argument bothers me because we will never see a Test where all 11 players put in their absolute best performances.

BD's problem isn't a lack of talent as your argument seems to imply. They lack consistency and mental strength. That's really the main difference between them and the other top teams. They crumble too easily under pressure and just aren't as disciplined in all facets of the game. Things like going missing for a session in the field, bad shot selection in crucial moments, dropping catches.

BD win basically when everyone stops ****ing around and gets their **** together. Taijul, Fizzy and Mehdi all have bowled world class spells in the last few tests. Shabbir, Mominul, Mossadek have all shown the ability to bat properly and score runs against good bowling in tough conditions (Kayes 2.0 is a bit of a flat track bully I'll admit). It's not just Shakib, Tamim and Rahim. They actually have a talented side. They just so rarely get their **** together and play to their potential.

Better sides do that. They have fewer bad days. They grit it out. They learn from mistakes. They don't give the other team chances.

And yea, if you think Australia is a better side because of all these things and would probably win a 5 test series, then fine. But the implication that these guys are somehow less than test standard in terms of skill/ability and can only win when the stars align or a few names perform is just incorrect. I mean just look at the Tests they have actually won. They have other players performing in them. Taijul is being heavily overlooked for his contributions with the ball, and usually the other batsmen hang around there and contribute to partnerships that end up being vital in such low scoring games.

It's why performances like these are so frustrating. People just assume that it's because they are a sub-par side when really they're just need more grit and discipline.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Enjoying this fightback.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This argument bothers me because we will never see a Test where all 11 players put in their absolute best performances.

BD's problem isn't a lack of talent as your argument seems to imply. They lack consistency and mental strength. That's really the main difference between them and the other top teams. They crumble too easily under pressure and just aren't as disciplined in all facets of the game. Things like going missing for a session in the field, bad shot selection in crucial moments, dropping catches.

BD win basically when everyone stops ****ing around and gets their **** together. Taijul, Fizzy and Mehdi all have bowled world class spells in the last few tests. Shabbir, Mominul, Mossadek have all shown the ability to bat properly and score runs against good bowling in tough conditions (Kayes 2.0 is a bit of a flat track bully I'll admit). It's not just Shakib, Tamim and Rahim. They actually have a talented side. They just so rarely get their **** together and play to their potential.

Better sides do that. They have fewer bad days. They grit it out. They learn from mistakes. They don't give the other team chances.

And yea, if you think Australia is a better side because of all these things and would probably win a 5 test series, then fine. But the implication that these guys are somehow less than test standard in terms of skill/ability and can only win when the stars align or a few names perform is just incorrect. I mean just look at the Tests they have actually won. They have other players performing in them. Taijul is being heavily overlooked for his contributions with the ball, and usually the other batsmen hang around there and contribute to partnerships that end up being vital in such low scoring games.

It's why performances like these are so frustrating. People just assume that it's because they are a sub-par side when really they're just need more grit and discipline.

In all honesty I think you're just empathising with Bangladesh more than the other teams they play because, well, they're your team. They're far from the only team that has mental lapses, and while you seem pretty firm on the idea that they are just as "talented" as every other team and the difference is just concentration issues/mental fortitude, I'm not sure that's the reality.

 

[Gnske]

Does anyone else only see a great empty void of talent when they see Sabbir, Imrul and Soumya?

 

[Prince EWS]

This argument bothers me because we will never see a Test where all 11 players put in their absolute best performances.

I think the point people (especially Howe) were/are making is that Bangladesh need a few very specific players to perform for them to have a chance, because the rest are useless.

I fundamentally disagree with that (the reason most of their batsmen aren't really Test standard is that they're inconsistent; not that they're completely incapable), but it's a different point to the one you're arguing against.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the point people (especially Howe) were/are making is that Bangladesh need a few very specific players to perform for them to have a chance, because the rest are useless.

I fundamentally disagree with that (the reason most of their batsmen aren't really Test standard is that they're inconsistent; not that they're completely incapable), but it's a different point to the one you're arguing against.

I think that's the same point I'm arguing against though - that this side isn't incapable, just really bad at turning that potential into actual performances, especially when it matters.

 

[cnerd123]

Essentially 6/5 now.


Sigh

 

[Prince EWS]

I think that's the same point I'm arguing against though

You're doing a bad job then IMO.

To me you seem like you're saying that Bangladesh needing 4-5 players to be effective to compete isn't unique because it's true for any Test team, but that's a lazy argument because people are saying that the problem with Bangladesh is that it needs to be the same 4-5, while for other teams it can be any four from a group of 11 (or maybe 9 or something if they have a couple of passengers). You're not really arguing against the point they're making;

I don't really agree with that argument people make, because Bangladesh's lesser players have actually done something in Test cricket at one stage or another and are therefore capable (just not good enough to do it consistently) but you're tackling the argument in a weird, straw-manny kind of way.

 

[cnerd123]

You're doing a bad job then IMO.

To me you seem like you're saying that Bangladesh needing 4-5 players to be effective to compete isn't unique because it's true for any Test team, but that's a lazy argument because people are saying that the problem with Bangladesh is that it needs to be the same 4-5, while for other teams it can be any four from a group of 11 (or maybe 9 or something if they have a couple of passengers). You're not really arguing against the point they're making;

I don't really agree with that argument people make, because Bangladesh's lesser players have actually done something in Test cricket at one stage or another and are therefore capable (just not good enough to do it consistently) but you're tackling the argument in a weird, straw-manny kind of way.

Well I don't know for sure which argument Howe was making (that BD are somehow unique on relying on a handful of players, or that they are unique in that rest of their side is useless) so I tried to argue both.

CricAddict seems clear that he feels the rest of the BD side is incapable, and so I'm more clear with him that that's wrong and what they really lack is just the ability to actually turn their talent to performances.