Comparing Bangladesh's Overall Test record to the records of other Asian teams in their early years

[szrana007]

So I was looking at Bangladesh's Overall record in Test cricket and was looking to compare it with the records of other Asian teams in their earlier years.

Overall, Bangladesh have played 121 Test matches so far since gaining Test status in 2000.

Bangladesh's Test record since gaining Test status ( from 2000-2021)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 14
Matches Lost 91
Matches Drawn 16

W/L ratio = 0.154

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...nval1=span;team=25;template=results;type=team

India's record in their first 121 Test matches ( from 1932-1971)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 16
Matches Lost 49
Matches Drawn 56

W/L ratio = 0.326

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...anval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=team

India's W/L ratio of 0.326 is twice that of Bangladesh's W/L ratio of 0.154 in their first 121 Test matches respectively. So India clearly ahead of BD.

Sri Lanka's record in their first 121 Test matches ( from 1982-2002)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 29
Matches Lost 47
Matches Drawn 45

W/L ratio = 0.617

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...anval1=span;team=8;template=results;type=team

So Sri Lanka's W/L ratio of 0.617 is almost twice of India's W/L ratio of 0.326 in their first 121 Test matches respectively. So Sri Lanka clearly ahead of India.

Pakistan's record in their first 121 Test matches from (1952 to 1982)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 23
Matches Lost 33
Matches Drawn 65

W/L ratio = 0.696

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...anval1=span;team=7;template=results;type=team

So Pakistan's W/L ratio of 0.696 is more than twice of India's W/L ratio of 0.326 and almost 4.5 times Bangladesh's W/L ratio of 0.154 in their first 121 Test matches respectively. Its also clearly better than Sri Lanka's W/L ratio of 0.617.

So Pakistan clearly ahead of Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh in their first 121 Test matches respectively.

So its clear from the above mentioned stats that Pakistan was the best Asian team in their first 120 odd Test matches by a comfortable margin. Sri Lanka is 2nd , India is 3rd, while Bangladesh is 4th.

In short Bangladesh has been the least successful Asian team in their early years Test cricket.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Too much analysis only to show that Bangladesh has been the least successful asian team so far. Also what do you mean by team, when you are taking matches spread over 20 to 40 years?

 

[JaDed]

1932 -1947 should be included in Pakistan and BD’s stats as well

1947-1971, BD’s stats should get Pak’s stats of winning /losses as well.

 

[Ab Fan]

The thing is Bangladesh was part of India and Pakistan before they become an independent nation. So, it's not like they were an isolated nation and hence should take this long period to establish themselves in test cricket.

India understandably took some time before they could establish them as non-minnows. But same can't be applied for Pakistan to an extent and certainly not for Bangladesh.

 

[MHN1293]

I didnt expect srilanka to have won that many matches. Didnt they only win 2 matches in the 80s.

 

[szrana007]

Too much analysis only to show that Bangladesh has been the least successful asian team so far. Also what do you mean by team, when you are taking matches spread over 20 to 40 years?

I took different year periods for different teams to account for the same number of matches i.e. Bangladesh have played 121 matches until now, so I wanted to see how other Asian teams fared in their first 121 matches. Now ofcourse playing that number of matches will take different amount of time for different teams.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

The thing is Bangladesh was part of India and Pakistan before they become an independent nation. So, it's not like they were an isolated nation and hence should take this long period to establish themselves in test cricket.

India understandably took some time before they could establish them as non-minnows. But same can't be applied for Pakistan to an extent and certainly not for Bangladesh.

Well said.
Can economy be considered another factor? Pakistan in 50s to 70s were doing Ok as far as gdp is concerned, so they were able to produce world class players.

On the other hand, in current era, PCB has been struggling with money in last few years.

I expect BD to do better in coming years. They have a world class all rounder and a warrior skipper. This last series WI played really good cricket and BD were unlucky. It was a very competitive series.

 

[Varun]

Bangladesh is hopeless.

Sport is just not their thing.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I took different year periods for different teams to account for the same number of matches i.e. Bangladesh have played 121 matches until now, so I wanted to see how other Asian teams fared in their first 121 matches. Now ofcourse playing that number of matches will take different amount of time for different teams.

So the comparison is invalid, as the time period for the teams is different. For some there was continuity, others discontinuity. You must compare by keeping other factors near constant.

 

[szrana007]

1932 -1947 should be included in Pakistan and BD’s stats as well

1947-1971, BD’s stats should get Pak’s stats of winning /losses as well.

Doesn't work that way. If you include 1932-1947 India's stats for Pak, Pak's record will worsen and if you include 1952-1971 Pak's stats for BD, BD's record will improve.

But as far as I know there wasn't any East Pakistan player playing for Pakistan from 1952-1971, so its foolish to include Pak's 1952-1971 stats for BD.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1932 -1947 should be included in Pakistan and BD’s stats as well

1947-1971, BD’s stats should get Pak’s stats of winning /losses as well.

You are saying this only because india's stats during that time was poor. India after 1947 claimed all the legacy of british india, so they have to take the good with the bad.

 

[szrana007]

So the comparison is invalid, as the time period for the teams is different. For some there was continuity, others discontinuity. You must compare by keeping other factors near constant.

Accounting for same number of matches is better than accounting for same number of years. coz e.g. India and Pakistan played very little test cricket in their first 20 odd years as compared to Bangladesh.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

Bangladesh has some decent players. Let's just not run them down because they're going through tough times. I see that the India and Pakistan have also won somewhere similar - except Sri Lanka with 29 wins - in their first 121 matches. Bangladesh have been guilty of losing far too many. They need to focus on producing some batting pitches and battle out draws. That would be the first step. Winning comes next. First develop a base on which you can work on.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Accounting for same number of matches is better than accounting for same number of years. coz e.g. India and Pakistan played very little test cricket in their first 20 odd years as compared to Bangladesh.

Point is not what is better. But that the comparison is invalid as the other factors are vastly different.

 

[Varun]

Bangladesh has some decent players. Let's just not run them down because they're going through tough times. I see that the India and Pakistan have also won somewhere similar - except Sri Lanka with 29 wins - in their first 121 matches. Bangladesh have been guilty of losing far too many. They need to focus on producing some batting pitches and battle out draws. That would be the first step. Winning comes next. First develop a base on which you can work on.

Nah those absolute turners were they beat England and Australia in home tests are the way to go. Flat pitches means they will get destroyed by any opposition team.

 

[shah_1]

Bangladesh should focus on white ball cricket

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

Nah those absolute turners were they beat England and Australia in home tests are the way to go. Flat pitches means they will get destroyed by any opposition team.

They need to make batting pitches for both international and domestic fixtures. Their batsmen need to learn the art of batting time. That should be the primary focus.

 

[RyanRyan10]

Bangladesh should focus on white ball cricket

Don't think it will work since they haven't produced many T20 league stars whereas Afghanistan players are big stars in those leagues. Only format where they have achieved something is Odis and a minnow test test can never become a strong Odi side.

 

[Savak]

Lol, if Bangladesh were an individual they would have been terminated by now.

 

[szrana007]

I didnt expect srilanka to have won that many matches. Didnt they only win 2 matches in the 80s.

Yes, they only won 2 matches in the 80's but they had pretty good 90's and early 2000's, which means that they are the Asian team to have won the most number of matches in their first 121 matches.

Sri Lanka also took just 14 years after gaining Test status in 1982 to win their 1st ever ODI WC in 1996, which is amazing really.

 

[szrana007]

Bangladesh has some decent players. Let's just not run them down because they're going through tough times. I see that the India and Pakistan have also won somewhere similar - except Sri Lanka with 29 wins - in their first 121 matches. Bangladesh have been guilty of losing far too many. They need to focus on producing some batting pitches and battle out draws. That would be the first step. Winning comes next. First develop a base on which you can work on.

Bangladesh's 14 test wins include 7 wins against Mughabe's Zimbabwe. Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka didn't have the luxury of playing Mughabe's Zimbabwe in their early years of test cricket. Still BD comfortably has the worst W/L ratio out of all the Asian teams in test cricket.

 

[RyanRyan10]

Bangladesh's 14 test wins include 7 wins against Mughabe's Zimbabwe. Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka didn't have the luxury of playing Mughabe's Zimbabwe in their early years of test cricket. Still BD comfortably has the worst W/L ratio out of all the Asian teams in test cricket.

And their 2 wins came against Floyd Reifer's Windies

 

[Mamoon]

You cannot make such comparisons. Pakistan and India entered the game at a time when it was not a proper professional, advanced sport with lots of competition.

Test cricket was a monopoly of 2-3 countries, it was a niche community where a bunch of amateur, non-athletic players were playing against each other.

There were no proper athletes in cricket and a lot of the stories about the legends of those players are exaggerated.

Those teams and players will get badly exposed today.

There were also no data analysis and video footage and players were not observed with close scrutiny.

Cricket became a proper professional sport from 1970s onwards when the era of proper fast bowling started and the game moved on from the likes of Lindwall and Trueman bowling “fast” at 75 mph.

The likes of Lillee, Thompson, WI pacers and Imran etc. emerged and the batting standards went up a notch to cope with them.

As a result, it became harder and harder for new teams to emerge.

Sri Lanka did well because they got lucky with a genius like Muralitharan, who although was a chucker, was the greatest of all time and what he did.

Bangladesh have not been able to produce someone of his caliber.

If Sri Lanka started playing Test cricket in the same era as Pakistan and India and they had Muralitharan, they would be invincible and they would be talked about in the same vein as the great West Indies and Australia, because those pre 70s batsmen would not be able to put bat on ball against him.

His skill level was about 100x greater than what was prevalent at the time. He would be averaging 5 or 6 with the ball.

As far as India vs Pakistan is concerned, it is important to realize that the dynamics were different. Until the late 60s, cricket was predominantly an upper class sport in Pakistan.

Most of our players were educated, well-groomed and westernized. A lot of players came from posh schools like Aitchison that had British teachers and cricket coaches and you were not allowed to speak in Urdu on campus.

Our players at the time were basically westerners and Pakistan cricket team had a proper drinking culture and it was out in the open and socially accepted.

This was of course an era of liberation in Pakistan where liquor was readily available and there was no concept of religious extremism especially in the major cities of the country.

Our players at that time were at a different level compared to their Indian counterparts, who started to catch up from 70s onwards while Pakistan’s cricket culture slowly changed. It was de-westernized and the game spread out to the villages and rural areas instead of being restricted to the posh schools and elite class.

If Pakistan and India started to play Test cricket today, they would struggle as much as Bangladesh have in the last 20 years.

 

[Varun]

Bangladesh has some decent players. Let's just not run them down because they're going through tough times.

By the way - "tough times" ahahaha!

Their entire life in cricket has been a car crash from minute one.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

By the way - "tough times" ahahaha!

Their entire life in cricket has been a car crash from minute one.

Bangladesh has a good talent pool. They were the u19 champions last year by defeating India in the final. They also entered the final of the Asia Cup in 2018. They performed really well in 2019 world cup. Yes, they did lose to West Indies but that's not the end of the world. Their team will get a lot better by playing more first class cricket and understanding test nuances.

 

[Heisenberg111]

You cannot make such comparisons. Pakistan and India entered the game at a time when it was not a proper professional, advanced sport with lots of competition.

Test cricket was a monopoly of 2-3 countries, it was a niche community where a bunch of amateur, non-athletic players were playing against each other.

There were no proper athletes in cricket and a lot of the stories about the legends of those players are exaggerated.

Those teams and players will get badly exposed today.

There were also no data analysis and video footage and players were not observed with close scrutiny.

Cricket became a proper professional sport from 1970s onwards when the era of proper fast bowling started and the game moved on from the likes of Lindwall and Trueman bowling “fast” at 75 mph.

The likes of Lillee, Thompson, WI pacers and Imran etc. emerged and the batting standards went up a notch to cope with them.

As a result, it became harder and harder for new teams to emerge.

Sri Lanka did well because they got lucky with a genius like Muralitharan, who although was a chucker, was the greatest of all time and what he did.

Bangladesh have not been able to produce someone of his caliber.

If Sri Lanka started playing Test cricket in the same era as Pakistan and India and they had Muralitharan, they would be invincible and they would be talked about in the same vein as the great West Indies and Australia, because those pre 70s batsmen would not be able to put bat on ball against him.

His skill level was about 100x greater than what was prevalent at the time. He would be averaging 5 or 6 with the ball.

As far as India vs Pakistan is concerned, it is important to realize that the dynamics were different. Until the late 60s, cricket was predominantly an upper class sport in Pakistan.

Most of our players were educated, well-groomed and westernized. A lot of players came from posh schools like Aitchison that had British teachers and cricket coaches and you were not allowed to speak in Urdu on campus.

Our players at the time were basically westerners and Pakistan cricket team had a proper drinking culture and it was out in the open and socially accepted.

This was of course an era of liberation in Pakistan where liquor was readily available and there was no concept of religious extremism especially in the major cities of the country.

Our players at that time were at a different level compared to their Indian counterparts, who started to catch up from 70s onwards while Pakistan’s cricket culture slowly changed. It was de-westernized and the game spread out to the villages and rural areas instead of being restricted to the posh schools and elite class.

If Pakistan and India started to play Test cricket today, they would struggle as much as Bangladesh have in the last 20 years.

Then why didn't Sri Lanka struggle as badly in their initial years as a Test playing nation? They entered test cricket in 1982, and 80's and 90's were by far the toughest era of cricket. Still they did very well. So you can't say the same for Pakistan and India too.

Pakistan did remarkably well when they entered test cricket in 1952. The beat every other side in the first series they played them including series wins against OZ,WI and NZ, which is a far cry from Bangladesh's performance in test cricket.

 

[szrana007]

And their 2 wins came against Floyd Reifer's Windies

Yeah they got really lucky in that series in 2009 in the West Indies. No way were they beating a full strength WI side back then.

 

[szrana007]

Then why didn't Sri Lanka struggle as badly in their initial years as a Test playing nation? They entered test cricket in 1982, and 80's and 90's were by far the toughest era of cricket. Still they did very well. So you can't say the same for Pakistan and India too.

Pakistan did remarkably well when they entered test cricket in 1952. The beat every other side in the first series they played them including series wins against OZ,WI and NZ, which is a far cry from Bangladesh's performance in test cricket.

Pakistan also drew their first ever series 1-1 in England in 1954 against a pretty strong English team. And no other team has avoided losing their first ever series in England. What Pak achieved in the 50's as the youngest test playing country was truly incredible.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Pakistan also drew their first ever series 1-1 in England in 1954 against a pretty strong English team. And no other team has avoided losing their first ever series in England. What Pak achieved in the 50's as the youngest test playing country was truly incredible.

Yes drawing in England was a fantastic achievement for Pak.

 

[sweep_shot]

Bangladesh do not deserve the Test status at the present moment.

If you can't win against West Indies at home, you are unlikely to beat other top 8 teams. Even Afghanistan should beat Bangladesh in Test (they have done that once already).

Only teams Bangladesh can probably beat in Test are Zimbabwe and Ireland.

 

[Rana]

You cannot make such comparisons. Pakistan and India entered the game at a time when it was not a proper professional, advanced sport with lots of competition.

Test cricket was a monopoly of 2-3 countries, it was a niche community where a bunch of amateur, non-athletic players were playing against each other.

There were no proper athletes in cricket and a lot of the stories about the legends of those players are exaggerated.

Those teams and players will get badly exposed today.

There were also no data analysis and video footage and players were not observed with close scrutiny.

Cricket became a proper professional sport from 1970s onwards when the era of proper fast bowling started and the game moved on from the likes of Lindwall and Trueman bowling “fast” at 75 mph.

The likes of Lillee, Thompson, WI pacers and Imran etc. emerged and the batting standards went up a notch to cope with them.

As a result, it became harder and harder for new teams to emerge.

Sri Lanka did well because they got lucky with a genius like Muralitharan, who although was a chucker, was the greatest of all time and what he did.

Bangladesh have not been able to produce someone of his caliber.

If Sri Lanka started playing Test cricket in the same era as Pakistan and India and they had Muralitharan, they would be invincible and they would be talked about in the same vein as the great West Indies and Australia, because those pre 70s batsmen would not be able to put bat on ball against him.

His skill level was about 100x greater than what was prevalent at the time. He would be averaging 5 or 6 with the ball.

As far as India vs Pakistan is concerned, it is important to realize that the dynamics were different. Until the late 60s, cricket was predominantly an upper class sport in Pakistan.

Most of our players were educated, well-groomed and westernized. A lot of players came from posh schools like Aitchison that had British teachers and cricket coaches and you were not allowed to speak in Urdu on campus.

Our players at the time were basically westerners and Pakistan cricket team had a proper drinking culture and it was out in the open and socially accepted.

This was of course an era of liberation in Pakistan where liquor was readily available and there was no concept of religious extremism especially in the major cities of the country.

Our players at that time were at a different level compared to their Indian counterparts, who started to catch up from 70s onwards while Pakistan’s cricket culture slowly changed. It was de-westernized and the game spread out to the villages and rural areas instead of being restricted to the posh schools and elite class.

If Pakistan and India started to play Test cricket today, they would struggle as much as Bangladesh have in the last 20 years.

Hain? Is there any proof to this?

 

[Rana]

Bangladesh do not deserve the Test status at the present moment.

If you can't win against West Indies at home, you are unlikely to beat other top 8 teams. Even Afghanistan should beat Bangladesh in Test (they have done that once already).

Only teams Bangladesh can probably beat in Test are Zimbabwe and Ireland.

I think your a very good and fair poster. So for you I would say that there were certainly a few Tests that Bangladesh should have won but choked for no apparent reason. At least that one against Pakistan where Inzimam scored the winning runs.

 

[Mamoon]

Hain? Is there any proof to this?

The speeds of the great “fast” bowlers of the 30s, 50s, 60s is a myth and subject to great exaggerations. They were all dibbly-dobblers.

Modern fast bowling started with Lillee and Thompson in the 70s. They raised the bar and redefined what fast bowling was.

Check the following video of the great English “fast” bowler Larwood. Watch from 1:30 onwards.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...VIDEO-Ray-Lindwall-and-the-Ball-Chewing-Video

“Larwood the acknowledged speed king of all time makes his delivery at 70 miles an hour”

There is a reason why helmets didn’t exist back then. There was no need of self-protection when the fast bowlers were bowling at 70 mph.

After all, necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Rana]

The speeds of the great “fast” bowlers of the 30s, 50s, 60s is a myth and subject to great exaggerations. They were all dibbly-dobblers.

Modern fast bowling started with Lillee and Thompson in the 70s. They raised the bar and redefined what fast bowling was.

Check the following video of the great English “fast” bowler Larwood. Watch from 1:30 onwards.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...VIDEO-Ray-Lindwall-and-the-Ball-Chewing-Video

“Larwood the acknowledged speed king of all time makes his delivery at 70 miles an hour”

There is a reason why helmets didn’t exist back then. There was no need of self-protection when the fast bowlers were bowling at 70 mph.

After all, necessity is the mother of invention.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket...-1960s-an-interview-with-harold-rhodes-part-4

This article suggests otherwise. And I would agree with this article.

Unless you have ever faced 70-75pmh in a real match situation, you would never believe in videos like 'Larwood the acknowledged speed king lol'.

 

[Rana]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] unless your telling me that the ball reached the batsman at 70mph after Larwood had released it....in that case he would still be around the 90mph point of release mark.

 

[Mamoon]

https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket...-1960s-an-interview-with-harold-rhodes-part-4

This article suggests otherwise. And I would agree with this article.

Unless you have ever faced 70-75pmh in a real match situation, you would never believe in videos like 'Larwood the acknowledged speed king lol'.

You can believe what ever you want.

I said what I needed to say. I don’t want to argue something that no one of us can prove either way because we cannot have accurate data over the bowlers other than grainy footage, stories and legends.

However, you can check their bowling actions and run-ups and you can clearly see that they were not capable of bowling at 90 mph.

Their bowling speeds don’t measure well on the eye test as well. Watch verified 90 mph bowlers and then watch their footage and you can clearly see that there is a significant difference in speed.

More importantly, use your common sense. The first time a helmet was worn in Test cricket was in 1978.

If bowlers were bowling at 90 mph right from 1890s and 1990s, it would not have taken almost a century for helmets and protective gear to develop.

Batsmen started wearing protective gear only when the bowling speeds increased to the point where there lives were suddenly in danger and they were at risk of getting seriously injured.

The introduction of helmets in 1978 matches up with the rise of Lillee and Thomson as the first generation of genuine fast bowlers.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] unless your telling me that the ball reached the batsman at 70mph after Larwood had released it....in that case he would still be around the 90mph point of release mark.

You are getting pedantic over the choice of words of the commentator. The footage is from the 1930s.

There was not enough knowledge, technology and data available at the time for people to understand the difference between the speed at the point of release and at the point at which it reaches the batsman.

Cricket after all was just a 40-50 year old sport, played by amateur players with side jobs. It was not serious.

Larwood’s bowling speed was 70 mph, and you can see that from his run up, stride and action. There is no way he was capable of bowling at 90+.

He was known as the speed king because at that time, 70 mph was considered fast. No one knew how to bowl at 90 mph because the mechanics of fast bowling were not understood.

I am sure you have watched Jack Hobbs’ footage, and I am sure even you would agree that he would get outperformed by a number 11 batsman if he faces today’s bowlers.

 

[Rana]

You can believe what ever you want.

I said what I needed to say. I don’t want to argue something that no one of us can prove either way because we cannot have accurate data over the bowlers other than grainy footage, stories and legends.

However, you can check their bowling actions and run-ups and you can clearly see that they were not capable of bowling at 90 mph.

Their bowling speeds don’t measure well on the eye test as well. Watch verified 90 mph bowlers and then watch their footage and you can clearly see that there is a significant difference in speed.

More importantly, use your common sense. The first time a helmet was worn in Test cricket was in 1978.

If bowlers were bowling at 90 mph right from 1890s and 1990s, it would not have taken almost a century for helmets and protective gear to develop.

Batsmen started wearing protective gear only when the bowling speeds increased to the point where there lives were suddenly in danger and they were at risk of getting seriously injured.

The introduction of helmets in 1978 matches up with the rise of Lillee and Thomson as the first generation of genuine fast bowlers.

Yeah I am trying to work that out. I dont think the footage is clear enough to indicate that they were actually only as quick as Praveen Kumar, Mohammad Abbas or Colin DeGrandhome.

The short, slower run up theory isn't strong enough either. Many of these 'tape ball bolwers or rock throwers' as you call them are ambling in like this as well and still releasing it at 90mph.

The helmet theory is questionable also. I know some very old school batsmen, tough cricketers in their time from the Carribean who have always found it quite weak or soft to bat with a helmet on. These are guys who played cricket during the 70s, 80s. It wasnt because there was a sudden evolution of pace bowling speeds by a 15-20mph increase in the Athletic abilities of human fast bowlers.

There is actually a video of Ricky Ponting batting without a helmet to Mohammad Sami, who we know was always a 145kmh bowler. Ill find the video in which Shoaib Akhtar was bowling to a West Indian tailender I believe and he wasn't wearing a helmet. Also, I dont think that the initial helmets in world cricket offered a front grill. The face was completely exposed, although i cant be sure of this.

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah I am trying to work that out. I dont think the footage is clear enough to indicate that they were actually only as quick as Praveen Kumar, Mohammad Abbas or Colin DeGrandhome.

The short, slower run up theory isn't strong enough either. Many of these 'tape ball bolwers or rock throwers' as you call them are ambling in like this as well and still releasing it at 90mph.

The helmet theory is questionable also. I know some very old school batsmen, tough cricketers in their time from the Carribean who have always found it quite weak or soft to bat with a helmet on. These are guys who played cricket during the 70s, 80s. It wasnt because there was a sudden evolution of pace bowling speeds by a 15-20mph increase in the Athletic abilities of human fast bowlers.

There is actually a video of Ricky Ponting batting without a helmet to Mohammad Sami, who we know was always a 145kmh bowler. Ill find the video in which Shoaib Akhtar was bowling to a West Indian tailender I believe and he wasn't wearing a helmet. Also, I dont think that the initial helmets in world cricket offered a front grill. The face was completely exposed, although i cant be sure of this.

You will always find a few batsmen not wearing helmets. Viv did not and he faced Lillee, Thompson, Imran bowling short balls to him and he would hook them for 6. However, he was an exception.

Ponting might not have a worn a helmet on occasion but 99% of the time he wore one when he played fast bowlers, and he was the great player of short bowling in his prime.

The fact that helmets were not invented until the 1970s is 100% conclusive proof that fast bowlers from 1890s to 1960s were not capable of bowling at 90 mph.

You ban helmets today and remove the limit on bouncers and batsmen will get injured almost every series, and they would frequently die as well.

If bowlers were bowling 90 mph from 1890s to 1960s, you would see batsmen dying and getting seriously injuries almost every series. Not to mention, the pitches were uncovered and they offered variable bounce.

Imagine facing Akhtar on a pitch with variable bounce and not wearing helmet. Moreover, there are no restrictions on bouncers. What are the odds that no one dies every series?

 

[Hyperion66]

They need to make batting pitches for both international and domestic fixtures. Their batsmen need to learn the art of batting time. That should be the primary focus.

I agree with Varun on this point, they need success and winning confidence more than anything, everything else is secondary. Turners are their best shot at defeating credible oppositions, they did beat Eng and Aus not so long back, so it is a tested and proven method as well.

 

[Hyperion66]

Yes, they only won 2 matches in the 80's but they had pretty good 90's and early 2000's, which means that they are the Asian team to have won the most number of matches in their first 121 matches.

Sri Lanka also took just 14 years after gaining Test status in 1982 to win their 1st ever ODI WC in 1996, which is amazing really.

SL had world-class players like De-Silva, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Murali and a tremendous white ball tactician in Ranatunga in the 90's. It takes years to develop players of such caliber. BD too has Shakib, Tamim and Mushfiq but the rest are so bad that even their golden generation is hardly achieving anything.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

i dont think Bang have done that badly ... they have been a good decent team but just not the class of other asian teams

they have had decent batsmen (Tamim, Sakib, Mushfiq) and fast bowlers (Mutafeez and Murtaza) and spinners (Sakib, Mehdi, Razzaq) but they havent had any success.

another thing is that all the above mentioned have actually pretty much played together but apart from that 1 year when they beat Pak, SA and India in a LOI series, they have not done anything noteable.

to top it up, they lost to Afg at home and WI thrashed them as well ... so not good signs

they spend a lot on coaches and they have just won u-19 tournament so maybe the coming years might bring up good players...

at the min, how ever u speak twist and treat, Bang is a minnow

 

[jnaveen1980]

Bangladesh still relies on the 2007 batch cricketers a lot more. Not sure how their future will be once these guys leave. Zimbabwe produced an absolutely world-class cricketer in Andy Flower.

In the last 5 years of BD cricket. The average is poor. For some reason strike rate is high. May be they are still in one-day mode?

 

[szrana007]

Bangladesh do not deserve the Test status at the present moment.

If you can't win against West Indies at home, you are unlikely to beat other top 8 teams. Even Afghanistan should beat Bangladesh in Test (they have done that once already).

Only teams Bangladesh can probably beat in Test are Zimbabwe and Ireland.

Bangladesh should beat Ireland at home, but they will lose to them away.

 

[sweep_shot]

Bangladesh should beat Ireland at home, but they will lose to them away.

I think BD may lose at home against Ireland too. LOL. That's how bad things are now.

 

[szrana007]

I think BD may lose at home against Ireland too. LOL. That's how bad things are now.

Yeah, I hope they improve soon. Already a pitiful number of teams play Test cricket, so cricket needs more competitive teams not less.

 

[Hitman]

You will always find a few batsmen not wearing helmets. Viv did not and he faced Lillee, Thompson, Imran bowling short balls to him and he would hook them for 6. However, he was an exception.

Ponting might not have a worn a helmet on occasion but 99% of the time he wore one when he played fast bowlers, and he was the great player of short bowling in his prime.

The fact that helmets were not invented until the 1970s is 100% conclusive proof that fast bowlers from 1890s to 1960s were not capable of bowling at 90 mph.

You ban helmets today and remove the limit on bouncers and batsmen will get injured almost every series, and they would frequently die as well.

If bowlers were bowling 90 mph from 1890s to 1960s, you would see batsmen dying and getting seriously injuries almost every series. Not to mention, the pitches were uncovered and they offered variable bounce.

Imagine facing Akhtar on a pitch with variable bounce and not wearing helmet. Moreover, there are no restrictions on bouncers. What are the odds that no one dies every series?

Agreed 100%. Top post.

 

[MP2011]

Why would you exclude Pakistan and Bangladesh from India's test records till '47? Very convenient I must say!

Either include them with India till '47 records or consider India's records from '47 too.

 

[Executioner]

It would be unfair to compare Bangladesh starting off cricket compared to when India and Pakistan started. India and Pakistan debuted when cricket was a niche sport. Bangladesh were rather thrusted upon the international scene not because we were ready but because ICC didn't have much choice. When Bangladesh entered the scene in test cricket, world cricket was at its highest quality atleast in my opinion.

As a test nation i still firmly believe we have failed time and Time again but to say we should have our test status removed is not the way to go. I mean it's not like we were not competitive (we lost by 3 wickets and 17 runs). It's a case of Bangladeshi cricketers, boards and selectors truly understanding the value of test cricket. Our domestic structure has gradually improved over the years but it will take for the results to show. We have seldom valued test cricket. Take recent history for example. We had a domestic OD competition and T20 Competition. Results, -we absolutely demolished hapless WI ODI side. But our senior cricketers didn't want to play practice FC matches which were offered by the board. Also I would like to state my personal opinion. Bangladesh DOES NOT have "talents". Infact, it's only in recent years that we are starting to produce talented cricketers and our U19 WC performances are testament to that - we finished 3rd, 6th and 1st in the last 3 seasons. Before that it was mainly being the Plate Champions which is an embarassment by all means. So basically we are a talentless bunch with a few exceptions like Shakib Tamim Fizz only now producing players who are capable of being quality.

Now I don't want to put this down as an excuse, but the introduction of T20s was of massive detriment to us. Did I not mention of how talentless we were in the past? Well Bangladeshi, and Indians, are genetically weaker than your Lankans Afghans or Pakistanis. Nepal folks are simila to us I reckon. Now at a time where we were supposed to be improving in longer formats, we also had to participate in T20Is and T20 world cups. We had to fill in T20 Competitions instead of more first class cricket. And during the early 2010s and late 00s T20Is was one format where we were even worse than in tests. Only in recent times have we started to become a half decent T20 side. Having beaten Pakistan WI SL on quite a few occasions. I mean our record against WI in recent times is 3-3. And yet we still struggle in tests.

Now I would like to think I am a matured person now compared to what I was 10 years back. I still believe we are so far behind in test cricket but I believe we are slowly developing the raw materials to help us become a competitive side as it did for us in ODIs since 2010 and also T20Is since 2016. It's up to the fans to be patient, the BCB to be proactive and for the players to give their best effort in tests.

Once again, I will still say that we have been "Rubbish" in test cricket. But there was a time when people said we will never be good in LOIs either but we have done pretty well in those and we can certainly do that in Tests, perhaps not in the upcoming months but from a few years from now. Now, I am all for BD not being a part of the WTC for the next 2 year cycle. But BD should still keep on playing tests regularly, perhaps a bit more against weaker teams. Cricket is a sport marred by a lack of competitive teams. The last thing you would want is to discard teams with potential and a large fanbase. I am a big fan of not only Bangladesh cricket but cricket in general. And I hope fans worldwide remain optimistic about not only Bangladesh but teams like Nepal Scotland Ireland Afghanistan Zimbabwe West Indies Srilanka. Cricket may have survived just on the basis of England Pakistan India Australia West Indies in the past but it won't in the future if we do not promote more teams into the mix

I was a strong proponent of afghanistan and Ireland being awarded test squad and I still am a strong opposer of World cups having fewer teams.

 

[Executioner]

I think BD may lose at home against Ireland too. LOL. That's how bad things are now.

Bangladesh are still much better than Ireland and would definitely beat them at home.

People forget to factor in that West Indies side beat England in England on two occasions on the last.few years. Something many other test teams have failed to do so. While it's true guys like Mosley Bonner and Kyle are debutants, they still have a lot of quality test players in them. Rather it was the ODI side which was far too inexperienced and weak. The test side was always potent.

 

[szrana007]

Why would you exclude Pakistan and Bangladesh from India's test records till '47? Very convenient I must say!

Either include them with India till '47 records or consider India's records from '47 too.

Nah, doesn't work that way, India debuted in Test cricket in 1932, Pak debuted in 1952, Sri Lanka debuted in 1982 and Bangladesh debuted in 2000. Thats how it is.

Thats how it is considered in all statistics and records, no matter if anyone dislike that.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

It would be unfair to compare Bangladesh starting off cricket compared to when India and Pakistan started. India and Pakistan debuted when cricket was a niche sport. Bangladesh were rather thrusted upon the international scene not because we were ready but because ICC didn't have much choice. When Bangladesh entered the scene in test cricket, world cricket was at its highest quality atleast in my opinion.

As a test nation i still firmly believe we have failed time and Time again but to say we should have our test status removed is not the way to go. I mean it's not like we were not competitive (we lost by 3 wickets and 17 runs). It's a case of Bangladeshi cricketers, boards and selectors truly understanding the value of test cricket. Our domestic structure has gradually improved over the years but it will take for the results to show. We have seldom valued test cricket. Take recent history for example. We had a domestic OD competition and T20 Competition. Results, -we absolutely demolished hapless WI ODI side. But our senior cricketers didn't want to play practice FC matches which were offered by the board. Also I would like to state my personal opinion. Bangladesh DOES NOT have "talents". Infact, it's only in recent years that we are starting to produce talented cricketers and our U19 WC performances are testament to that - we finished 3rd, 6th and 1st in the last 3 seasons. Before that it was mainly being the Plate Champions which is an embarassment by all means. So basically we are a talentless bunch with a few exceptions like Shakib Tamim Fizz only now producing players who are capable of being quality.

Now I don't want to put this down as an excuse, but the introduction of T20s was of massive detriment to us. Did I not mention of how talentless we were in the past? Well Bangladeshi, and Indians, are genetically weaker than your Lankans Afghans or Pakistanis. Nepal folks are simila to us I reckon. Now at a time where we were supposed to be improving in longer formats, we also had to participate in T20Is and T20 world cups. We had to fill in T20 Competitions instead of more first class cricket. And during the early 2010s and late 00s T20Is was one format where we were even worse than in tests. Only in recent times have we started to become a half decent T20 side. Having beaten Pakistan WI SL on quite a few occasions. I mean our record against WI in recent times is 3-3. And yet we still struggle in tests.

Now I would like to think I am a matured person now compared to what I was 10 years back. I still believe we are so far behind in test cricket but I believe we are slowly developing the raw materials to help us become a competitive side as it did for us in ODIs since 2010 and also T20Is since 2016. It's up to the fans to be patient, the BCB to be proactive and for the players to give their best effort in tests.

Once again, I will still say that we have been "Rubbish" in test cricket. But there was a time when people said we will never be good in LOIs either but we have done pretty well in those and we can certainly do that in Tests, perhaps not in the upcoming months but from a few years from now. Now, I am all for BD not being a part of the WTC for the next 2 year cycle. But BD should still keep on playing tests regularly, perhaps a bit more against weaker teams. Cricket is a sport marred by a lack of competitive teams. The last thing you would want is to discard teams with potential and a large fanbase. I am a big fan of not only Bangladesh cricket but cricket in general. And I hope fans worldwide remain optimistic about not only Bangladesh but teams like Nepal Scotland Ireland Afghanistan Zimbabwe West Indies Srilanka. Cricket may have survived just on the basis of England Pakistan India Australia West Indies in the past but it won't in the future if we do not promote more teams into the mix

I was a strong proponent of afghanistan and Ireland being awarded test squad and I still am a strong opposer of World cups having fewer teams.

a very balanced post... identified things correctly ...need to pump money into test cricket , 4 day domestic cricket ....

problem is that even with the golden boys , if this hasnt happened, it would become even more difficult once the likes of Tamims and Sakibs and Mushfiqs are gone....

 

[street cricketer]

Well Bangladeshi, and Indians, are genetically weaker than your Lankans Afghans or Pakistanis. Nepal folks are simila to us I reckon.

Do people still believe in these pseudoscience theories in this day and age?

 

[Executioner]

a very balanced post... identified things correctly ...need to pump money into test cricket , 4 day domestic cricket ....

problem is that even with the golden boys , if this hasnt happened, it would become even more difficult once the likes of Tamims and Sakibs and Mushfiqs are gone....

Shakib was always and still is a champion cricketer. He was world class 2 years after his debut and hasn't had any particular year where he was anything short of world class. The other 2 came good solely because they got so much opportunities. If you look at the latest test series, it's Miraz Mominul Litton who has scored most of the runs. Tamim and Mushy lacked much impact. The biggest miss would be Shakib ofcourse particularly in the test format.

 

[Babbar]

Do people still believe in these pseudoscience theories in this day and age?

What the hell is “generically weaker” person. How’s a Pakistani different from an Indian unless we accept that Pakistanis were born out of Turks and Mongol invaders making involuntary love to poor enslaved women living in Indus region in those times.

A person with no intellectual capability but a total thug, living off the streets, can be considered genetically stronger than someone who has balanced fulfilling life.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

Shakib was always and still is a champion cricketer. He was world class 2 years after his debut and hasn't had any particular year where he was anything short of world class. The other 2 came good solely because they got so much opportunities. If you look at the latest test series, it's Miraz Mominul Litton who has scored most of the runs. Tamim and Mushy lacked much impact. The biggest miss would be Shakib ofcourse particularly in the test format.

problem is , i ownt put a dollar on tri of MirzaMominulLiton to lift Bang in test cricket.. Sakib had tht skill level to lift you guys but he has seriously disappointed in that scenario.....

dont know if things will turn around in next few years.... but the decade looks a bad one for Bang team (unfortunatly)

 

[szrana007]

Bangladesh still relies on the 2007 batch cricketers a lot more. Not sure how their future will be once these guys leave. Zimbabwe produced an absolutely world-class cricketer in Andy Flower.

In the last 5 years of BD cricket. The average is poor. For some reason strike rate is high. May be they are still in one-day mode?

View attachment 107055

Yeah, they need to find some good upcoming talent. Winning the U19 World Cup gives some hope though.

 

[NishanKonar]

You can believe what ever you want.

I said what I needed to say. I don’t want to argue something that no one of us can prove either way because we cannot have accurate data over the bowlers other than grainy footage, stories and legends.

However, you can check their bowling actions and run-ups and you can clearly see that they were not capable of bowling at 90 mph.

Their bowling speeds don’t measure well on the eye test as well. Watch verified 90 mph bowlers and then watch their footage and you can clearly see that there is a significant difference in speed.

More importantly, use your common sense. The first time a helmet was worn in Test cricket was in 1978.

If bowlers were bowling at 90 mph right from 1890s and 1990s, it would not have taken almost a century for helmets and protective gear to develop.

Batsmen started wearing protective gear only when the bowling speeds increased to the point where there lives were suddenly in danger and they were at risk of getting seriously injured.

The introduction of helmets in 1978 matches up with the rise of Lillee and Thomson as the first generation of genuine fast bowlers.

Agree with Mamoon here

1 problem with cricket is the past is over glorified. Almost all good players from the past are over hyped. Like how Tyson bowled like a typhoon. I have seen videos of Tyson & he is bowling more like fast medium ( if I am charitable ) Best example is how South African players of the 70s are now hyped to mythical proportions - like Barry Richards , Mike Proctor even though actual stats do not suggest so

Its the same with bowler speed. I dont think Larwood / Trueman / Tyson were anywhere close to modern speedsters

ps: all sports become faster / physical with time. Example Jesse Owens ran 100 ms in 10.3 sec in 1936 Olympics. With that time u wont qualify for 100m race at Tokyo Olympics

But somehow fast bowlers from 1930s were as quick as modern bowlers like Starc & Jofra Archer

 

[szrana007]

Missing our dear brother MMHS 's comments on this thread

 

[street cricketer]

A person with no intellectual capability but a total thug, living off the streets, can be considered genetically stronger than someone who has balanced fulfilling life.

The term "genetically stronger" has no meaning. Firstly, how do you quantify "strength". To quantify something, you first must be able to measure or calculate it. You can measure someone's height and weight, but how do you compare the average strength of a population? I'm assuming by genetically stronger, people mean the phenotypical traits of a population particularly the height.

Well gene is basically a segment containing coded information in the form of DNA, some of which can produce proteins - either structural or functional. No information is actually coded into a gene that determines how "strong" you are. And even for height, genetics don't play as big a role as much as environmental and developmental factors do. The average Japanese was among the shortest in the world a century ago, shorter than the average Afghan, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi (regions of present day Pakistan and Bangladesh that were part of erstwhile British India) and Sri Lankan. Now the average Japanese is taller than all of these ethnicities because of the development they have underwent in economy and thereby better incomes resulting in better nutrition available for the growing child. Ditto with the Koreans and Chinese.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Then why didn't Sri Lanka struggle as badly in their initial years as a Test playing nation? They entered test cricket in 1982, and 80's and 90's were by far the toughest era of cricket. Still they did very well. So you can't say the same for Pakistan and India too.

Pakistan did remarkably well when they entered test cricket in 1952. The beat every other side in the first series they played them including series wins against OZ,WI and NZ, which is a far cry from Bangladesh's performance in test cricket.

When a person is hell bent on believing something, he will try to mold stuff into whichever way he might find suitable to his belief.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Shakib was always and still is a champion cricketer. He was world class 2 years after his debut and hasn't had any particular year where he was anything short of world class. The other 2 came good solely because they got so much opportunities. If you look at the latest test series, it's Miraz Mominul Litton who has scored most of the runs. Tamim and Mushy lacked much impact. The biggest miss would be Shakib ofcourse particularly in the test format.

You are probably the best poster from Bangladesh with a lot of knowledge and perspective.

The scary thing for Bangladesh Cricket is that Shakib, Mushfiqur and Mahmudullah are of the same age and are likely to go around a similar time and it's getting closer now whether it's 3 or 4 years from now and once they leave, Bangladesh cricket will have big big shoes to fill. Apart from Litton, don't thing there is an able replacement of Shakib(one of the best in the world) and Mahmudullah(a utility player)

 

[street cricketer]

Bangladesh seems to be doing relatively better in limited overs cricket. I think one of the reasons for their perennial failures in test cricket is that there's no real appetite for test cricket in Bangladesh. I've lost count of the number of comments I've read from Bangladeshi posters calling Test cricket as the most boring format of cricket and how it's pointless because of its length over the years. Don't get me wrong, if you ask what's your most preferred format for the average Indian or Pakistani or Sri Lankan, the majority will be for T20 or ODI cricket. But Test cricket still has a place in countries like India and Pakistan because these teams have a good history in test cricket and some of their biggest players like Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Tendulkar, Imran, Akram, Miandad, etc., have a great legacy in test cricket.

So people still tune in to watch test cricket with interest in these countries whereas in Bangladesh, they don't have a great history or legacy in test cricket. So whatever interest in test cricket can appear only if the present lot play well and create a legacy for themselves. If the current Bangladesh test team starts playing well at least at home regularly, then all those who call test cricket as boring will automatically start tuning in. Nobody wants to follow a format where your team plays for five days and loses regularly. In many ways, being the pioneers and creating history for the first time is far more difficult than following someone's successful legacy.

Players come from the population who grow up watching their stars. Tendulkar grew up watching Gavaskar succeed in test cricket and wanting to emulate him while Kohli followed in Tendulkar's footsteps. Someone will take over the mantle from Kohli in future, probably Gill. Same with Imran inspiring Wasim, and then Akhtar and so on. Miraz already seems to be inspired by Shakib in the role he plays in the Bangladesh test team. Perhaps, the next generation of their U19 cricketers go on to have successful test careers and stoke an appetite for test cricket in Bangladesh.

 

[Rana]

Agree with Mamoon here

1 problem with cricket is the past is over glorified. Almost all good players from the past are over hyped. Like how Tyson bowled like a typhoon. I have seen videos of Tyson & he is bowling more like fast medium ( if I am charitable ) Best example is how South African players of the 70s are now hyped to mythical proportions - like Barry Richards , Mike Proctor even though actual stats do not suggest so

Its the same with bowler speed. I dont think Larwood / Trueman / Tyson were anywhere close to modern speedsters

ps: all sports become faster / physical with time. Example Jesse Owens ran 100 ms in 10.3 sec in 1936 Olympics. With that time u wont qualify for 100m race at Tokyo Olympics

But somehow fast bowlers from 1930s were as quick as modern bowlers like Starc & Jofra Archer

They may not have been as quick but 70mph speed demons is a massive stretch

I would agree to 83-87mph but not 70-75mph

 

[Minnowbasher]

Big 3 is a problem for Bangladesh as well as most non-big 3 nations. When was the last time Bangladesh toured Australia or England?
The more you play competitive cricket the better you become. India used to not be able to compete in Australia look at them now - after consistently playing oz in oz every 2-3 years they are now thrashing them in their own backyard.

 

[Minnowbasher]

Bangladesh's story is somewhat of a tragedy. They seem a cricket crazy country like India and Pakistan yet they can barely compete against most top nations. There was a time when they began beating Pakistan and looked to cement their place as a top 6 side, but now things just seem to have plateaued across all 3 formats. Ofcourse they did just beat Windies in odis, but I still believe Bangladesh should be so much better. More than Pakistan IMO Bangladesh has been somewhat robbed by big 3 nations. They don't play enough tough competitive cricket against top nations so naturally it becomes harder to improve as a team.

 

[Minnowbasher]

@bangladeshi fans what is domestic cricket like in Bangladesh? How many teams do you guys have? Maybe improving quality of domestic cricket including pitches may help the youth to play more competitive cricket that can help them perform better at the international level.
I feel like Pakistan has already somewhat benefited from the 6 teams structure as cricket is more competitive so we can rely on domestic players to perform reasonably well at the international level.

 

[Napa]

Nah, doesn't work that way, India debuted in Test cricket in 1932, Pak debuted in 1952, Sri Lanka debuted in 1982 and Bangladesh debuted in 2000. Thats how it is.

Thats how it is considered in all statistics and records, no matter if anyone dislike that.

One can take sense, or one can talk statistics.

Obviously, with Pakistan and Bangladesh having been part of "British India", it doesn't make "sense" to dump all the losses of "British India" on to India. Many of the players of the "British India" team may have played for Pakistan or Bangladesh if those nations existed when they represented "British India".

 

[Napa]

Bangladesh's story is somewhat of a tragedy. They seem a cricket crazy country like India and Pakistan yet they can barely compete against most top nations. There was a time when they began beating Pakistan and looked to cement their place as a top 6 side, but now things just seem to have plateaued across all 3 formats. Ofcourse they did just beat Windies in odis, but I still believe Bangladesh should be so much better. More than Pakistan IMO Bangladesh has been somewhat robbed by big 3 nations. They don't play enough tough competitive cricket against top nations so naturally it becomes harder to improve as a team.

Bangladesh with its rapidly growing economy, will have a domestic league which will attract decent foreign talent due to the teams being able to pay large amounts. The Bangladeshi players will get the required exposure.

 

[szrana007]

One can take sense, or one can talk statistics.

Obviously, with Pakistan and Bangladesh having been part of "British India", it doesn't make "sense" to dump all the losses of "British India" on to India. Many of the players of the "British India" team may have played for Pakistan or Bangladesh if those nations existed when they represented "British India".

Ok, so just for you, I checked India's stats for their first 121 Test matches using 15 August 1947 as the start date, since that is the Independence day for India.

So following is the record for India for first 121 Test matches ( from 1947-1974)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 19
Matches Lost 46
Matches Drawn 56

W/L ratio = 0.413

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...anval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=team

So India still 3rd best behind Pakistan and Sri Lanka in their first 121 Test matches respectively, even if you take the start date from 15 Aug 1947.

So doesn't change the standings one bit, even if you discard India's pre 1947 stats.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Bangladesh's story is somewhat of a tragedy. They seem a cricket crazy country like India and Pakistan yet they can barely compete against most top nations. There was a time when they began beating Pakistan and looked to cement their place as a top 6 side, but now things just seem to have plateaued across all 3 formats. Ofcourse they did just beat Windies in odis, but I still believe Bangladesh should be so much better. More than Pakistan IMO Bangladesh has been somewhat robbed by big 3 nations. They don't play enough tough competitive cricket against top nations so naturally it becomes harder to improve as a team.

So you think that if Pakistan play 4 test matches every year in Australia they will beat them in the series with the current team ?

 

[Heisenberg111]

So you think that if Pakistan play 4 test matches every year in Australia they will beat them in the series with the current team ?

It would be better, if Pakistan don't tour Australia at all for the foreseeable future. They need to first do well in South Africa, then they can proceed to Australia, otherwise it will continue to be a humiliation, one after the other.

 

[szrana007]

Ok, so just for you, I checked India's stats for their first 121 Test matches using 15 August 1947 as the start date, since that is the Independence day for India.

So following is the record for India for first 121 Test matches ( from 1947-1974)

Matches Played 121
Matches Won 19
Matches Lost 46
Matches Drawn 56

W/L ratio = 0.413

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...anval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=team

So India still 3rd best behind Pakistan and Sri Lanka in their first 121 Test matches respectively, even if you take the start date from 15 Aug 1947.

So doesn't change the standings one bit, even if you discard India's pre 1947 stats.

No matter which way you turn it. India didn't have a great time in test cricket in their initial years, but they still did better than what BD has done in test cricket so far, obviously.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Bangladesh's story is somewhat of a tragedy. They seem a cricket crazy country like India and Pakistan yet they can barely compete against most top nations. There was a time when they began beating Pakistan and looked to cement their place as a top 6 side, but now things just seem to have plateaued across all 3 formats. Ofcourse they did just beat Windies in odis, but I still believe Bangladesh should be so much better. More than Pakistan IMO Bangladesh has been somewhat robbed by big 3 nations. They don't play enough tough competitive cricket against top nations so naturally it becomes harder to improve as a team.

Yup thats a problem. Bangladesh last toured Australia in 2003 and last toured England in 2010. And India didn't invite them for a series until 2017.

 

[Last Monetarist]

The lack of tours to Australia and England isn't a Bangladesh specific problem. It's a problem that has been exacerbated by the Big 3 takeover.

Sri Lanka last toured England in 2016. The West Indies haven't played a match with Australia since 2015-16 and there are no tours scheduled any time soon.

Pakistan and South Africa are threatening to go down the same road if their test results continue to deteriorate over the next 5 years.

 

[Napa]

Ok, so just for you, I checked India's stats for their first 121 Test matches using 15 August 1947 as the start date, since that is the Independence day for India.

Not just me

No matter which way you turn it. India didn't have a great time in test cricket in their initial years, but they still did better than what BD has done in test cricket so far, obviously.

India was already ranked #1 by June 1974 India for 15 months, while 47 years later we still have no other subcontinental team able to hold the ranking for a total of even half a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

 

[Buffet]

How many BD players played as part of the Pakistani team or British India? If not many then being part of Pakistan or British India was not very helpful when it comes to BD already having good experience/support.

100 tests over multiple generations is a lot different than 100 tests in 20 years. The first-class structure takes time to develop.

To think in extreme, If a newbie team plays 100 tests in 5 years, they not going to improve that much despite playing 100 tests.

I am not saying that BD shouldn't try to improve from here, but the timeline of playing 100 tests matters a lot. All 100 tests are not equal when it comes to improvements.

 

[GenericBrand]

Being led and managed by a bunch of jokers and trolls isn't helping their cause either.

You have a captain who defends his choice of picking Soumya as their 'second pacer' when he most likely isn't even considered an all-rounder by domestic teams. Then you have one of their most 'experienced' players flat-out saying they didn't expect the pitch to behave the way it has, as if these players haven't played in Dhaka all their lives

 

[Giannis]

India's record should only be counted after partition, British India wasn't the same team - it included 3 of the present day countries, they even played under a different flag

 

[szrana007]

How many BD players played as part of the Pakistani team or British India? If not many then being part of Pakistan or British India was not very helpful when it comes to BD already having good experience/support.

100 tests over multiple generations is a lot different than 100 tests in 20 years. The first-class structure takes time to develop.

To think in extreme, If a newbie team plays 100 tests in 5 years, they not going to improve that much despite playing 100 tests.

I am not saying that BD shouldn't try to improve from here, but the timeline of playing 100 tests matters a lot. All 100 tests are not equal when it comes to improvements.

Sri Lanka also played 121 Tests in about 20 years from 1982-2002, the same number of years as Bangladesh, but they much better than BD in their first 121 Tests. They also won a ODI WC 14 only years after gaining Test status.

Pakistan also did exceptionally well in their first decade of Test cricket in the 1950's with series wins against Australia, West Indies and New Zealand and a drawn series in England.

So its clear that its only Bangladesh, who have struggled this badly, its got nothing to do with the timeline, as demonstrated by Pakistan who started winning immediately after being granted Test status and Sri Lanka also not taking much time to improve and winning a WC in 14 years after being given Test status.