**Official** Bangladesh in West Indies

[PY]

and to come back and avoid the whitewash and see a Lara record is more than any West Indian supported could have asked for.

Surely you are settling for small things rather than aiming big. When was the last time the West Indies won a Test match? A bloody long time ago!!

A small check puts it at Zimbabwe which was 9 Test matches ago.

 

[Loony BoB]

Three centuries in a match? Pride? There was no way in a million years that Bangladesh were ever going to bowl the WI out on that track.

I agree with that - even if they chased after it aggressively at first and went a few wickets down, the Windies would have been smart enough to change tact and just bat the rest of the day out and force a draw.

Good going to Bangladesh! Much impressed.

Must we go over this again? Would 3-1 and no record have been better than 3-0 and a world record in more ways than one? No. The West Indies were thrashed in the first 3 Tests and to come back and avoid the whitewash and see a Lara record is more than any West Indian supported could have asked for.

I agree. But having said that, I also think that just as Lara's 400* meant more to the Windies than an only POSSIBLE win, Mashud's century meant a lot more to Bangladesh than the vague yet utterly hopeless attempt at a draw. The Windies aren't stupid with their batting and as I said above, they would have just forced a draw and they would have done it easily.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bangladesh Report Card

Hannan Sarkar
1/10
Two dropped catches and 9 runs in two innings, out leaving alone in both innings. He gets a mark for showing up.

Javed Omar
3/10
Batted fairly well in the first innings, but was out to a horrible shot in the second innings.

Habibul Bashar
9/10
He loses his point from his defensive captaincy. Did everything else right and was superb with the bat. A joy to watch.

Rajin Saleh
7/10
One of the TV commentators called him the best batsmen in the Bangladesh team. I don't agree, but he did bat quite well and played a very crucial innings in the second knock. Dropped a sitter though.

Mohammed Ashraful
8/10
This guy is just oozing class. He could be a great batsman for Bangladesh if he would cut out his Dwayne Smith syndrome. Disappointing second innings dismissal.

Faisal Hossain
1/10
See Chanderpaul.

Mushfiqur Rahman
7/10
Impressive bowling in the first innings on an undresponsive pitch.

Khaled Mashud
9/10
Oustanding keeping and a fine fine hundred in the second knock. Much credit for a fine performance in this Test.

Mohammad Rafique
8/10
He gets most of his points for his batting, because he didn't bowl particularly well. Gayle and Sarwan gave the ball more flight than he did and I truly think he could have been a handful had he been more attacking. Very disappointing bowling.

Tapash Baisya
8/10
He gets his marks for effort. He bowled with great heart and was quite good too. Deserved at least another 3-4 wickets. Well-played.

Tareq Aziz
5/10
Didn't bowl particularly well, but had Gayle dropped a couple of times early, which doesn't help a young bowler on debut. He batted very well.

 

[Loony BoB]

But it's more positive to believe that you can and to express that by going for it. Bangladesh had the match safely for a draw in any case.

Yes, but this way they ended up with three centuries in a test match.

Let's see.

Door #1) Have a draw with two test centuries and leave your last potential centurion stranded in the 80's or 90's. Suffer facing a good friend that you denied a maiden century once the draw actually comes by. Suffer the hurt feelings in the team, because the magic of a test century was denied. Possibly the only test century this guy will ever have. For a draw that they would have had anyway. Ow.
Door #2) Have the spirits of your team on a true magical high as you get three centuries to boost your countries total 100's to eight. Par-tay!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Surely you are settling for small things rather than aiming big. When was the last time the West Indies won a Test match? A bloody long time ago!!

A small check puts it at Zimbabwe which was 9 Test matches ago.

3-1 is still a thrashing, but is not a whitewash. 3-0 is still a thrashing, but not a whitewash and with 400*.

Also, it's M-x-y-z-p-t-l-k.

Pronounced... mix, yez, spit, lick.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree. But having said that, I also think that just as Lara's 400* meant more to the Windies than an only POSSIBLE win, Mashud's century meant a lot more to Bangladesh than the vague yet utterly hopeless attempt at a draw. The Windies aren't stupid with their batting and as I said above, they would have just forced a draw and they would have done it easily.

1/ It was Mashud who was going for a hundred.

2/ Yes. The West Indies are that stupid with their batting. :P We almost let Zimbabwe bowl us out in one session last year!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Door #1) Have a draw with two test centuries and leave your last potential centurion stranded in the 80's or 90's. Suffer facing a good friend that you denied a maiden century once the draw actually comes by. Suffer the hurt feelings in the team, because the magic of a test century was denied. Possibly the only test century this guy will ever have. For a draw that they would have had anyway. Ow.

That said, Mashud could have gone a bit aggressively at his hundred... especially facing Chris Gayle.

 

[Loony BoB]

1/ It was Mashud who was going for a hundred.

2/ Yes. The West Indies are that stupid with their batting. :P We almost let Zimbabwe bowl us out in one session last year!

1) Yeah, I fixed that. xD My bad. Fixed your name, too. Had an i where the l should have been.

2) "Almost" being the operative word. I'm sure they learned from their mistake, too, and I doubt Lara would allow himself to fall into that trap on this wicket.

 

[Loony BoB]

That said, Mashud could have gone a bit aggressively at his hundred... especially facing Chris Gayle.

I wouldn't be more aggressive against the man with that kind of line. Especially if he got me out in the first innings. Gayle earned the respect he was given.

 

[PY]

Also, it's M-x-y-z-p-t-l-k.

Pronounced... mix, yez, spit, lick.

I've been here for 17 months now and seen you post 8000+ times so unfortunately, you spelling it one more time isn't going to help.

Always wondered how it was pronounced though so guess that part of the post wasn't a total waste.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I wouldn't be more aggressive against the man with that kind of line. Especially if he got me out in the first innings. Gayle earned the respect he was given.

Good point and on second consideration, I agree. Gayle did bowl quite well.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Faisal Hossain
1/10
See Chanderpaul.

Fielded superbly in the first innings - if Chanders can have 2/10, so can Faisal!

(Does Lara get 9/10 for Antigua? )

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Fielded superbly in the first innings - if Chanders can have 2/10, so can Faisal!

(Does Lara get 9/10 for Antigua? )

He didn't drop Flintoff. Stupid rule.

Not sure why I gave Chanders a 2. He didn't deserve it.

 

[roseboy64]

2) "Almost" being the operative word. I'm sure they learned from their mistake, too, and I doubt Lara would allow himself to fall into that trap on this wicket.

The West Indies never seem to learn so that doesn't seem to have any clout.

 

[marc71178]

How in world is 3-0 down, facing a whitewash and achieving a draw anything like 0-0, 1st Test, playing well, never won a Test match and settling for a draw?

Erm, in neither match was a result likely...

 

[marc71178]

Yeah but Bangladesh will most probably play only in similar wickets and against even tougher opposition.

Since when did the Bangladeshis choose the wickets for away games?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Erm, in neither match was a result likely...

But Bangladesh had far more to gain from at least looking like they wanted to win and thought they could win. It's more about being positive than anything else.

 

[marc71178]

Faisal Hossain
1/10
See Chanderpaul.

Yet Chanderpaul got 2/10 - a clear case of bias I tell you!

 

[Loony BoB]

But Bangladesh had far more to gain from at least looking like they wanted to win and thought they could win. It's more about being positive than anything else.

Not if you don't get what you're after. They were realistic, and that is a good thing to be. I think they played quite positively. They just knew their limits and played to them as best they could.

 

[chicane]

Since when did the Bangladeshis choose the wickets for away games?

I obviously didn't mean that,but oh well . Now whenever they encounter bouncing or seaming wickets their batting won't cope with any other test attack (not including Zim) and on flat decks like this their bowlers won't be able to pick up 20 wickets. Simple as that. Their only chance is in a loose track with lots of turn, no pace and bounce. And even then their chances are low.