First to score an ODI double century

[Richard]

Of course it's an anomaly - but it could quite easily have not been.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Could, could, could. What makes teams is whether they do or don't. This lot patently didn't.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And incidentally, I had a dream about an ODI double-century last night. Brian Lara made 342* batting at five against England.

There was also some random guy called Nazim or Nazam or something batting at ten who made 200*.

My dreams scare me.

 

[Richard]

Why? Everyone else will have had dreams about totally obscure things.
Hell, if we can score 300 in 20 overs (without losing a wicket) then anything's possible.

 

[Richard]

Could, could, could. What makes teams is whether they do or don't. This lot patently didn't.

"Could"s do make a difference.
What matters is not winning IMO, it is competing - and Zimbabwe regularly did. Hence, as far as I'm concerned they merited Test-status until the post-WC2003 fallout.

 

[Barney Rubble]

And incidentally, I had a dream about an ODI double-century last night. Brian Lara made 342* batting at five against England.

There was also some random guy called Nazim or Nazam or something batting at ten who made 200*.

My dreams scare me.

They scare me too!

342* at 5, 200* at 10 - 9th wicket partnership of more than 400.....hope England never get that bad!

 

[marc71178]

What matters is not winning IMO, it is competing

Aside from the fact competing means nothing (at least you say that when we talk about Bangladesh competing better now) - I still don't see that they did compete in many of the games. 1 win, and in all the draws they conceded 1st innings leads (all but 1 of them by more than 100 runs). Of the losses, only 1 was less than 6 wickets, and 1 less than 100 runs.

 

[Richard]

All of this is impressive use of numbers but IMO it doesn't really tell the true story.
And competing most certainly does mean something - and just because Bangladesh are coming closer to competing now than they were 2 years ago, still doesn't mean much!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

All of this is impressive use of numbers but IMO it doesn't really tell the true story.
And competing most certainly does mean something - and just because Bangladesh are coming closer to competing now than they were 2 years ago, still doesn't mean much!

New Zealand and the West Indies didn't exactly win a bunch when they started out.

Competing more now means a hell of a lot. Common sense would dictate that a team that was regularly thrashed and then starts to compete is improving. Improvement is gradual toward consistent victories. Bangladesh were predicted to roll over against Australia and they fought hard. Against Pakistan they pushed almost to the point of victory on two occasions. Then they pushed the West Indies in 3 ODIs and 1 Test. That's improvement.

 

[Prince EWS]

Elton Chigumbura.

Mark my words!

 

[The Baconator]

Bangladesh are improving but they've still got a long way to go
i reckon they'll win their first test pretty soon

 

[marc71178]

All of this is impressive use of numbers but IMO it doesn't really tell the true story.

I know the true story is that in supposed spell when they weren't substandard, they won 1 out of 34 competitive Tests.

And competing most certainly does mean something - and just because Bangladesh are coming closer to competing now than they were 2 years ago, still doesn't mean much!

Yet even when Zimbabwe were being beaten time and again it does mean something because you have this theory that they were competing in every game (in spite of the large number of heavy defeats and 1st innings deficits)

 

[SJS]

Stats show that big scores are becoming rare.

There hasnt been a score above 175 since jan 2000.

Five of the top scores in the last 5 years have been against the second rung teams.

More later

 

[Richard]

New Zealand and the West Indies didn't exactly win a bunch when they started out.

No, they didn't - 70 years ago!

Competing more now means a hell of a lot. Common sense would dictate that a team that was regularly thrashed and then starts to compete is improving. Improvement is gradual toward consistent victories. Bangladesh were predicted to roll over against Australia and they fought hard. Against Pakistan they pushed almost to the point of victory on two occasions. Then they pushed the West Indies in 3 ODIs and 1 Test. That's improvement.

Then they were by-and-large hopeless against England (however inept England's batting was on occasions), and have rarely if ever (except that West Indies series) pushed anyone in ODIs. West Indies also thrashed them once they got their act together.
Bangladesh might be competing every now and then - that's still far, far, far too infrequent to merit them of Test and ODI status.

 

[Richard]

I know the true story is that in supposed spell when they weren't substandard, they won 1 out of 34 competitive Tests.

And I've now looked it up myself - it's actually 18 matches in the relevant period, 2000\01-2002\03 (7 of which were in Sri Lanka and India).

Yet even when Zimbabwe were being beaten time and again it does mean something because you have this theory that they were competing in every game (in spite of the large number of heavy defeats and 1st innings deficits)

No, not every game (for instance, they were thrashed in India, twice, and Sri Lanka, like most teams). But plenty enough to merit Test-status.

 

[marc71178]

Bangladesh might be competing every now and then - that's still far, far, far too infrequent to merit them of Test and ODI status.

Yet your beloved Zimbabwe were competing just as infrequently and you don't consider them even substandard...

One rule for one...

 

[krishneelz]

I think glen mcgrath has wat it takes to score 200*

 

[thewizard1o1]

I think glen mcgrath has wat it takes to score 200*

Over how many innings 300? 400?

 

[FRAZ]

This tale ender thing is an old joke in this thread .Aint that funny any more. Get out of it guys ........

 

[krishneelz]

good call fraz