***Official*** Pakistan in Bangladesh 2015

[Top_Cat]

Being a discount Sehwag has it's perks. Fantastic knock.

Technically more discount Lehmann, tbh. Crushes the patented Boof flatbat-cross-swipe-hoick over wide mid, fills the pants of whoever is fielding at gully, fills his own at anything in the bowler's half.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

It's not only ICC. BD government spends a truckload of money from people's tax every year which also contributes to the factor BCB being well off financially.

 

[Prince EWS]

Technically more discount Lehmann, tbh. Crushes the patented Boof flatbat-cross-swipe-hoick over wide mid, fills the pants of whoever is fielding at gully, fills his own at anything in the bowler's half.

Yeah top comparison. Doesn't have Lehmann's footwork but he's very similar in how he looks to score.

 

[karan316]

Rubbish. Bangladesh have a massive national following and are actually becoming competitive. They deserve the exposure they've been given.

I can't believe this arguement is for a team that isn't too different than Zim and Ireland despite of relatively more opportunities they are getting since years.

 

[karan316]

I wish the Imperial Cricket Council had never let riff-raff such as India join. They took 20 years to win their first test and that too at a home dustbowl against a third string touring England side. Those very contests devalued Test cricket at a time when it was dying. The ICC should have invested in the United States and Canada instead, who had showed so much more, even with so much fewer opportunities. Bart King> C. K. Nayudu and co.

Please compare the kind of competition that exists right now with what it was when India had just started off with test cricket.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Don't know from where this idea coming from that Bangladesh getting more opportunity than Zimbabwe. Please have a look at these-

2013 (ODIs)

BD played 9 matches
Zim played 14 matches

2014 (ODIs)

BD played 18 matches
Zim played 16 matches

Not bringing up the Test matches cause it's neck and neck too I think

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I can't believe this arguement is for a team that isn't too different than Zim and Ireland despite of relatively more opportunities they are getting since years.

Bangladesh gets opportunities because they have a large population for whom cricket is a primary sport. If several options are performing similarly you surely back the one with the greatest potential upside.

 

[longranger]

I wish the Imperial Cricket Council had never let riff-raff such as India join. They took 20 years to win their first test and that too at a home dustbowl against a third string touring England side. Those very contests devalued Test cricket at a time when it was dying. The ICC should have invested in the United States and Canada instead, who had showed so much more, even with so much fewer opportunities. Bart King> C. K. Nayudu and co.

That's the Indian Cricket Council to you mate. I'd be more careful about biting the hand that feeds you though..

 

[cnerd123]

Nah he's obviously being sarcastic.

He makes a good point to those who look at Ireland and Afghanistan and are all like "Oh they don't have Test status but BD do what a disgrace":

Most nations took ages to find their feet at International level, and most of their early wins/draws/good showings would have been on home tracks that heavily favored them. Holding that against BD is just not fair.

It is also not fair to look at BD and go "Oh look at the money they have gotten they should be better, if we gave Ireland this they would be epic". For one thing, BD were rushed into Test status too quickly. They barely had a decent domestic cricket infrastructure in place at the time. They played their first Test in 2000 and had their first FC season in 2001. Their performances up until that point were based on a handful of good cricketers who were passionate and worked hard and had a couple of years of good performance. Many associates have had that. Look at Netherlands, Kenya, or even Afghanistan now. They shouldn't have gotten Test status when they did IMO, and having expectations of them to quickly catch up like Sri Lanka, or even Pakistan and New Zealand, were just not fair.

It's also not fair to look at Ireland and say "If they can be so good in ODIs so quick why can't BD?" because Ireland and most of their cricketers rely heavily on the English County system. They are professional cricketers in a very well run professional domestic set up. The Ireland Nat team reaps the benefit of having high quality players available to pick from without having to set up their own high quality domestic infrastructure from scratch. This was not available to BD. Imagine if back in 2000 if BD could pick players who played regularly in the Ranji Trophy and Pakistan domestic cricket on the basis of them having roots in Bangladesh? Imagine if they could still do that now? Heck imagine if all the African associates could pick players who played domestic cricket in South Africa or Zimbabwe regularly?

BD have been a professional cricket nation for just 15 years. Calling them a waste of time or money isn't fair. You could put any Associate nation in their situation and they would probably do just as well or worse. What makes BD a more viable Test nation than Afghanistan, Ireland, or even Zimbabwe, is that they have a very strong cricketing culture in the population. This makes it easier to find the money and talent to set up a proper domestic infrastructure and to ensure a continued supply of International quality Talent. You kick the Irish out of the English County system or task Afghanistan with setting up a FC structure and I'd be very surprised if either of them could do any better.

 

[longranger]

I feel as if Bangladesh has improved in the last 12 months. They were definitely decent at the World Cup - while they are not at the level of the other Test playing nations yet, I do believe there is some gulf between them and the 'minnows' like Ireland, Afghanistan, etc. What was very disheartening to see was their national outrage over one incorrect decision. They happen in every cricket match, and India was always going to win that QF. Some humility and sportsmanship would be nice if they would like to continue their ascendancy.

That said, the last Test match was excellent. That opening stand in their second innings - legendary. They're too cricket crazy to stop progressing, I expect them to be a more formidable side by 2020.

 

[Howe_zat]

No team has ever toured Bangladesh to play all formats and not won any matches.

 

[Daemon]

I feel as if Bangladesh has improved in the last 12 months. They were definitely decent at the World Cup - while they are not at the level of the other Test playing nations yet, I do believe there is some gulf between them and the 'minnows' like Ireland, Afghanistan, etc. What was very disheartening to see was their national outrage over one incorrect decision. They happen in every cricket match, and India was always going to win that QF. Some humility and sportsmanship would be nice if they would like to continue their ascendancy.

That said, the last Test match was excellent. That opening stand in their second innings - legendary. They're too cricket crazy to stop progressing, I expect them to be a more formidable side by 2020.

Tbf India shows 0 humility and sportsmanship most of the time but they've still come pretty far.

 

[Hurricane]

Nah he's obviously being sarcastic.

He makes a good point to those who look at Ireland and Afghanistan and are all like "Oh they don't have Test status but BD do what a disgrace":

Most nations took ages to find their feet at International level, and most of their early wins/draws/good showings would have been on home tracks that heavily favored them. Holding that against BD is just not fair.

It is also not fair to look at BD and go "Oh look at the money they have gotten they should be better, if we gave Ireland this they would be epic". For one thing, BD were rushed into Test status too quickly. They barely had a decent domestic cricket infrastructure in place at the time. They played their first Test in 2000 and had their first FC season in 2001. Their performances up until that point were based on a handful of good cricketers who were passionate and worked hard and had a couple of years of good performance. Many associates have had that. Look at Netherlands, Kenya, or even Afghanistan now. They shouldn't have gotten Test status when they did IMO, and having expectations of them to quickly catch up like Sri Lanka, or even Pakistan and New Zealand, were just not fair.

It's also not fair to look at Ireland and say "If they can be so good in ODIs so quick why can't BD?" because Ireland and most of their cricketers rely heavily on the English County system. They are professional cricketers in a very well run professional domestic set up. The Ireland Nat team reaps the benefit of having high quality players available to pick from without having to set up their own high quality domestic infrastructure from scratch. This was not available to BD. Imagine if back in 2000 if BD could pick players who played regularly in the Ranji Trophy and Pakistan domestic cricket on the basis of them having roots in Bangladesh? Imagine if they could still do that now? Heck imagine if all the African associates could pick players who played domestic cricket in South Africa or Zimbabwe regularly?

BD have been a professional cricket nation for just 15 years. Calling them a waste of time or money isn't fair. You could put any Associate nation in their situation and they would probably do just as well or worse. What makes BD a more viable Test nation than Afghanistan, Ireland, or even Zimbabwe, is that they have a very strong cricketing culture in the population. This makes it easier to find the money and talent to set up a proper domestic infrastructure and to ensure a continued supply of International quality Talent. You kick the Irish out of the English County system or task Afghanistan with setting up a FC structure and I'd be very surprised if either of them could do any better.

Good post and an influential one.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

#teamzorax

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tbf India shows 0 humility and sportsmanship most of the time but they've still come pretty far.

Daemon, if the likes of Amarnath, Merchant and Pataudi showed the degree of "humility and sportsmanship" that the Johnny-come-lately crotch grabbers do, India wouldn't have Test status any more. India had none of the advantages Bangladesh does now. India had a per capita income that was a fifth of what Bangladesh currently enjoys and an ICC that didn't have an India equivalent to drive the game outside the established nations. I have a lot of time for the argument that Bangladesh are worth persevering with, but absolutely no time for the misguided patriotic "Bangladeshi Tigers" argument. Maybe just be thankful for the fact that their players don't have to hold onto a day job outside of cricket unlike the pioneers for the other nations. There has been no nation in the history of the game that had their path paved for them like Bangladesh has, and the least that one could expect is for their vocal fans and players to be cognizant of the fact before thumping their chests.

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe just be thankful for the fact that their players don't have to hold onto a day job outside of cricket unlike the pioneers for the other nations. There has been no nation in the history of the game that had their path paved for them like Bangladesh has, and the least that one could expect is for their vocal fans and players to be cognizant of the fact before thumping their chests.

While I agree with a lot of your post, I do have issue with this.

The pioneers of the game in other countries did not bear the same weight of expectations as the BD lads have. And they all have had benefit of solid domestic cricket infrastructure and exposure to top level cricket before gaining Test status.

It's very different to compare India's first International cricketers to BD's. They had solid experience behind them, played with little expectation and scrutiny, and didn't have to worry about disappointing millions of people if they failed. It was also never a question of 'return on investment' for them.

BD's first 15 years have been filled with raw youngsters with little to no experience being thrust into the international spotlight with high hopes and expectations; and not just of their own fans, but of the cricketing community as a whole.Everyone has viewed them as some sort petri dish in a lab experiment - 'We chucked millions of dollars into this developing country who love cricket, lets see how long it takes for them to become decent', and every time they failed there were hundreds of media outlets, pundits and posters on forums calling them a disgrace to International cricket, accusing them of wasting time and resources.

Imagine if that was done to a country like New Zealand when they were first trying to find their feet?

The players have huge egos because one the one hand, yes, they are highly paid superstars despite being mediocre cricketers...but on the other hand, every success is another big 'FU' to all the people who talked trash about their country and their side for as long as they have grown up. They have spent their lives dreaming of performing on the big stage and getting big wins - and now they have whitewashed 2 countries at home, made the KO stages of a World Cup, and are suddenly starting to develop a decent side and gain some respect. They are bound to feel quite a bit proud. And the fans probably feel much the same way tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

While I agree with a lot of your post, I do have issue with this.

The pioneers of the game in other countries did not bear the same weight of expectations as the BD lads have. And they all have had benefit of solid domestic cricket infrastructure and exposure to top level cricket before gaining Test status.

It's very different to compare India's first International cricketers to BD's. They had solid experience behind them, played with little expectation and scrutiny, and didn't have to worry about disappointing millions of people if they failed. It was also never a question of 'return on investment' for them.

BD's first 15 years have been filled with raw youngsters with little to no experience being thrust into the international spotlight with high hopes and expectations; and not just of their own fans, but of the cricketing community as a whole.Everyone has viewed them as some sort petri dish in a lab experiment - 'We chucked millions of dollars into this developing country who love cricket, lets see how long it takes for them to become decent', and every time they failed there were hundreds of media outlets, pundits and posters on forums calling them a disgrace to International cricket, accusing them of wasting time and resources.

Imagine if that was done to a country like New Zealand when they were first trying to find their feet?

The players have huge egos because one the one hand, yes, they are highly paid superstars despite being mediocre cricketers...but on the other hand, every success is another big 'FU' to all the people who talked trash about their country and their side for as long as they have grown up. They have spent their lives dreaming of performing on the big stage and getting big wins - and now they have whitewashed 2 countries at home, made the KO stages of a World Cup, and are suddenly starting to develop a decent side and gain some respect. They are bound to feel quite a bit proud. And the fans probably feel much the same way tbh.

My post was not directed at the overwhelming majority of Bangladesh fans on CW, *****. I should have been clearer. I was still addressing tec15's post (and those who seem to be making the same argument he does on cricinfo comments etc). Comparisons with the relatively humble Zimbabwean players, for instance, are inevitable given their almost parallel history. It does not help that some of the Bangladeshi players seem to stick to the nouveau riche stereotype borne off BCB, IPL and BPL successes.

Bangladesh was a part of cricketing India until 1947, they were a part of cricketing Pakistan until 1971, and they existed as an independent nation in a cricket-crazy sub-continent for so long with next to no results. It was in major part due to the investment made by the ICC after the riches poured into the ICC during the 90s (ironically driven by India) that Bangladesh developed to acceptable international standard. Don't you see why his inane comparison of their development to previous nations that did not have those advantages might rankle? International fans can be short sighted and become impatient, but OTT statements by those involved in Bangladeshi cricket as in the aftermath of the WC and posts like tec15's don't help matters one bit and only antagonize everyone else.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

No doubt Bangladesh was largely helped by ICC and other counterparts starting from funding, gaining full members, getting exposure etc. But why it's looked as a bad thing? After all isn't this the job of ICC to extend the world of cricket and help any nation? I don't understand why people have to downgrade BD everytime when making the argument for Ireland or Zimbabwe to some extent. I don't think BD cricket would have flourished and the results we are seeing now would have been possible if they didn't get the Test status or the exposure that we are talking about. You can make a case for 'why others won't get the same treatment' but it's not fair to degrade BD in the process and downplay all the achievements as a whole

 

[G.I.Joe]

Quite the opposite. I'm saying it's not okay to denigrate the achievements of other nations who did not have those advantages (Did people even read tec15's ****post???)

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

was referring to karan's posts who even suggested to take back Test status sort of thing in other thread