***Official*** Bangladesh in England

[SpaceMonkey]

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?

The recent move from London to their nice little tax haven says it all really!

 

[Sussexshark]

Hi Langeveldt

Sorry but I thought I covered the point socio-whatever angle. The income for whom? The Bangladeshi cricketers - er, well compared to other nations their income is meagre, but then possibly it is not so meagre when compared to average earnnings in that poor country; the Bangladeshi Cricket Board - they were not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth. Would you say that other sides will make a profit from a tour of Bangladesh - very doubtful. I fully realise that the ICC do not give a toss - they never have (and I am not getting back on my Zim soapbox here). It would not surprise me one iota if all of a sudden Kenya were granted test status, despite clear evidence that their cricket - in terms of ... well in all respects really - has gone backwards at a rate of knots in the last couplke of years or so.

As to who cares if it devalues cricket, you and I do, don't we? As do millions of other cricket-lovers who despair of the way in which the beautiful game is being maladministered - big-time.

I read earlier that another contributor said that all test nations had to start somewhere, and this is true. Anyone with an interest in the history of test cricket will know that NZ went through years without very much success, but there were always good players coming through and gradually NZ became a pretty good test nation, as it is now. I'm sorry but I simply cannot see Bangladesh, with its myriad social problems, its chaotic infrastructure and its abject poverty, being able to take the same journey as NZ. But, hey, I would dearly love to be proved wrong.

In the meantime, I'll stick with what I said before.

Ciao

Peter

 

[Deja moo]

The recent move from London to their nice little tax haven says it all really!

Oh does it ?
You can blame your government for that, thank you.

 

[chris.hinton]

It was an Easy test Match

But Bangladesh should keep there test Status. Look how long it took before New Zealand and Sri Lanka got established on the test Arena

As for Spinners we are short and sadly Terry Jenner is not doing his Job

 

[Neil Pickup]

It was an Easy test Match

But Bangladesh should keep there test Status. Look how long it took before New Zealand and Sri Lanka got established on the test Arena

As for Spinners we are short and sadly Terry Jenner is not doing his Job

Let me get this straight - are you telling me that Terry Jenner isn't perfect?!

 

[Richard]

However, next time the Bangles come here, which will be in about 2012, they may well have quite a decent team. Most of this XI will be just embarking on their peak periods about then, and one would have thought that in the intervening seven or eight years they might learn a thing or two.

And the exact same thing would probably have been said in India when they toured Bagladesh in 2000\01.
Indeed, the same thing might well have been said when Bangladesh played their first ODI in 1985\86.
20 years later, they're every bit as poor as ever.

 

[marc71178]

One cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

 

[Richard]

Entertainment..thats all I wanted. The game is a dud as far as I, and probably everyone, is concerned. Given the decent weather forecasts, would it really have done any harm just to have continued batting say to the end of the day...ECB get their dosh from ticket sales (do they have to refund some if less than a certain amount is played tomorrow, the crowd and the TV veiwers get maybe to see so swashbuckling entertainment..and the game would still be over by tea tomorrow.

I am not really bothered about any gain from a cricketing standpoint..I wanted to see some action

I repeat... what is so entertaining about seeing a player we've all seen batter the ball around the park plenty of times before smash such a rubbish attack?

 

[superkingdave]

and we are actually scheduled to tour Bangladesh 2006-2007, right between the Ashes and the World Cup, wonder what kind of team we'll send?

 

[Richard]

I doubt it - this mythical figure doesn't count games with certain sides.

Keep ascertaining the "mythical" bit all you like - fact is, it exists, just as a ginger-haired average would exist if someone compiled it.

 

[Richard]

Since you always claim to know what you are talking about, you will be able to tell us how often you have watched Sussex XXII and which new players they have brought in who have demonstrated the kind of class Ian Bell showed this afternoon.

Ian Bell showed the same sort of class he's been showing for the last 2 seasons, and that he showed in 2001. Nothing is of the slightest relevance to proper Test-cricket, unlike the 70 he scored on Test-debut last season.

However, some of us are less energetic than you and would prefer a pleasant afternoon in the sun watching some good cricketers demonstrating their skills to sitting at home devising ever more bizarre theories to explain why nobody should enjoy cricket or think any of the players are any good.

So... another curmadgeon-based comment.
No, I don't try to see the best in everything in every cricketer, unlike some people.

 

[Richard]

Let me take you back a few years. Specifically to 1999 and the utterly abject performance England put up against New Zealand to become officially the worst team in the world.

I turned up to watch the England-Zimbabwe Test at Lord's in 2000 with some foreboding: although I thought we were strong enough to beat them and frankly ought to wipe the floor with them, I had some queasiness about whether or not England would actually deliver. It was by no means a foregone conclusion.

I find it rather reassuring that this game is a total mismatch. It should be a routine demolition job and it is. And that is a mark of how far we have come in the last six or seven years, because I can certainly remember when this would not have been routine.

Contrary to Richard's ridiculous assertion that this is like watching a county XXII against a club side, what it is actually like is watching a very good Test side coming up against a moderate international U-19 XI. After all, there's only about two or three Bangles who weren't eligible for the U-19s last year, if not this.

Naturally, it's a mismatch, but there is the same interest when watching the underdogs as there is in watching any U-19 side: you want to pick out the guys who are going to be good in years to come, and it looks to me like there are a few in this Bangladesh XI.

We already knew Mortaza and Rafique could bowl to county standard (although Rafique is already looking retirement in the face), but I've been fairly impressed with Aftab Ahmed, Anwar Hossain and especially Mushfiqur Rahim, who will be a big star some years from now.

They mostly haven't done themselves justice, showing that they are still too wide-eyed about being the first Bangladeshi team to play at Lord's Cricket Ground, London NW8. But a number of these young cricketers look pretty good to me and saying they are pathetic is pretty damn simplistic in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

If Bangladesh hadn't been so utterly pathetic for most of the last 20 years it might be a different thing. Fact is, you can use the "inexperience" one for a new thing pretty much every time, but it's worn thin long, long ago.
As for comparing them to Zim 2000... bull. Zimbabwe in 2000 were a reasonable side and there was a possibility of them doing at Lord's as they did at Trent Bridge. Fortunately, England played a very fine game (harbinger of most of the year to come) and hammered them. A far better comparison would be Zim 2003 - they shouldn't even have been there, either.
As for picking-out the superstars of years to come... you could have said the same thing about so many of the Bangladeshis who've been picked in the last 5 years. Fact is, nothing ever comes of them and the only way it will is if they stop playing teams who are currently so stupidly better than them.

 

[Richard]

Good post Mike.

It's common knowledge that the Bangas are a fairly moderate side.

However, like SL, NZ and others before them, they need time and exposure to improve.

The only dangers are in people reading too much into the English performance and/or crucifying the Bangas for their own.

No, they need exposure to a more suitable level of cricket to improve. Unlike NZ and WI, they won't gain by playing Test-matches, because Test-cricket is not the same now as it was in the 1930s.
As for reading too much into England's performances... forget it, in a few months' time almost everyone will have forgotten that the career figures of everyone who played in this series includes games against opposition not fit to grace Test-cricket... I'll remember it, of course, but I'll just get the usual "ICC class them as a Test-nation - these matches, therefore, have to be classed as equal to matches against Test-class sides".

 

[Richard]

Haha, great post mate.

Richard's gone strangely quiet.

No, just haven't been here recently.
Do you really think I'm one to let utter rubbish like that go untouched?
I'd add that it's rare of Mike to spout that sort of rubbish - normally his posts are quality.
My problem with him is his insolence.

 

[Richard]

Mashud keeping it together nicely.

Looks like Batty won't do anything in this game... no catches, no bowling, no batting.

The great relief is that it's not a case of no-bat, no-bowl, dropped-catches.

 

[superkingdave]

why great relief? he's a very good fielder

 

[Richard]

England win by an innings and 261 runs. The only good points for Bangladesh really were Mashud's second innings 44 and some good bowling from Mortaza. Rahim didn't make ,any runs but looked pretty good as well.

Very polished performance from England. All four bowlers put in solid efforts after a poor start, and all of the top 5 had plenty of time in the middle and made some runs.

Hopefully the pitch in Durham won't be too bad, and Bangladesh can at least make England bat twice.

Hardly likely, there was little wrong with this pitch, Bangladesh just aren't close to being good enough, just like Zim 2003 (and we weren't as confident a side then, either).
And as for all bowlers putting in solid efforts... sorry, WTF? Jones was the only one who bowled well. Hoggard lost control of his front-foot in a way that can only be described as terrifying given what's in store in the upcoming months, especially when you look at the number of no-balls Caddick and Gough bowled in 2001; Harmison bowled crap again; and Flintoff wasn't anywhere near his normal accurate self, and insisted on bowling the bumper-nonsense we've seen him revert to when things are going poorly.
As for Khaled Mashud... can there ever have been a more overhyped innings, especially by the normally realistic Mr. Boycott?

 

[Richard]

why great relief? he's a very good fielder

Exactly - so can you imagine what it'd have felt like if he'd got 1 thing to do all game... and messed it up?
Terrible.

 

[Richard]

Oh whatever. They both play so crap I don`t really care. Give it to Mashud I say. He seems to be the only one with a decent technique.

Already done, pal.
Khaled - understandibly - got sick of captaincy after WC2003, and handed it to his namesake.

 

[Richard]

It was an Easy test Match

But Bangladesh should keep there test Status. Look how long it took before New Zealand and Sri Lanka got established on the test Arena

And look at how few Tests they played.
Incidentally... it took Sri Lanka 2 or 3 years to get established in the Test arena.