*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Swanny]

Apart from the first hour and a little bit of when Thorpe and Clarke were in today(because frankly it so boring i fell asleep), i did watch it all and thought that although England werent very good, there were definite signs of improvement from Bangladesh.

There tactics reminded me a little bit of when England went to India and decided that whilst they didn't have the bowlers to get the opposition out as such, they'd bore them to death give them nothing then they'd make mistakes. Which was exactly what happened.Trescothick i thought was a bit unlucky,he was batting well at the time, but others played daft shots. Butcher and Clarke got out playing no shot, and Hussains was just casual.

I thought that Clarke and even Thorpe to an extent made a mistake in letting the bowlers dictate a little too much and could have maybe imposed themselves a little more. That said have to agree with Eddie to a degree that there was a lot chucked down leg side which they was difficult to put away.

Speaking as a cricket fan and not just an England fan for a minute though I think the improvement of Bangladesh has been marked. I saw them last year on Sky against South Africa and they were truly woeful(the series in South Africa i'm talking about here). The bowling in particular looked pretty shocking and a long way short of test level. Whilst now it isn't at the level where they can they can dismiss teams cheaply the improvements they've made do show hope for the future. I was all for throwing them out of test cricket 12 months ago now i think my mind have been changed.

 

[Langeveldt]

So if he's erratic and sometimes awful, please explain what the rest of the attack (who are less penetrative and far less economical) are?

You keep using the same stat, which really doesnt say that much about Harmisons credentials as a test bowler, and was only collected over a year or so.. The fact is that there are pace bowlers in England who have proved so much more than SH over a longer time period, yet dont get a look in because they are not "quick" or "intimidating".. it seems like the value of bowling an accurate spell and building up pressure has gone from the England setup, and they are going to suffer for it against better opposition...

 

[luckyeddie]

You keep using the same stat, which really doesnt say that much about Harmisons credentials as a test bowler, and was only collected over a year or so.. The fact is that there are pace bowlers in England who have proved so much more than SH over a longer time period, yet dont get a look in because they are not "quick" or "intimidating".. it seems like the value of bowling an accurate spell and building up pressure has gone from the England setup, and they are going to suffer for it against better opposition...

Number of successful teams in my lifetime without a hostile fast bowler capable of bending his back?

1, New Zealand under Richard Hadlee (who was absolutely brilliant without being a 'hit the deck' merchant). Name me one other. Don't say South Africa. Since Donald retired, they are but a shadow of a successful team.

The value of building up pressure is not to be underestimated, but show me a side containing 4 Kabir Alis or 4 Martin Bicknells or 4 (insert trundler's name here) and I will show you a side incapable of winning test matches

 

[Swanny]

Isn;t it strange that Harmison has started such a huge debate. But from what i've read everyone seems to be going round in a big circle, and equally split into two camps, no in-between. His fans believe him to be raw hostile and potentially explosive whereas his detractors believe him to be a inaccurate quick bowler who will never get wickets against decent batsman.

But the point is whether he takes 5/35 or 0/100 is never going to change either sides mind is it?Can't we just open up a Stephen Harmison thread and then not let every other England thread get dragged down this road. I'm all for debate but hasn't this one gone too far?

 

[luckyeddie]

agreed

 

[Swanny]

Just a general question but what time of the year is it currently in Bangladesh? I just assumed it was Summer there but given the weather i'm beginning to think not.Not only the rain but also today they said when the floodlights didn;t work that it would be completely dark by 5.30. Was this right or just another Sky Sports commentry team mistake?(im not dismissing either option). If so it seems strange that England should be touring a country at a time of year when floodlights are needed for Test cricket post 5 o clock.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In defence of Clarke (!) - we were heading rapidly down a hole and he was playing anchor to Thorpe. Still believe Collingwood has a better shout, but he won't get picked.

Find me someone else who cares so highly about how the wickets come and I might listen. Wickets are wickets, runs are runs, goals are goals etc.

Maintain that Harmison is a legend and that will be the last word of that argument in this thread (mainly because anything else will be deleted).

 

[luckyeddie]

Just a general question but what time of the year is it currently in Bangladesh? I just assumed it was Summer there but given the weather i'm beginning to think not.Not only the rain but also today they said when the floodlights didn;t work that it would be completely dark by 5.30. Was this right or just another Sky Sports commentry team mistake?(im not dismissing either option). If so it seems strange that England should be touring a country at a time of year when floodlights are needed for Test cricket post 5 o clock.

Bangladesh, top end of the Bay of Bengal. Formerly East Pakistan.
Northern hemisphere, rainy season is regarded as June to September although convection storms occur frequently. 23 degrees North (compare with London 51 degrees North, Kingston 18 degrees North, Johannesburg 26 degrees South).

It certainly gets dark at around the time stated - not a mistake by the Sky Sports team.

So, there you have it. Either never play there, go now or go in March.

 

[marc71178]

England have stuttered to 185/4 but it seems Rikki Clarke is leading the recovery charge with a brilliant 1 run off 30 balls.

I always said Clarke was the right man for the job - well done Rikki!

 

[marc71178]

You keep using the same stat, which really doesnt say that much about Harmisons credentials as a test bowler,

Well since that stat says that Harmison is taking wickets at a faster rate, lower economy rate and lower average than the rest of the team, what does it say about the credentials of the rest of the attack then?

 

[marc71178]

Maintain that Harmison is a legend

I don't think anyone is doing that, since it would be stupid, but I will maintain that he is improving and the selectors are again being proven right for looking beyond the numbers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

There was more than a small amount of tongue in cheek.

Think I'm going to dig up the "Kick Bangladesh Out of Test Cricket" Poll..

 

[Richard]

Won't people lay off Clarke - what is it about Collingwood?
Clarke didn't set The World alight. No. But he did better than the likely alternative which was to try going down the wicket, sweeping against the spin, and getting out. I would much prefer see Clarke play like he did than play like he played, for instance, against Murali at The St.Lawrence at the end of last season, albeit in a one-day game.
The bowling might have had the repute of "it's Bangladesh - we should be scoring at 4-an-over", but Clarke had more sense, he realised that no matter what the reputation of these bowlers, the pitch was one offering copious turn (I'd love to see a wristspinner bowl on here) and scoring fast was always going to be fraught with danger.
England would likely have been bowled-out earlier and cheaper than they were but for Clarke's knock. Just a shame he left the one he did, as that was a poor shot, no matter what. Still a pretty reasonable piece of bowling, though. An excellent, and very well-disguised, arm-ball.

 

[luckyeddie]

Richard - re Clarke.

Everyone has their opinions - and it would be a far more boring place if they didn't, I'm sure you agree (we don't see eye to eye re stats, but that's just how it is with opinionated pillocks like us).

You may have detected a little bit of 'feeling' regarding Surrey within these hallowed boards - there have been many instances where personnel have seemingly 'jumped the queue' into the test side and if they played for Surrey, well, it's easy to look in that general direction and nod knowingly.

So it is with Rikki Clarke. Funnily enough, many folks (pre-interwebbything days) were saying the same thing, only substituting the name 'Alec Stewart' for Rikki Clarke. Just the way of the world, I suppose.

I too thought that his 'brief' knock today showed more than a little character - I'm sure that he was under instructions to 'stay there, play for Thorpe' and on reflection, his dismissal was just a misjudgment. The wicket is turning an awful lot (at least from Haque jr.) and he was attempting to cover his stumps.

Who would you have us pick on instead? (note : not Harmison any more than usual anyway)

 

[JohnnyA]

Do we not have any spinners who take the ball of straight? Giles and Batty are useless! They just role the ball with absolutely no purchase. They remind me of Graeme Hick ... in fact, that's an insult to Hick.

 

[luckyeddie]

with England's seam bowlers visibly wilting and the spinners largely ineffective, this game is now firmly within Bangladesh's grasp.

We just might be witnessing history in the making - and fair play to them.

Light's gone now - the umpires have again insisted for the sake of fairness to the fielders that play ends prematurely - with England's seamers sha**ed out, I bet Bangladesh aren't happy with that decision.

Bangladesh 245-6 (a lead on 153) with a day to go. I make that even Steven. Gut feeling is that Bangladesh have a great chance now - but we've said that twice recently.

Harmison and Hoggard gave everything they had early in the afternoon but were soon blunted, Clarke was quite inventive but frankly Giles and Batty, despite bowling a good spell each, were largely disappointing.

The idea of playing two spinners is an avenue we have gone down time and time again on the sub-continent - and it's always a mistake (look at how often we lose the first test - and it's often with two slows in the side). If you have quality slow bowlers, then that's fine and to your advantage. However, there isn't one of the current crop who are test standard. At least one extra seamer next time, please. Better still, drop both slow bowlers and play an all-seam attack of 5 (plus Vaughan the slow option - he's every bit as good as the 'specialists' ).

I'd go further and say that I would be happy if Giles never pulled on the shirt again. I appreciate that Batty is on debut but frankly I'm not that impressed. Play to your strengths, I say.

 

[JohnnyA]

with England's seam bowlers visibly wilting and the spinners largely ineffective, this game is now firmly within Bangladesh's grasp.

We just might be witnessing history in the making - and fair play to them.

Light's gone now - the umpires have again insisted for the sake of fairness to the fielders that play ends prematurely - with England's seamers sha**ed out, I bet Bangladesh aren't happy with that decision.

Bangladesh 245-6 (a lead on 153) with a day to go. I make that even Steven. Gut feeling is that Bangladesh have a great chance now - but we've said that twice recently.

Harmison and Hoggard gave everything they had early in the afternoon but were soon blunted, Clarke was quite inventive but frankly Giles and Batty, despite bowling a good spell each, were largely disappointing.

The idea of playing two spinners is an avenue we have gone down time and time again on the sub-continent - and it's always a mistake (look at how often we lose the first test - and it's often with two slows in the side). If you have quality slow bowlers, then that's fine and to your advantage. However, there isn't one of the current crop who are test standard. At least one extra seamer next time, please. Better still, drop both slow bowlers and play an all-seam attack of 5 (plus Vaughan the slow option - he's every bit as good as the 'specialists' ).

I'd go further and say that I would be happy if Giles never pulled on the shirt again. I appreciate that Batty is on debut but frankly I'm not that impressed. Play to your strengths, I say.

I'm not sure I'd want to go in without an spinner. I think you need at least one to give the fast men a rest in those conditions. Vaughn is good for a short spell, but he isn't conditioned at bowling long spells ... and besides, he has too much on his hands as it is.

P.S. Luckyeddie you're pick is up in the Vintage Draft

 

[Magrat Garlick]

My gut feeling is a draw, sadly. Bangladesh will play on till about 320 all out just before lunch, maybe Hoggard and Harmison will find a way through eventually, but they won't have the courage to declare against England. Then England will just grind their way to 50-60 runs short with 10 overs left, and the match will be decided by the umpires who will again force the light on the English. :rolleyes:

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm not sure I'd want to go in without an spinner. I think you need at least one to give the fast men a rest in those conditions. Vaughn is good for a short spell, but he isn't conditioned at bowling long spells ... and besides, he has too much on his hands as it is.

P.S. Luckyeddie you're pick is up in the Vintage Draft

Fair comment as always - but playing spinners who Vaughan has to continually keep taking off after 4 overs because they are rubbish (in this case) doesn't give the seamers a break. I think the longest spell by an English bowler in the game (not interrupted by an interval or close of play) is probably Clarke - not sure of that.

P.S. Looking now - must read the rules first

 

[luckyeddie]

Day 4 close of play report filed...

here

Previous reports

Day 3

Day 2

Day 1