***Official*** Bangladesh in England

[aussie]

If we can't discover a better spinner than Batty in the next 4-5 years, then things really are grim on the spin front.

Cheers,

Mike

thats true, lets hope Swann or some leg-spinner from somwhere come up, but according to the tradition of english spinners that seems unlikely

 

[Scaly piscine]

I wish people would realise that from the early days of Test cricket there have been new countries that get annihilated. I don't really see how teams thrashing Bangladesh somehow takes away from the value of a Test between 2 other teams, there will always be weaker teams in Test cricket. Is England v Germany in football spoilt because of the likes of San Marino, American Samoa and Scotland playing football internationals? Is England v Australia in rugby union spoilt because of teams like Romania, Japan and Scotland playing internationals?

 

[marc71178]

He knows he'll never displace Giles, he can only hope to keep the no2 spot till Giles finally retires (which shouldnt be THAT far in the distant future)

Giles is hardly ancient. I'd say he's at least 3 or 4 more years.

 

[superkingdave]

The Simon Marshall will be ready to take his place

 

[badgerhair]

I wish people would realise that from the early days of Test cricket there have been new countries that get annihilated. I don't really see how teams thrashing Bangladesh somehow takes away from the value of a Test between 2 other teams, there will always be weaker teams in Test cricket. Is England v Germany in football spoilt because of the likes of San Marino, American Samoa and Scotland playing football internationals? Is England v Australia in rugby union spoilt because of teams like Romania, Japan and Scotland playing internationals?

The difficulty isn't with taking away from India v Pakistan. It's with upsetting the accepted scale of values.

Getting a Test hundred is supposed to be a big thing for a player: it goes on the record, it can't be ignored, if someone says you're a crap batsman, you can point to your Test ton and say that you weren't always one, whatever you might be now. Opposition teams who haven't encountered you before are supposed to be able to see your name on the team sheet and say to themselves that you are a serious batsman because you've got several Test hundreds.

It all gets rather pointless if you have to add "but it was against Bangladesh" every time you mention it because nobody actually takes your achievement seriously.


Players who chase milestones and puff their averages tend to get rather sniffed at: among the freemasonry of the world's leading cricketers, you earn your respect by achievements which the others recognise as being worthy.

It occurs to me that the timing of Vaughan's declaration may have been prompted by precisely this line of thought, and that he didn't want Bell saddled immediately with a "but only against the Bangles" tag when he had a perfectly good 70 from a serious Test to quote as a career high.

This is plainly not logical or necessary to the winning and losing of Test matches. But Test cricket has cultural rules as well as playing conditions.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Maybe Mike, but I wager tomorrow's play off game involving Sheffield Wednesday had more bearing on the timing of the declaration...

 

[Blaze]

Giles is hardly ancient. I'd say he's at least 3 or 4 more years.

Will you cry when he retires?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I say we should play reverse batting order for the next test.

Harmison and Hoggard opening with Jones at 3.

 

[SJS]

I wish people would realise that from the early days of Test cricket there have been new countries that get annihilated. I don't really see how teams thrashing Bangladesh somehow takes away from the value of a Test between 2 other teams, there will always be weaker teams in Test cricket. Is England v Germany in football spoilt because of the likes of San Marino, American Samoa and Scotland playing football internationals? Is England v Australia in rugby union spoilt because of teams like Romania, Japan and Scotland playing internationals?

You are right ia all you say. There is just one difference.

Cricket is TOO dominated by statistics. I think the fear, subconcious, is not just that the game will be diluted, but the credibility of the cricket stats would be diluted.

I am not saying I agree with this. Its a debatable point. But already there is so much talk of soand so having boosted his average by his big exploits against the minnows.

I sometimes think we need to go the tennis way. Where there are the big tournaments, the very big tournaments (the grand slams) and the tournaments which are hardly ever frequented by the top players.

The stats for the slams are a part of the tennis stats or the career stats iof a player and yet they are quoted separately when discussing the very top performers.

It cant be good for the game that it is not played by more nations but it cant be good also if every one is allowed to participate in the grand slams of cricket. Tenis doesnt alow that.

Considering that its not a team game, allowing 128 players in a grand slam is much tighter restriction than in test arena (I know, I know its not a great example).

I think we need to have test matches AND other ICC sponsered longer duration (3-4-5 days) international games. This , unfortunately, is being done only in the limited over game. Something on these lines for longer duration 'test' matches cant be that bad. Maybe matches between the "elite' teams could be called "super tests" - cricketing grand slams.

There will have to be a system of relegation and promotion, maybe once every three years or so.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I think we need to have test matches AND other ICC sponsered longer duration (3-4-5 days) international games. This , unfortunately, is being done only in the limited over game. Something on these lines for longer duration 'test' matches cant be that bad. Maybe matches between the "elite' teams could be called "super tests" - cricketing grand slams.

That's, roughly speaking, exactly the current system...

 

[marc71178]

Will you cry when he retires?

Erm no, why would I cry?

 

[Blaze]

Erm no, why would I cry?

You just seem to like him..... a lot

 

[SJS]

That's, roughly speaking, exactly the current system...

I am sugesting a subtle difference.

The matches played by other (currently non test) international sides should be given an equal status as the matches played by the test playing sides and the stats of all these matches (played by test or non test sides should be allowed to be added as one.

People can pick from that the records made in the (so called) Super tests (or whatever they want to call them) for the purpose of more detailed analysis. The way Ashes tests stats can be picked out today from the test stats.

ICC should not be allowed to restrice any side from playing international cricket which is acorded the same status as the "elite' teams.

I am suggesting one international game in which everyone can play. Of course, it may be difficult to get a full fledged Australian side to play a German sidebecause australia may not be interested. Same happens even today in other sports.

India has never ever played a ful fledged Brazilain or Argentinian side since I was born at least and thats half a century ago. But Indias matches even with Nepal have the same international footbal match status as those between Brazil and Argentina.

 

[EnglishRose]

If we can't discover a better spinner than Batty in the next 4-5 years, then things really are grim on the spin front.

Cheers,

Mike

Mark Lawson was touted as the great English leg spinning hope of the future a few months back.
However, he wasn't overly impressive on England U-19's recent tour of India -- how's he faring at county level ?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I am sugesting a subtle difference.

The matches played by other (currently non test) international sides should be given an equal status as the matches played by the test playing sides and the stats of all these matches (played by test or non test sides should be allowed to be added as one.

People can pick from that the records made in the (so called) Super tests (or whatever they want to call them) for the purpose of more detailed analysis. The way Ashes tests stats can be picked out today from the test stats.

ICC should not be allowed to restrice any side from playing international cricket which is acorded the same status as the "elite' teams.

I am suggesting one international game in which everyone can play. Of course, it may be difficult to get a full fledged Australian side to play a German sidebecause australia may not be interested. Same happens even today in other sports.

India has never ever played a ful fledged Brazilain or Argentinian side since I was born at least and thats half a century ago. But Indias matches even with Nepal have the same international footbal match status as those between Brazil and Argentina.

Ah. Too subtle for my young mind to grasp.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I am sugesting a subtle difference.

The matches played by other (currently non test) international sides should be given an equal status as the matches played by the test playing sides and the stats of all these matches (played by test or non test sides should be allowed to be added as one.

People can pick from that the records made in the (so called) Super tests (or whatever they want to call them) for the purpose of more detailed analysis. The way Ashes tests stats can be picked out today from the test stats.

ICC should not be allowed to restrice any side from playing international cricket which is acorded the same status as the "elite' teams.

I am suggesting one international game in which everyone can play. Of course, it may be difficult to get a full fledged Australian side to play a German sidebecause australia may not be interested. Same happens even today in other sports.

India has never ever played a ful fledged Brazilain or Argentinian side since I was born at least and thats half a century ago. But Indias matches even with Nepal have the same international footbal match status as those between Brazil and Argentina.

Indeed, this is how it happens in most other international sports. The problems in cricket arise from the rigid Test structure imposed on Test class teams by the ICC. Teams go from not playing Test cricket to playing 3-4 Test series every year like Bangladesh have. Their first class structure hasn't had time to catch up with it really, a Bangladesh playing a Test every other week will progress just as slowly as a Bangladesh playing every couple of months because this generation of players have not had the experience and competition below Test level to have the skill & technique. Lots of international cricket will possibly hinder this process as players don't have time to improve their technique.

 

[tooextracool]

i was thinking that he should open with Hoggard and then let the 7-foot-something bang-it-in brothers can come in and bully the batsmen out. BTW, Flintoff is an absolute Barbarian. He was only bowling at around 82 mph and was still as brutal as usual.

yet he bowled fairly poorly. whether or not the short stuff was for b'desh only i dont know, but bowl like that against australia and he'll be hammered all over the park.

 

[tooextracool]

Actually, some might argue you could replace Did with Can and it'd describe GB very well.

to be fair, he isnt really a poor batsman, played some very valuable innings in SL. probably a better batter than some of the b'desh batsmen.

 

[Langeveldt]

Why in God's name did the ICC allow this to happen? Yeah, I know, they're a load of braindead morons (rather like Jacques Chirac really!) but surely they should have seen what the inevitable result would be.

You need to realize what is actually happening.. The scope for income with a country like Bangladesh is vast.. Who cares if it devalues test cricket.. Do you think the ICC really care about test cricket, or the coffers?

 

[badgerhair]

You need to realize what is actually happening.. The scope for income with a country like Bangladesh is vast.. Who cares if it devalues test cricket.. Do you think the ICC really care about test cricket, or the coffers?

Why does it devalue Test cricket any more than the MCC Universities sides devalue first-class cricket?

This was the last tour arranged under the old regime. Now, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will be playing far fewer Tests (as a result of this decision, we don't have to go to Zimbabwe for ages), so their matches will have about the same significance as county v University games.

Is this such a terrible thing, especially as it looks quite probable that Bangladesh will have a fairly decent side when their team grows up?

Cheers,

Mike