It seems like Bangladesh is winning their 'minnow' battle against England

[LA ICE-E]

why the "only"? there are more matches played now than in the past....so time is really not that big a factor anymore...

i am tired of repeating this, during the same period, they have played 3,4 times more matches than the others did when they came in, with much, much poorer results so far...after playing a zillion more matches, they might become a good team some day(maybe in 5 years), so how does that prove your point in any way?

I don't know why you're still arguing the same point that you made to me and i gave you the same answers as they did. It's more about time then # of games. Yes number of games matter because it gives your senior guys experience but it doesn't make a guy like Khaled Mahmmud to a guy like Gilchrist. You need time for second generation and yeah NZ had see games and so it took them 25 years because they had less money but at the same time because bangladesh had more games- meaning more money it took them 5 years. Also money doesn't make a youngster grow any faster so you still have to wait for some time.

 

[Richard]

But being young doesn't make a player more talented, either.

 

[LA ICE-E]

yeah, but since there's a better infrastructure now they get better talent players.

 

[Richard]

Nonsense. Better infrastructure doesn't increase talent - it just improves the odds of said talent being used better.

And playing Test cricket DOES NOT have any bearing on how long the infrastructure takes to get put in place. Hence time from being given Test status to becoming Test quality is utterly irrelevant.

 

[silentstriker]

How did India, West Indies and Sri Lanka manage it then?

They didn't. The modern game requires much more infrastructure than it did back then.

 

[silentstriker]

Nonsense. Better infrastructure doesn't increase talent - it just improves the odds of said talent being used better.

And playing Test cricket DOES NOT have any bearing on how long the infrastructure takes to get put in place. Hence time from being given Test status to becoming Test quality is utterly irrelevant.

That is ridiculous. How can you say that the money from being granted test status has nothing to do with infrastructure?

 

[Richard]

They didn't. The modern game requires much more infrastructure than it did back then.

So why did New Zealand fail to make the grade at the same time India and West Indies succeeded?

Infrastructure has always been neccessary.

 

[Richard]

That is ridiculous. How can you say that the money from being granted test status has nothing to do with infrastructure?

I'm not. I'm saying it can be developed without Test status, not that Test status cannot help with the development.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not. I'm saying it can be developed without Test status, not that Test status cannot help with the development.

So, how do you propose to generate the money?

 

[finchenderson]

If we are going to look at stats in so much detail, well then lets look at the stat that says:

England Test ranking second in the World - Bangladesh are tenth ...

England ODI ranking seventh - Bangladesh are ninth ...

This is simply boiling it down to the basic facts.

England have won all of their matches against the minnow teams in the WC but this does not mean that they are better than South Africa so Bangladesh beating South Africa doesn't mean that they are better than England.

Basically all you are doing is posting an annoying little argument that is easy to defend but would never hold up in the heat of battle and has no substance at all.

If Bangladesh beat England in tomorrows match i will eat my cricket bat.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed. Shows the folly of looking at one tournament in isolation, really.

Will be interesting to see how Bangladesh go in their next few events.

but according to you a few weeks back, the only tournament that counts is the World Cup, so surely it is pointless looking at any other tournament!!!

 

[Swervy]

If Bangladesh beat England in tomorrows match i will eat my cricket bat.

hehehe..make sure you have a pint of linseed oil to wash it down with

 

[finchenderson]

with glee!

 

[Anil]

I don't know why you're still arguing the same point that you made to me and i gave you the same answers as they did. It's more about time then # of games. Yes number of games matter because it gives your senior guys experience but it doesn't make a guy like Khaled Mahmmud to a guy like Gilchrist. You need time for second generation and yeah NZ had see games and so it took them 25 years because they had less money but at the same time because bangladesh had more games- meaning more money it took them 5 years. Also money doesn't make a youngster grow any faster so you still have to wait for some time.

my point is, bangladesh still doesn't have any standout players to speak of, forget a gilchrist, their record in both tests and one dayers is still far from rosy(understatement of the year) and they are yet to show any consistent improvement, they have less than 10 wins after almost 100 games against the top 8(not counting wins against kenya and the zimbabwe club side obviously).....yeah they have been given the luxury of unlimited time and i'm sure they will get better at some point, but to call that a success story as some have predicted it will, is a bit much, that's all...

 

[marc71178]

How can you deny that Bangladesh of the last 6 months or so isn't improved over the 6 months prior to that?

 

[Anil]

How can you deny that Bangladesh of the last 6 months or so isn't improved over the 6 months prior to that?

i am not denying anything...i am not going over the moon over some isolated victories either...by consistent improvement i mean 1. winning more regularly against the good teams 2. fighting better even while losing instead of regularly getting thumped....once they start doing that on a consistent basis, i would say they have turned a corner, this is of course just about odis, tests are a different matter altogether...although if india go with a largely inexperienced side to bangladesh in may, they will quite possibly get an opening and if they manage to seize it, that will trigger an over-the-top celebration for tests as well...

 

[FRAZ]

No the analysis is how many games have England and Bangladesh won against the top 8 in this world cup. So far Bangladesh = 2 England = 0.

 

[Sanz]

i am not denying anything...i am not going over the moon over some isolated victories either...by consistent improvement i mean 1. winning more regularly against the good teams 2. fighting better even while losing instead of regularly getting thumped....once they start doing that on a consistent basis, i would say they have turned a corner, this is of course just about odis, tests are a different matter altogether...although if india go with a largely inexperienced side to bangladesh in may, they will quite possibly get an opening and if they manage to seize it, that will trigger an over-the-top celebration for tests as well...

How long has it been since major cricket nations started playing serious cricket against Bangladesh ? 3-4 years, right ? And In those 3-4 years BD has imroved 20 times. In this world cup alone they have beaten NZ, Ind and SA. Good that they didn't play pak, they would have comfortable beaten them as well. When was the last time a minnow beat 3 test level teams in a WC ? Even in tests they gave Australia a tough fight in 2004, they came very close to winning a test match in Pak, IMO they have been doing very well and deserve all the hype.

SriLanka played unofficial test matches against test nations for years before they were granted test status, and please remember there weren't so many tests/ODIs in those days else they mostlikely would have ended up with similar records.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Nonsense. Better infrastructure doesn't increase talent - it just improves the odds of said talent being used better.

And playing Test cricket DOES NOT have any bearing on how long the infrastructure takes to get put in place. Hence time from being given Test status to becoming Test quality is utterly irrelevant.

Test status=money. And without it there isn't much other way to improve.

 

[LA ICE-E]

my point is, bangladesh still doesn't have any standout players to speak of, forget a gilchrist, their record in both tests and one dayers is still far from rosy(understatement of the year) and they are yet to show any consistent improvement, they have less than 10 wins after almost 100 games against the top 8(not counting wins against kenya and the zimbabwe club side obviously).....yeah they have been given the luxury of unlimited time and i'm sure they will get better at some point, but to call that a success story as some have predicted it will, is a bit much, that's all...

No, whatever it is, again you're going by the number of games when that helps only a little bit. So to say that bangladesh is the slowest in improvement is a seriously huge mistake because as i said before it takes time for great improvement not the number of games.