Will Bangladesh ever be good?

[C_C]

This isnt a new development- a very poor team playing a team massively superior.
This has always been a part of cricket - when IND first came in, when NZ first came in, when RSA first came in, when SL first came in, etc etc.
Not to mention, the ups and downs of a team's fortune.
For the same applies with Australia in the mid 80s playing West Indies, West indies today going on an Aussie tour, NZ playing WI in the 60s etc etc.
So i dont see what the cuffufle is all about, given that it is 'same ol same ol'.

 

[Richard]

How many Tests did NZ play when new to the game?
How many did WI play?
How many did Ind play?
Nowhere near, nothing close to as near, as the number Bangladesh have.

 

[Swervy]

How many Tests did NZ play when new to the game?
How many did WI play?
How many did Ind play?
Nowhere near, nothing close to as near, as the number Bangladesh have.

and for that reason, B'desh will probably develop faster as a team than those teams did in terms of time rather than actual tests played

 

[C_C]

How many Tests did NZ play when new to the game?
How many did WI play?
How many did Ind play?
Nowhere near, nothing close to as near, as the number Bangladesh have.

Irrelevant.
For, everybody plays more tests now than they did 40 years ago and Bangladesh still plays substantially less tests than established nations.

 

[SJS]

Of Course, One day Denmark, Holland, Canada etc will be good, but they have to become a Test nation first. Bangladesh are already a test nation and they are improving.

You take me too seriously Sanz

Seriously, the point I am trying to make with my 'misplaced' sarcasm is that the question is moot. Of course, some day they may become good. In fact, it would be stupid to suggest they will never become good. The debate between those for and against Bangla desh being a test playing nation today is whether they got the test status too soon.

What I am trying to say is...just because they may one day become god is no reason to give them test status today.
Because if that was the case we might as well give test status to the other nations I mentioned.

Sorry if that was too much of a bouncer.

 

[marc71178]

And of course the Bangladeshis know what they'd learn from playing domestic sides, because they've done so much of it...
And of course we should take them seriously with the "we're learning" because they're so likely to say anything else...

They know what they've learned from playing all the Test nations, and they know who they've learnt most off.

Strangely enough, that was the Australians, who were apparently very approachable and more than happy to share tips with them.

So how exactly do you know more then the team do?

 

[Sanz]

The debate between those for and against Bangla desh being a test playing nation today is whether they got the test status too soon

No, the discussion isn't about that, it's about 'If they will ever be good'.

Btw, I did get the sarcasm. I dont care if Bangladesh got their test status too soon, IMO they have shown considerable improvement since 2000 and another 10 years or so, they are going to be good. It took India nearly 25 years before they won a series.(No the series against Pak doesn't count) despite having a decent domestic structure.

Bangladesh are only 5 years old as a Test cricket nation, I am willing to give them another 15 years.

 

[Anil]

No the series against Pak doesn't count

so does bangladesh's win against zim count?

 

[Anil]

No, the discussion isn't about that, it's about 'If they will ever be good'.

Btw, I did get the sarcasm. I dont care if Bangladesh got their test status too soon, IMO they have shown considerable improvement since 2000 and another 10 years or so, they are going to be good. It took India nearly 25 years before they won a series.(No the series against Pak doesn't count) despite having a decent domestic structure.

Bangladesh are only 5 years old as a Test cricket nation, I am willing to give them another 15 years.

bangladesh

in their first 38 tests, they have lost 33, drawn 4 and won 1.

india

in their first 38 tests, had lost 17, drawn 18 and won 3

new zealand

in their first 38 tests, had lost 18 and drawn 20

sri lanka

in their first 38 tests, had lost 20, drawn 16 and won 2

where does the situation of any of these countries compare with what bangladesh is experiencing now? even new zealand who didn't have a win to their name after 38 tests had managed to draw more than half of their tests by that time....i know stats don't tell the entire story but those stats up there are about as open-and-shut as it gets....something like the don's batting average....

they will probably be good one day....doesn't really change the fact that they were pushed into test cricket when they didn't deserve to and are really pathetic right now....

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but that has more to do with the way Tests have evolved over the years.

 

[Anil]

Yes, but that has more to do with the way Tests have evolved over the years.

make all the allowances you want to marc, it is still extremely clear that they have made the worst entry into test cricket, ever, by faaaar......

 

[Dasa]

make all the allowances you want to marc, it is still extremely clear that they have made the worst entry into test cricket, ever, by faaaar......

That's only because the number of Tests played now is far greater. Had India, NZ or SL played the number of games in their first 5 years as Bangladesh has, I don't think they would be much better.

 

[Sanz]

bangladesh

in their first 38 tests, they have lost 33, drawn 4 and won 1.

india

in their first 38 tests, had lost 17, drawn 18 and won 3

new zealand

in their first 38 tests, had lost 18 and drawn 20

sri lanka

in their first 38 tests, had lost 20, drawn 16 and won 2

where does the situation of any of these countries compare with what bangladesh is experiencing now? even new zealand who didn't have a win to their name after 38 tests had managed to draw more than half of their tests by that time....i know stats don't tell the entire story but those stats up there are about as open-and-shut as it gets....something like the don's batting average....

they will probably be good one day....doesn't really change the fact that they were pushed into test cricket when they didn't deserve to and are really pathetic right now....

Well Stats do tell the entire story, but only if you pay attention to it. Here is an eye opener :-

It took 20 years for India to play 38 tests.

For NZ, it took them 25 years to play 38 tests.

For SL, it took almost 11 years to Play 38 tests.(Not to forget that Sri Lanka had unofficial test tours of test nations since early 70s. Players like Duleep Mendis, Roy Dias, Wettimuni played against quality test sides for years before they finally played official tests)

Need I say more ?? If you have still not figured out the difference, Well it has taken only 5 years for Bangladesh to play those 38 tests.

 

[Sanz]

so does bangladesh's win against zim count?

Well you dont see me counting that, do you ? Now that you have reminded us all of Zim-BD series, So they did win a series within 5 years, it took India 20 years.

 

[Anil]

That's only because the number of Tests played now is far greater. Had India, NZ or SL played the number of games in their first 5 years as Bangladesh has, I don't think they would be much better.

you mean playing more number of games in less time actually led to a more pathetic record rather than the side itself being pathetic all the while...??? and for the above mentioned international sides who got far less quality exposure in their first five years, it worked to their advantage....??? how do you figure that? i mean what is the logic behind that statement?

 

[Anil]

Well Stats do tell the entire story, but only if you pay attention to it. Here is an eye opener :-

It took 20 years for India to play 38 tests.

For NZ, it took them 25 years to play 38 tests.

For SL, it took almost 11 years to Play 38 tests.(Not to forget that Sri Lanka had unofficial test tours of test nations since early 70s. Players like Duleep Mendis, Roy Dias, Wettimuni played against quality test sides for years before they finally played official tests)

Need I say more ?? If you have still not figured out the difference, Well it has taken only 5 years for Bangladesh to play those 38 tests.

...and your point???

 

[Anil]

Well you dont see me counting that, do you ? Now that you have reminded us all of Zim-BD series, So they did win a series within 5 years, it took India 20 years.

once again, your point???

 

[Langeveldt]

you mean playing more number of games in less time actually led to a more pathetic record rather than the side itself being pathetic all the while...??? and for the above mentioned international sides who got far less quality exposure in their first five years, it worked to their advantage....??? how do you figure that? i mean what is the logic behind that statement?

You would have thought Bangladesh would have benifitted from such an intensive schedule.. After all, isn't the whole point of Bangladesh playing against the best to become better?

 

[Anil]

You would have thought Bangladesh would have benifitted from such an intensive schedule.. After all, isn't the whole point of Bangladesh playing against the best to become better?

that is the whole point of the exercise except that we have just been seeing one thrashing after the other.....

 

[marc71178]

you mean playing more number of games in less time actually led to a more pathetic record rather than the side itself being pathetic all the while...??? and for the above mentioned international sides who got far less quality exposure in their first five years, it worked to their advantage....??? how do you figure that? i mean what is the logic behind that statement?

They've only had 5 years to develop, and far less time between games to practise what they've learned.