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

[szrana007]

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

India still comes at 3rd, behind Pakistan and Sri Lanka if you take their record post partition and discard their pre 1947 stats. Check post#70

 

[Giannis]

Bangladesh have been utterly disappointing, they've highly underachieved

 

[Buffet]

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.

It has to do with first-class standards. Pakistani players were playing in a good system before getting test status. If I recall it right, some SL players were playing in Indian first-class as well.

I am not sure how good BD first-class structure is, to be honest. The first-class structure is the backbone of an international team.

 

[szrana007]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] Rankings aren't everything. Overall W/L ratio gives a better measure of success than let's say reaching the no.1 spot for just a few months and then back to being number 5-6 again.

For example, India also reached the no.1 spot in the 1990's for a few months, but they were far from the best side in the 1990's. Infact, if we look at India's W/L ratio in the 90's ,its 5th best.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

So Overall, India was the 5th best side of the 90's behind Pakistan, even if they reached no.1 spot for a few months in the 90's, which Pakistan didn't manage to reach in the 90's. But you can't say that India was a better side than Pak in the 90's because they reached the no.1 spot. Clearly, Pak was a better side than India in the 90's. So that tells you that the rankings aren't everything and don't necessarily give you a complete picture.

 

[szrana007]

It has to do with first-class standards. Pakistani players were playing in a good system before getting test status. If I recall it right, some SL players were playing in Indian first-class as well.

I am not sure how good BD first-class structure is, to be honest. The first-class structure is the backbone of an international team.

Yeah BD's first class structure is very poor. They seriously need to upgrade it, if they want to improve at the Test level.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

I just feel BD is going to turn the corner soon. Just becoz they've not succeded earlier, don't mean they never going to succeed. The talent and passion is there. They will get better with their coaching, professionalism, routines etc. They do have a setup and will be fine tuning this.
Good luck to our BD bros - from India!....

 

[szrana007]

I just feel BD is going to turn the corner soon.

With Shakib leaving Test cricket and Mushfiq nearly 34, that seems unlikely.

 

[Napa]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] Rankings aren't everything. Overall W/L ratio gives a better measure of success than let's say reaching the no.1 spot for just a few months and then back to being number 5-6 again.

For example, India also reached the no.1 spot in the 1990's for a few months, but they were far from the best side in the 1990's. Infact, if we look at India's W/L ratio in the 90's ,its 5th best.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

So Overall, India was the 5th best side of the 90's behind Pakistan, even if they reached no.1 spot for a few months in the 90's, which Pakistan didn't manage to reach in the 90's. But you can't say that India was a better side than Pak in the 90's because they reached the no.1 spot. Clearly, Pak was a better side than India in the 90's. So that tells you that the rankings aren't everything and don't necessarily give you a complete picture.

Reaching the #1 spot for a couple of months may be a fluke, but holding the #1 spot for 15 months as India did in 1973/74 means something.