Which Minnow do you support and why

[marc71178]

Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India and West Indies were all up to standard as soon as they started playing

No, they weren't (definitely not in the case of the 1st 2 mentioned)

 

[Goughy]

Zimbabwe won 1 test in their first 6 years
Sri Lanka....3rd test won in their 11th year
India... 3matches in 24 years
New Zealand took over 30! years to win their second match!!
Windies to be fair had a better start... but nothing too great...

How can you call that up to standard when bangladesh have only been playing 6 years? By what you're saying we should have to wait thirty years to see if bangladesh are any good.. and thats hardly supporting your argument is it?

Theyve already played at lower levels and they are obviously the best of the rest... how will they develop by hammering lesser sides?

You got to be kiding right? Talk about having a pov and trying to prove it with tenuous information. Im not saying the above info is not true. It just is irrevlevant.

You cannot compare Bangladesh's intro to test cricket to the others.

NZ may have taken 30 years to win their 1st test but there was a bloody great war during that time and they were given far fewer tests.

Of NZ first 42 games (the # Bang have played) they:
Drew- 22 (53.4%)
Lost- 20 (47.6%)
Lost by an innings- 10 (23.8%)

Bang first 42 games
Drew- 4 (9.5%)
Lost- 37 (88.1%)
Lost by an innings- 24 (57.1%)

The 1 game Bang won was against a very bad Zim team. Beleive me if during the time the others were introduced another team was so woeful as Zim then they would have been more prompt in their first successes. Add into the fact that 3 of Bangs 4 draws were against Zim shows they are so far off the pace of a 'normal' test team they are in the distance.

The early NZ teams were terrible but they were far more competetive than this Bang. team is. In fact it is not even close. To think that this Bang team is anything but basement level is to be blinkered to basic facts.

 

[albo97056]

You got to be kiding right? Talk about having a pov and trying to prove it with tenuous information. Im not saying the above info is not true. It just is irrevlevant.

You cannot compare Bangladesh's intro to test cricket to the others.

NZ may have taken 30 years to win their 1st test but there was a bloody great war during that time and they were given far fewer tests.

Of NZ first 42 games (the # Bang have played) they:
Drew- 22 (53.4%)
Lost- 20 (47.6%)
Lost by an innings- 10 (23.8%)

Bang first 42 games
Drew- 4 (9.5%)
Lost- 37 (88.1%)
Lost by an innings- 24 (57.1%)

The 1 game Bang won was against a very bad Zim team. Beleive me if during the time the others were introduced another team was so woeful as Zim then they would have been more prompt in their first successes. Add into the fact that 3 of Bangs 4 draws were against Zim shows they are so far off the pace of a 'normal' test team they are in the distance.

The early NZ teams were terrible but they were far more competetive than this Bang. team is. In fact it is not even close. To think that this Bang team is anything but basement level is to be blinkered to basic facts.

You are using the no. of games instead of no. of years which is VERY tenuous indeed... just because they play more cricket nowdays. If you took the first 6 years of any of the countries i stated i doubt youd find the same stats.
Surely you have to look at this from a time pov rather than games played...a players career takes time to develop as well as games played... infrastructure and building of a team takes time NOT necessarily games... so i dont see the relevancy of the first 42 games in this case....
IF in 27 yrs (which is how long it took NZ to play 42 tests and get that percentage record) bangladesh dont have similar win - loss ratios id be very surprised the way cricket is developing there....
i realise there was the war years in there but it still is a LOT more time than the 6 years bangladesh have had...

 

[Goughy]

Theyve already played at lower levels and they are obviously the best of the rest... how will they develop by hammering lesser sides?

How did they prove that? They maybe are now as they have been given the advantage of test cricket but they never proved it in the past in the ICC trophy. In fact Bangladesh have not proved over history that they are far superior to the other better smaller nations.

They won the 1997 ICC trophy. That and the win over Pakistan helped give them premature test status. However, noone ever considered if this was typical, the result of one good team coming together or a flash in the pan. Also it must be considered that this ICC trophy was far weaker than others due to Zims promotion and the cloud over UAEs qualification requirements. Looking at Bangs history the only conclusion is that they were elevated far sooner than they deserved. (How 1 or 2 ODI wins can translate to being test quality is beyond me).

ICC Trophy
1997
Winners- Bang
Runners up- Kenya
Semis- Scotland, Ireland

1994
Winners- UAE
Runners up- Kenya
Semis- Holland, Bermuda
Bangladesh did not reach the Semis

1990
Winners- Zimbabwe
Runners up- Holland
Semis- Kenya, Bangladesh

1986 (2 groups of 7 teams)
Winners- Zimbabwe
Runners up- Holland
Semis- Bermuda, Denmark
Bangladesh finished 6th in their 7 team group only ahead of Argentina

I don't want to go on and on so I will not go into depth for the other tournamants but they did not reach the final in any of them.

Bangladesh never had the provenence to deserve to be promoted so soon, and it seems like the fact that there is a large population and a population that likes cricket is an free pass for poor cricket.

 

[Goughy]

You are using the no. of games instead of no. of years which is VERY tenuous indeed.

Rubbish. You can only compare like for like. If I play 5 tests over 10 years and you play 100 how can you compare the fact you won more games or scored more runs. I have nothing against Bangladesh but you are looking for reasons to justify your belief that they are not as bad as they obviously are.

You can only compare actual numbers and games played is the only criteria.

Also given the tiny and infrequent number of tests NZ had over the time period in question it is far difficult to evolve and progress as a player or as a team than playing that number in 6 years as Bangladesh has done. In fact, if anything Bangladesh have been at a huge advantage by playing their tests in a 6 year period than NZ over 30.

Anyway, I dont want to get involved with someone who has his heart interfering with his opinions so I will respect that you hold a different pov and agree that we will probably never find common ground.

 

[albo97056]

Rubbish. You can only compare like for like. If I play 5 tests over 10 years and you play 100 how can you compare the fact you won more games or scored more runs.QUOTE]

Im not denying that they are bad im just saying they are being unfairly treated when compared to other teams... its got nothing to do with my heart... im an England fan and would always support them over Bangladesh.

And as for that quote... you yourself used ratios in your earlier response to compare their starts.... and now u say you cant use that for comparison?.

But anyway this could go on forever... never mind...

 

[Richard]

You are the worst cricket supporter in this forum(probably in the whole world). It does not worth talking to you. You are that kind of guy who says, whatever happens, I am sticking to my point. Even if Bangladesh keeps beating all the team of the world regularly, you will say, the standard of all those countries has degraded, not that Bangladesh has imporved. So, whats the point of talking with such a moron. PERIOD.

You're far more of a moron than that. You don't really understand what I'm saying.

 

[Richard]

Zimbabwe won 1 test in their first 6 years
Sri Lanka....3rd test won in their 11th year
India... 3matches in 24 years
New Zealand took over 30! years to win their second match!!
Windies to be fair had a better start... but nothing too great...

How can you call that up to standard when bangladesh have only been playing 6 years? By what you're saying we should have to wait thirty years to see if bangladesh are any good.. and thats hardly supporting your argument is it?

Try actually looking at matches played, rather than just "years", which is obviously very, very misleading.
I don't really give a damn, either, how long it took teams to win matches. What matters is whether they're competetive or not. All teams except South Africa pre-1907 and NZ in the 30s, 40s, 50s and most of the 60s were competetive, and possessed good players, immidiately they entered the international arena.
The same is not true of Bangladesh. They've been thrashed every time they've played, and it's not changed at all in Tests.

Theyve already played at lower levels and they are obviously the best of the rest... how will they develop by hammering lesser sides?

Err, when, exactly?

 

[Richard]

No, they weren't (definitely not in the case of the 1st 2 mentioned)

So Zimbabwe, who came close enough to winning their Inaugural Test, weren't Test-standard from the start?
Sri Lanka had fine players from their very first game. To suggest they are remotely as hopeless as Bangladesh is ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

You are using the no. of games instead of no. of years which is VERY tenuous indeed... just because they play more cricket nowdays. If you took the first 6 years of any of the countries i stated i doubt youd find the same stats.
Surely you have to look at this from a time pov rather than games played...

Rubbish. If you only lower the standard for 30 Tests it doesn't matter if you played 40 years. If you play as much as Bangladesh have, you're causing serious damage to the integrity of Test and ODI cricket.
It doesn't matter in the slightest how long things take. People have been playing cricket in Bangladesh since independence. It's not like the talent has to emerge. To date, there's little evidence that the talent can be spotted and nurtured well enough.

 

[Smudge]

You got to be kiding right? Talk about having a pov and trying to prove it with tenuous information. Im not saying the above info is not true. It just is irrevlevant.

You cannot compare Bangladesh's intro to test cricket to the others.

NZ may have taken 30 years to win their 1st test but there was a bloody great war during that time and they were given far fewer tests.

Of NZ first 42 games (the # Bang have played) they:
Drew- 22 (53.4%)
Lost- 20 (47.6%)
Lost by an innings- 10 (23.8%)

Bang first 42 games
Drew- 4 (9.5%)
Lost- 37 (88.1%)
Lost by an innings- 24 (57.1%)

The 1 game Bang won was against a very bad Zim team. Beleive me if during the time the others were introduced another team was so woeful as Zim then they would have been more prompt in their first successes. Add into the fact that 3 of Bangs 4 draws were against Zim shows they are so far off the pace of a 'normal' test team they are in the distance.

The early NZ teams were terrible but they were far more competetive than this Bang. team is. In fact it is not even close. To think that this Bang team is anything but basement level is to be blinkered to basic facts.

Not that I want to talk down my own country’s achievements, but it must be noted that most of our tests in the 1930s to1950s - at least against England - were generally 3-day affairs.

Although, to temper my downplaying, our flagship team of that era was the 1949 team to England. It was packed full with players of the class of Martin Donnelly, a young Bert Sutcliffe, Walter Hadlee, John Reid and Jack Cowie - and possibly the most enduring memory is Donnelly’s 206 at Lord’s.

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1940S/1949/NZ_IN_ENG/NZ_IN_ENG_1949_TEST_AVS.html

This is probably the best story of the love of cricket the 1949 team had - and also the good nature of the Hampshire side.

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1940S/1949/NZ_IN_ENG/NZ_HANTS_15-17JUN1949.html


This from Rod Nye's book on Martin Donnelly:

Hampshire's inning ended with only 35 minutes of play remaining, but with the option of an extra half hour if the umpires thought a result was possible. After consultation, the umpires - Dennis Hendren and Harry Baldwin - advised Hampshire that they were back in the field. Astonishing cricket followed. All the New Zealanders were padded up. Sutcliffe and Donnelly opened, followed by Smith, Reid and Hadlee. In his authobiography, Hadlee reports that 'the massacre started with eleven off each of the first two overs, fourteen off the third, thirteen and ten off the fourth and fifth. When Bert was out for an incredible 46, scored in just thirteen minutes, our total had rushed to 59'.
Martin, playing an anchor role at the other end, remembers with equal admiration Sutcliffe's batting and the generous spirit of Eager and his Hampshire team.

You would be hard-pressed to read a Boy's Own story as exciting. Initially, during their second innings, Eager had become muddled about the amount of time left in the match. He hadn't declared. Charlie Knott had come out to bat, and talking to Walter, said 'Look, I think Desmond's got his numbers wrong. Will you be having a go at the runs?' And Walter had replied, 'Yes. Whatever you set, we'll have a crack at.' First ball, Charlie holed out to Cresswell at cover. A quick conflab by captains and umpires and then we were padded up.
While I'd seen Bert get some lovely runs in the match at Bradford, he somehow wasn't in his top form. But he certainly was against Hampshire. There wasn't a single shot hit across the line, no guessing shots, just all beautiful strokes hitting straight down the line. Turning our minds back to Headingley, where we'd just been, we might have had a go there if Bert had been in such form. He might well have done it on his own!

Sutcliffe's total included three sixes - one a magnificent off-drive - and four fours. Hampshire's fieldsmen sportingly ran into their positions between overs. Hadlee joined Donnelly and the 109 came up in 28 minutes. Donnelly put New Zealand level with a four past slips then dropped one down on the on side for a sprinted single, to complete victory with seven minutes to spare. At the end Donnelly was 39 not out and Hadlee nine. For both teams, figures and result counted less than good sportsmanship and the enthusiastic acceptance of a challenge.

 

[marc71178]

So Zimbabwe, who came close enough to winning their Inaugural Test, weren't Test-standard from the start?
Sri Lanka had fine players from their very first game. To suggest they are remotely as hopeless as Bangladesh is ridiculous.

No, neither were close when they came into the game.

Don't forget what Bangladesh did in their first game...

 

[Richard]

They batted well - once.
Zimbabwe did far more. AND they performed far better thereafter than Bangladesh, who have only rarely avoided utter thrashings.

 

[albo97056]

Rubbish. If you only lower the standard for 30 Tests it doesn't matter if you played 40 years. If you play as much as Bangladesh have, you're causing serious damage to the integrity of Test and ODI cricket.
It doesn't matter in the slightest how long things take. People have been playing cricket in Bangladesh since independence. It's not like the talent has to emerge. To date, there's little evidence that the talent can be spotted and nurtured well enough.

Its only since becoming a test nation that theyve had any kind of investment in the game. It is one of the poorest countries in the world....you cant make a quality side in 6 or even 10 years from those beginnings.

And i dont understand this concept of "integrity". In every other sport we have poor sides and good ones. In football theres games between countries like san marino and andorra which is completely ridiculous in my view... because they have ridiculously small populations that could never.. given however much you invest produce a half decent team... yet these games are still played..Its bound to happen that there will be poor sides in cricket aswell... given the fact that bangladesh is a cricket mad country with over 100 million people... it has one of the most promising futures out of almost any other test nation to move up the rankings over the next 10 years.
So if say... WI are playing porly at the moment.. they were completely not competitive in the last series against new zealand... should we take away new zealands scores and averages for that series? Of course not...All you are saying is that a few averages are going to be inflated... so what? does that really matter... the game is changing anyway.., you cant compare averages nowdays to ones 50 years ago anyway... what with pitches being covered and flatter...better bats... closer boundarys etc. they're just figures and we focus on them too much... Are we just going to let something like that prevent us from spreading the game to millions?
Whether they were fairly placed here or not.. they are here.. and given time will be a good side in future.. You cannot deny they have improved..so what is to be gained from removing them?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Richard's right - Bangladesh have been overwhelmingly poor since they were awarded test status, and certainly not up to the standards that most nations had at the same point in their histories.

The inclusion of Bangladesh was political - a ploy to increase the power of the Asian bloc within the game. Since they've been playing tests I believe that they've devalued test cricket. They haven't been able to compete, in some cases they've been embarrassing.

However! I can certainly tell they are showing definite signs of improvement, and that makes me happy, because I know in 10 years or so we're going to have another strong cricketing nation (with rabid fans) to compete with. Viva la difference!

Now that they are playing - I wish them all the best. I only wish that there had been some clearer heads coming up with better ways to expedite their development on the road to test status.

 

[Sanz]

The inclusion of Bangladesh was political - a ploy to increase the power of the Asian bloc within the game.

 

[chaminda_00]

Well he is right, at the time Kenya were playing as well as them. Considering the level of cricket they are playing now, it was probably a good move, maybe 5 years early though. But i think the teams that are currently below Test cricket, will be a lot more competitve then previously, cus they play more games against each other.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Care to elaborate, rather than just being dismissive?

 

[fishyguy]

Richard's right - Bangladesh have been overwhelmingly poor since they were awarded test status, and certainly not up to the standards that most nations had at the same point in their histories.

The inclusion of Bangladesh was political - a ploy to increase the power of the Asian bloc within the game. Since they've been playing tests I believe that they've devalued test cricket. They haven't been able to compete, in some cases they've been embarrassing.

However! I can certainly tell they are showing definite signs of improvement, and that makes me happy, because I know in 10 years or so we're going to have another strong cricketing nation (with rabid fans) to compete with. Viva la difference!

Now that they are playing - I wish them all the best. I only wish that there had been some clearer heads coming up with better ways to expedite their development on the road to test status.

I concur.

And I am a BD fan. They got test status way to early. I wouldve much preferred if they played with the A teams and showed improvement before they were given Test status.

But as it stands right now they have been given test status whether people like it or not and they will continue to play.

The biggest problem is that they have a very weak domestic league. The main reason is money. If you've got talent you'd rather hold on to your day job in BD than play cricket because there's no money to be made.

If they were as professional as other countries in developing a good domestic infrastructure they would've made much bigger improvements.

Most of the players are coming in from the U19 level.

What are you gonna do.

 

[Sanz]

Care to elaborate, rather than just being dismissive?

Conspiracy theory at best.There are many ICC and Non-Asian cricket board officials on record supporting Bangladesh's test status in 2000. e.g.

Dr. Ali Bacher, former head of of SA Board (who was also the head of ICC development Committee), Eddie barlow, former SA test player and BD coach in 2000.

And it was the NZ representative Mr. John Anderson who "categorically stated that there should be no further discussion about the Bangladesh's appeal. It should be approved automatically through the proper channels"

Lastly, If my memory serves me right, ICC was unanimous in granting the test status to Bangladesh. There were many more non-Asians who supported Bangladesh's claim for a test spot and that's why I dismissed your claim.