Brother - don't get sensitive
I clearly stated that Pakistan is not in the top 3.If you want to refer to past records and compare Pakistan to Aus, then Pakistan is clearly not in the Aus league. However, if you use this as a comparison, then Bangladesh have a horrific record in every form of cricket.
The point I am making and what other posters have made - is that Bangladesh should be compared to Zimbabwe and Afghanistan and Ireland. This would be a much fairer comparison. It would be extremely unfair to compare BD to any of the top nations.
And in terms of world status, I used football because it was the best way I ould explain the status of these 2 in cricket. One is Brazil and one is Luxembourg. OK - one is Argentina and the other is Bolivia. Is that better?
if you want me to use a cricketing analogy. Then one is Australia and the other is Ireland. Comparing Ireland to Australia is same as comparing BD to Pakistan.
Please do not take this the wrong way. Reply with a suitable analogy rather then having a go at me. I'm not a cocky fellow. I just say what I think.
I am not, and I responded only because I do respect your good spirit. Otherwise there are many posts which I just don't bother.
Cricket is totally a different team game than any other sports. Despite being a 11 player game, this is totally individual dominant game & it has the highest factors of venue, condition, weather, pitch (playing field) etc.
In cricket, you just can't put comparison like that. What now, 15 years back BD would have won a Test had Latif not cheated with a blank drop - this is because of the unpredictabile nature of the game. On record you are putting Brazil vs Pub team in a sports where one is ranked 5th & other 9th; but I understand - it's quite a big gap when the universe is 10 (effectively 9).
Test cricket is the toughest place to master, because apart from playing skills, lots more other factors are involved here. Test cricket is almost like classical music that you can't master just by coaching or practicing - it takes lots of cultural change. Those who are impressed with Afghans from Mickey Mouse game, doesn't have any idea what it'll take to hem to reach next level. Even in this bankrupt days, WI actually is wining Test against even PAK, ENG for a reason.
As I said somewhere earlier - it has several phases of Test development - you start at home to avoid innings defeat, then to take the match to day 5, then to draw, then to take 20 wickets - finally win some Test & then series. After that cycle st home, try to do that away - in history of 142 years of Test cricket, only one team ever had 12 rubbers (home & away) at their disposal at a time, which should indicate how tough it is.
At present, we are in lever 4/5 - that's we'll compete every Test at home, win few as well while stressing hosts in away Test in more matches. One reason for that is we hardly get any chance to play away & that AUS/NZ- PAK series (both) should be indicative enough - how tough it's for teams to perform in Test, if you are to visit a country once in a decade & play Test matches without much preparation.
One mistake that posters make here is that they don't study the rich history of Test cricket, which has 1.5 century of records. Apart from initial 2 teams (AUS/ENG), almost every team has gone through such start for 10, 20, even 40 years. PAK in that regard was better, because at start it had almost a readymade team from British India - after that 50s generation & County cricket shaping PAK cricket in 70s, you can check PAK of 60s - that too without any cricket against India & WI.
Another factor no one considers (actually don't have the depth to see that), is we started playing Test cricket when the game is standardized- 5 days, 450 overs, make time, technology to overcome natural hazards like bad light, wet out field, 3rd umpire, neutral umpire ..... hence it's almost impossible for us to bail out a draw through back door, which has resulted such W/L ratio. Besides, now every team plays their available vest XI in Test, against whoever - check the ENG/AUS team (a) that played against SAF, WI, NZ, IND, PAK, SRL in their early days - that'll give you another clue.
If you have any real interest to know the game, study the score cards of initial matches for every team barring oldest two - you should know that the W/L record isn't straight for them. Just think, first 15 years of BD Test cricket a 3 day affair, you can imagine the effect, I hope.
Anyway, this thread is made as a troll by someone who isn't smart enough - what he is asking, forget Indian, if any Srilaakan asks that replacing BD, it won't be even respectable for PAK. I won't have posted in such posts, but couldn't resist responding your one, since I do appriciate your good wish.
//
2016 2 Tests
