Insane and mockery of Test cricket

[BoyBrumby]

And even in WC, BAN beat two test sides, where Irish beat only one side. BAN looked better even in lost matches where Irish were less convincing than them.

India &....?

Meanwhile Ireland beat Pakistan & Bangladesh.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Bangladesh aren't a test nation after all, in which case thanks for making my argument for me.

 

[Uppercut]

India &....?

South Africa IIRC.

 

[Prince EWS]

India &....? .

South Africa.

 

[BoyBrumby]

South Africa IIRC.

South Africa.

Ah, fair call. Had totally forgotten that, what with the yarps making the semis anyway.

 

[susudear]

Hooray

Neither are as good as Ten Doeschate itbt.

Tendo!

 

[pasag]

Neither are as good as Ten Doeschate itbt.

awta

 

[Migara]

...:

Sorry to say you have lost the plot. It's not me who brought up one batsman's feats to compare a whole team.

 

[GIMH]

I must say, Uppercut is providing the better evidence IMO (that flag must be going to my head)

 

[NUFAN]

I quite like Mushfiqur Rahim, he's certainly an acceptable Test Wicket Keeper, better than West Indies current keeper Ramdin for sure.

Mortaza is quite okay, but obviously averaging just over 40 isn't good enough. Shakib Al Hasan has been tremendous this year and at only 21 he has an exciting future, hopefully he doesn't get overbowled though!

Tamim Iqbal is probably the young batter with the most talent, interested in seeing how he progresses.

I think we need to be a bit more patient, remembering that most of the team is under 25 years of age, so they do have some time of their side.

One thing what I hope doesn't happen is that this group all gets dropped at around the same time, so Bangladesh bring in a new batch of under 21s again.

Pretty happy to see Iqbal make 47, Shakib 96 and top 8 [1 from each country max] wicket keeper in the world Rahim make 61 in the first innings since my previous quote.

 

[Athlai]

Rahim > Ramdin easy IMO.

The Bangladesh team are so so so very young and if they can keep a solid core of players as they develop in the next 5-6 years they will be light years ahead of an Irish team with most of their players already peaking and not much coming through at the younger levels.

Tamim, Ashraful, Shakib, Rahim, Mortaza and Shahadat all make a solid platform in terms of further development in the future. And Bangladesh also have some fabulous part time spinners which are always hard to get away particularly at home. We've seen how they've challenged South Africa, New Zealand and Sri Lanka at home recently, it is only a matter of time till they begin to win on their own turf. And from there wins away from home as we've seen in the past are sure to follow.

West Indies in Bangladesh I would favor as a 50/50 contest and would be something I'd very much like to see.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The thing with Bangladesh is their batsmen very rarely go on. This last innings was a rare occasion when somebody has actually gone on to score a hundred. The first innings in that match was typical of them - all the top 8 got into double figures yet the highest score was 33.

In 58 Tests Bangladesh batsmen have scored 14 centuries. To put this into context Andrew Strauss has scored 14 centuries in 55 Tests.

Someone scoring a century makes it so much easier to get a decent score. When they sort this out they'll win a decent number of Tests.

 

[Jamee999]

Tbf, Bangladesh never get to bat against Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

The only thing that concerns me about this Bangladesh issue is the inflated averages some bowlers and batsmen end up with after playing against Bangladesh. Yes, I realise that this has always been a problem through the years, when every country except Australia and England has been initiated into the test ranks. Every Asian country and NZ, SA, WI have all been crap when they started out.

Actually they haven't. Only NZ (and SA in the 19th-century but that's a different matter as those games were, ridiculously, given Test status retrospectively despite obviously not meriting it) were comparable to the current-day Bangladesh, and they at least played far less regularly in the 1930s and 1950s.

 

[Richard]

Tikolo never had a patch on Joyce IMO.

An interesting question, that. Both excellent batsmen who could easily have been Test-class if they were given the opportunity to move to a Test-playing country at a young age, but who's better? I really don't know.

 

[Uppercut]

The Bangladesh team are so so so very young and if they can keep a solid core of players as they develop in the next 5-6 years they will be light years ahead of an Irish team with most of their players already peaking and not much coming through at the younger levels.

Eh?

Of the players i listed as first-choice for Ireland,

Porterfield is 24
Rankin is 24
Morgan is 22
Niall O'Brien is 27
Kevin O'Brien is 24
Gary Wilson is 22
Peter Connell is 27

That's, essentially, the quality players in their team. The only notable player "peaking" out of those listed is Joyce, who doesn't even play for them anymore. And arguably N O'Brien, but he still conceivably has ten years left as a specialist batsman. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[GIMH]

Actually they haven't. Only NZ (and SA in the 19th-century but that's a different matter as those games were, ridiculously, given Test status retrospectively despite obviously not meriting it) were comparable to the current-day Bangladesh, and they at least played far less regularly in the 1930s and 1950s.

I thought the NZ Tests of the 1930s were also granted such status retrospectively, or have I misunderstood you here?

 

[Richard]

No, no, not at all. NZ were given Test status from their debut Test.

Somewhat ridiculously, a full-strength England was playing a series in New Zealand while what was in effect England A (though both England's first and second string were extremely powerful and stronger than everyone other than Australia) were doing so in West Indies. The games in West Indies were not at the time recognised as Tests, despite the fact West Indies were a stronger team than New Zealand and had played Tests in England previously.

Why England sent their second string to West Indies and their first to New Zealand, despite the Caribbean offering far stronger competition, I'm not entirely sure. However, not all in the 1930s was quite yet what it should've been. There were still vaguaries.

However, New Zealand were truly the Bangladesh of their day in the 1930s. No game involving them merited Test status.

 

[GIMH]

Are you sure? I could swear that I read something recently about three-day games that were retrospectively given Test status, and that NZ were the oppo?

 

[Goughy]

Are you sure? I could swear that I read something recently about three-day games that were retrospectively given Test status, and that NZ were the oppo?

The first NZ/Aus game after WWII (NZ had already played Test by this stage) was originally not a Test match. It was changed to a Test after the event.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Are you sure? I could swear that I read something recently about three-day games that were retrospectively given Test status, and that NZ were the oppo?

New Zealand's First ever Test against Australia in 1945/46 wasn't granted Test Status until two years later. You might be thinking of the 1931 series when only one Test was originally scheduled but three were played.