How long before Bangladesh become a better side in Test cricket than Pakistan?

[King Kong]

^And 10 years to win 10 tests.

 

[MMHS]

No, it took (the Republic of) India only 5 years to register their first win.

Why bother to post if don't have the time to understand the discussion point? It took India 35 years, 18 years, if you take a start point of 1947 to win 10 Test matches.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I should have understood that your reach shouldn't have been far enough - google Old Firm derby to educate yourself.

You also don't know, it took 15 years for PAK to win 10 Test, another 7 years for the next one. And, it took India 31 years.

Anyway, don't bother to respond this one. BD has 8 Test wins, even I don't think the it's as close as winning 2 more Tests

False equivalency galore with India and Pakistan.... nations just coming out of the clutches of colonialism with no muppet teams to play against.

You do know the population of Scotland is 5 million? Whereas the total uk population is over 60 million of which England is around 55 million. Also, we do not get to see Scottish matches on terrestrial tv in uk.... i.e the BBC. I have never watched a Scottish match on terrestrial TV here in England, let alone the old firm derby!! Wouldn't have minded if they ever showed it.

 

[Napa]

You also don't know, it took 15 years for PAK to win 10 Test, another 7 years for the next one. And, it took India 31 years.

You started counting years for "India" from 1932 when it included both "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh", while you counted years for Pakistan from 1947. Nice misuse of statistics to slander India.

Applying your logic for "India" to "Bangladesh" it took your country over 73 years to win its first test (that too against Zimb)!

 

[ali2220]

I'm all for a good an improved Bangladesh side, if they ever becomes better than Pak or even India, then i will be glad for them.
They do have a long way to go, they are loosing a test match after piling up 600 in first innings!

 

[Couch Cricketer]

I think when it comes to talent and ability current Bangladesh side is equal to the current Pakistan side. The major difference between Bangladesh and Pakistan now is that the new replacement players that are coming into the Bangladesh side are generally better than the guys they are replacing not so with Pakistan. So in a decade or so when majority of the current Pakistan and Bangladesh side are replaced I think Bangladesh will go ahead unless we can improve our first class system enough that the players coming in are able to play in the international circuit instead of learning on the international stage. Same is with India the new players coming in are better or at least match the players they are replacing. With Pakistan no matter how much Hafeez and Malik are criticized they are still better limited overs batsman than the rest of the side.

 

[ExplicitAI]

People are really overrating Bangladesh here. I'll admit that this is probably the best BD side ever but they won't beat Pakistan. Every Asian team will get whitewashed by Aus in Aus so I'm not surprised if other fans start criticising our performances. I remember back in the 2016 T20 WC when BD fans were saying how they were gonna trample Pak in the group stage then went quiet after.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

People are really overrating Bangladesh here. I'll admit that this is probably the best BD side ever but they won't beat Pakistan. Every Asian team will get whitewashed by Aus in Aus so I'm not surprised if other fans start criticising our performances. I remember back in the 2016 T20 WC when BD fans were saying how they were gonna trample Pak in the group stage then went quiet after.

The question op asked was how long before Bangladesh side will be better not that it was. I give it a decade as they are improving side where as we are regressing or stagnating. Unless we change our domestic structure dramatically. And this is not because of the Aus test result but looking at our new and younger players over the last 5 years compared to the younger players that came into the Bangladesh side.

 

[ExplicitAI]

The question op asked was how long before Bangladesh side will be better not that it was. I give it a decade as they are improving side where as we are regressing or stagnating. Unless we change our domestic structure dramatically. And this is not because of the Aus test result but looking at our new and younger players over the last 5 years compared to the younger players that came into the Bangladesh side.

Me personally I don't think they're going to be better than us at all. They will probably win games against us but they won't dominate us, we'll still have the upper-hand in games but that's going to take a very long time. We just need to improve our domestic cricket and hopefully see our 80+ year old chairman retire and get someone new to the role. When Pakistan puts the effort into making something, it turns to gold. I remember when the PSL was delayed so much but when it eventually came it was a big success; even getting praise from Kohli and Yuvraj.

If our domestic cricket changes then it's going to become a really good one.

 

[Statsman]

This is a shocker to be honest. Should've been an easy draw. Amazed how Bangladesh ends up losing this.

Over reaction by OP though. Bangladesh still needs time to become a mid rank team. More importantly, they need more games against the top teams. Australians are hesitant to call Pakistan for test series, no chance they'll invite Bangladesh. India has avoided them for years.

 

[Chrish]

Not really sure if their fans even care about tests.. not likely the room for improvement without strong cricket culture backing you up

 

[Kakar]

Already there I think. What a performance. Can expect them to whitewash Australia in Australia.

 

[Mamoon]

Will take a long, long time.

 

[street cricketer]

Epic jinx thread from MIG

 

[MenInG]

Epic jinx thread from MIG

If anything they have just done a Pakistan!

 

[R0H1T]

If anything they have just done a Pakistan!

They're already better than Pakistan at this, see exhibit A -

Ind vs Bangladesh, 2016 WT20 & though it was just a T20 Bangladesh showed how epic a choke they could pull off, even better than SA vs Aus in 1999.

 

[street cricketer]

If anything they have just done a Pakistan!

They have done one better than Pakistan and England.

England and Pakistan lost after making 450 in their first innings. Bangladesh replied, you raise us 450, we'll raise you 600 and still lose!

 

[the Great Khan]

the curse of t20 strikes again. Ive been reading some cricket history recently and I am amazed at the resiliance of the older teams to grind out draws when they should have lost..this new lot just dont stick around long enough!!

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

the curse of t20 strikes again. Ive been reading some cricket history recently and I am amazed at the resiliance of the older teams to grind out draws when they should have lost..this new lot just dont stick around long enough!!

Couldn't agree more, I just finished Peter Obrone's Wounded Tiger and I have to say; for all flak that the older generation gets of being unprofessional, noncompetitive etc, they sure could manage to draw games which these new lot wouldn't be able to save even if their life depended on it.

I think [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] could weigh in on this as well. It's astonishing to note how many times batting lineups would tame out draws from absolutely hopeless positions. Hanif's 337 along with Wazir Mohammad's contribution at the port of Spain being one of the many such examples.

 

[jeetu]

Bangladesh broke 120 year old record.
List of team scoring atleast 500 runs in an inning but still lost the game.
[table=width: 700, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Score [/td][td]Inns [/td][td]Result [/td][td]Opposition [/td][td]Ground [/td][td]Start Date [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bangladesh [/td][td]595/8d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v New Zealand [/td][td]Wellington [/td][td]1/12/2017 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]586 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Sydney [/td][td]14 Dec 1894 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]574/8d [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]12/29/1972 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]556 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v India [/td][td]Adelaide [/td][td]12/12/2003 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bangladesh [/td][td]556 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v West Indies [/td][td]Dhaka [/td][td]11/13/2012 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]551/6d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Adelaide [/td][td]12/1/2006 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sri Lanka [/td][td]547/8d [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Colombo (SSC) [/td][td]8/17/1992 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]538 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Leeds [/td][td]8/4/2006 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]532 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Sydney [/td][td]1/2/2008 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]526/7d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Port of Spain [/td][td]3/14/1968 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand [/td][td]523 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Lord's [/td][td]5/21/2015 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]520 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v South Africa [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]2/6/1953 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]519 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]3/8/1929 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]510 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Leeds [/td][td]6/8/1967 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]506 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]12/31/1910 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]504 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]The Oval [/td][td]8/17/2006 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[MMHS]

You started counting years for "India" from 1932 when it included both "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh", while you counted years for Pakistan from 1947. Nice misuse of statistics to slander India.

Applying your logic for "India" to "Bangladesh" it took your country over 73 years to win its first test (that too against Zimb)!

No, I never misuse stats - it's posters like you that reads it differently & use it partially. Your intension is ill, otherwise you would have pasted the next part of my post as well - 18 years, if I count it from 1947.

 

[MMHS]

Bangladesh broke 120 year old record.
List of team scoring atleast 500 runs in an inning but still lost the game.
[table=width: 700, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Score [/td][td]Inns [/td][td]Result [/td][td]Opposition [/td][td]Ground [/td][td]Start Date [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bangladesh [/td][td]595/8d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v New Zealand [/td][td]Wellington [/td][td]1/12/2017 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]586 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Sydney [/td][td]14 Dec 1894 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]574/8d [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]12/29/1972 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]556 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v India [/td][td]Adelaide [/td][td]12/12/2003 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bangladesh [/td][td]556 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v West Indies [/td][td]Dhaka [/td][td]11/13/2012 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]551/6d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Adelaide [/td][td]12/1/2006 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sri Lanka [/td][td]547/8d [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Colombo (SSC) [/td][td]8/17/1992 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]538 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Leeds [/td][td]8/4/2006 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]532 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Sydney [/td][td]1/2/2008 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]526/7d [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Port of Spain [/td][td]3/14/1968 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]New Zealand [/td][td]523 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Lord's [/td][td]5/21/2015 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]520 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v South Africa [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]2/6/1953 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]519 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]3/8/1929 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]510 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Leeds [/td][td]6/8/1967 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]506 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Melbourne [/td][td]12/31/1910 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pakistan [/td][td]504 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]lost [/td][td]v England [/td][td]The Oval [/td][td]8/17/2006 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

More ironic that, next 2 instances are on different context - that SCG Test was timeless Test, hence there would have been a winner anyway & AUS actually lost after enforcing the follow on; while PAK collapsed in 4th innings after declaring in 2nd. This was basically a 4.5 day Test This loss is more mental damaging than any of the 5 Test PAK played recently.

I feel, this was more mental collapse than any thing & may be lack of experience - some of the shots in 2nd innings actually indicates they never thought what is 3rd innings collapse on a good wicket. Couple of injuries didn't help, but that should never be an excuse. I thought, declaring in 1st innings wasn't a good idea, but never thought it'll cost such. Personally, I'll never declare on 1st innings - rather if such, I'll increase scoring rate & get all out for a larger score. This is 2nd time in a month a team lost after declaring 1st innings, which suggests that capacity of grinding out in a Test is going down fast.

 

[tanveer din]

Will take a long, long time.

Bangladesh is still better Odi and test team

 

[silent ischemia]

Bangladesh is still better Odi and test team

They can't take 20 wickets outside home. Need a match winning bowler like Murali for SL

 

[R0H1T]

They can't take 20 wickets outside home. Need a match winning bowler like Murali for SL

Without bending of the rules, literally, I doubt we'll see anyone like Murali ever again let alone someone playing for our eastern neighbors. It might happen in a 100yrs time, provided test cricket were still to be a thing, but not in our lifetimes.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Bangladesh has a long long way to go to surpass Pakistan in tests. Just using a couple of bad series from Pakistan and one exceptional batting effort from Bangladesh is childish. There is a good case for ODIs but no way is Bangladesh a better test team than Pakistan even in next 5 years.

 

[the Great Khan]

Couldn't agree more, I just finished Peter Obrone's Wounded Tiger and I have to say; for all flak that the older generation gets of being unprofessional, noncompetitive etc, they sure could manage to draw games which these new lot wouldn't be able to save even if their life depended on it.

I think [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] could weigh in on this as well. It's astonishing to note how many times batting lineups would tame out draws from absolutely hopeless positions. Hanif's 337 along with Wazir Mohammad's contribution at the port of Spain being one of the many such examples.

touche..just reading the same book and almost finished..great book..and yes I remember some of those games, but some of the ones we used tod raw were simply amazing..

 

[Napa]

No, I never misuse stats - it's posters like you that reads it differently & use it partially. Your intension is ill, otherwise you would have pasted the next part of my post as well - 18 years, if I count it from 1947.

Nice try but no. The "the next part of my post as well - 18 years, if I count it from 1947" was not the next part of your post.

It was another post in answer to King Kong's post "No, it took (the Republic of) India only 5 years to register their first win".

If you spent half the time trying to improve your own country than trying to pull India down, it would be much more productive.

 

[MMHS]

Nice try but no. The "the next part of my post as well - 18 years, if I count it from 1947" was not the next part of your post.

It was another post in answer to King Kong's post "No, it took (the Republic of) India only 5 years to register their first win".

If you spent half the time trying to improve your own country than trying to pull India down, it would be much more productive.

You are again in that nonsense - you should have noticed that I respond selectively, because of posters like you. It shows your taste & level that you did notice my post regarding Republic of India, but selectively took the other post for a dig at someone. Don't you think it a bit shallow for you you to explain it this way after I had to respond you despite my disgust?

Thanks for your suggestions though, which is applicable for every one.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

This loss will do more good to Bangldesh than a draw tbh.

The current gen of Bangladeshi players are talented and can compete at the highest level but they are too complacent. Much like their fans after a good show they believe they are gods walking on earth and that is when they let the game slip away. There are just so many occasions that is now not even funny.

They need a good kick behind their backs and need to be told to shutup and concentrate on the match till the final ball is bowled. Win and ONLY THEN do whatever the hell you want.

 

[Napa]

You are again in that nonsense - you should have noticed that I respond selectively, because of posters like you. It shows your taste & level that you did notice my post regarding Republic of India, but selectively took the other post for a dig at someone. Don't you think it a bit shallow for you you to explain it this way after I had to respond you despite my disgust?

Thanks for your suggestions though, which is applicable for every one.

No need for all the drama, the facts are rather simple. You came up with a misleading stat that India took 31 years to win 10, and Pakistan took 15 years. You were called out, just accept your mistake and chill.

 

[MMHS]

No need for all the drama, the facts are rather simple. You came up with a misleading stat that India took 31 years to win 10, and Pakistan took 15 years. You were called out, just accept your mistake and chill.

The fact is India took 31 years - the explanation you are giving is not only stupid, but childish as well. For example, India won 4 Olympic Golds pre 1947 era, by your logic Pakistan & Bangladesh should add that to National tally as well, in fact Nepal, Afghanistan, Srilanka even Burma as well.

I don't do drama, never did - it's the losers mentality & trick, that starts to advise on what others should do for their country in a Cricket forum.

Chill...

 

[Napa]

The fact is India took 31 years - the explanation you are giving is not only stupid, but childish as well. For example, India won 4 Olympic Golds pre 1947 era, by your logic Pakistan & Bangladesh should add that to National tally as well, in fact Nepal, Afghanistan, Srilanka even Burma as well.

I don't do drama, never did - it's the losers mentality & trick, that starts to advise on what others should do for their country in a Cricket forum.

Chill...

Even you should be able to understand that if you start counting India record from 1932, you should also count Pakistan from 1932.

 

[MMHS]

Even you should be able to understand that if you start counting India record from 1932, you should also count Pakistan from 1932.

That explains the Hockey logic perfectly though ............... Bangladesh won 4 Olympic Golds ......

 

[Napa]

That explains the Hockey logic perfectly though ............... Bangladesh won 4 Olympic Golds ......

Yeah, sure. As Bangladesh was part of the country that won those Gold medals, it also has a claim to them.

 

[MMHS]

Yeah, sure. As Bangladesh was part of the country that won those Gold medals, it also has a claim to them.

There you go - what's the big deal then? BD has won Test matches everywhere - WI, ENG, AUS, IND - just going through a bad patch. Things will be normal in short time.

 

[tanveer din]

That explains the Hockey logic perfectly though ............... Bangladesh won 4 Olympic Golds ......

Bangladesh is better test team than india and pakistan

 

[Thivagar]

Why bother to post if don't have the time to understand the discussion point? It took India 35 years, 18 years, if you take a start point of 1947 to win 10 Test matches.

How many test matches did they play during these years ?

 

[MMHS]

How many test matches did they play during these years ?

Not many, but still many more/year than what BD did in last 7/8 years. I am the first person to accept that BD's Test status was at least 5 years earlier, if not 10 than what should have been.

Why only IND/PAK - take SAF & NZ; even SRL. Apart from ENG/AUS for obvious reasons, only country that had a decent start in Test career in PAK, because basically the system was a continuation of British Indian domestic system - still after that generation, 60s was absolute blank for PAK.

Developing as a Test team is the toughest job in any sports - lots of skill, culture & system needs to functioning for that. People mistakenly think it's all about bowling & taking 20 wickets in Test, but batting is the most perfectionist job in Test matches - it's incomparable; degree of error is zero % & it's more mentally challenging than even a chess match, where you can watch the pieces of both sides. In olden days, it was unofficially excepted in British education system that high society educated people goes to cricket - working class goes to Soccer or Rugby. Check how many Oxford/Cambridge Blues came outside cricket.

Also, it's quite easy to be a comparable team in T20/ODI than Test - because of the duration of the game. The longer the game, it allows better teams to make a comeback. If EPL matches were closed at half time, Sir Alex won't have won more than 2 EPLs.

It's not a comparison with PAK or IND - which has 2 factors. BD can be as good as AUS or ZIM of 2002; but then PAK can be WI of 1980 or ZIM of 2015 - it's about, when BD becomes a competent Test team. My hunch is, it'll take around 4/5 more years.

Cricket is a dying game, hence, even without any improvement, we are in top 7/8 teams -always will be, unless it becomes unpopular among mass. Just by bashing visitors, BD can easily become 6th or even 5th in ranking; which doesn't prove much, because SAF was 7th - below SRL, just about 4 months back. What matters is to grow as a Test team which has several levels - first you start to think about 2 innings game; then take the game to 4/5 days, then start to draw the game; then start to catch the better teams off guard, then constantly dominate a Test most times - finally start to win a Test or two (getting a better side in tight corner & knocking them out by taking 20 wickets are totally different proposition). After completing that cycle at home, do the same away - which is ultimate. In history of cricket, only one team ever completed that cycle - that's holding Test rubbers with AUS, ENG, IND, PAK & NZ both home & away at one point.

At the moment, I think, at home, were are at 1 or 2 level below the top level - that's almost unbeatable at home against most teams in a series & dominate most home Test matches for 10/12 sessions (which more or less IND, AUS, PAK & SAF is doing, may be Poms as well) & just about 1/2 level up from bottom away - that's taking the match in Day 5 & occasionally finding hosts at corner, and sometimes get away with a draw. At this rate, my hunch is, by 2020; we'll be a formidable side against any opponents at home & good enough to make a match of a Test almost everywhere away - whoever fails to do that constantly will be behind Bangladesh by 2021.

 

[MMHS]

Couldn't agree more, I just finished Peter Obrone's Wounded Tiger and I have to say; for all flak that the older generation gets of being unprofessional, noncompetitive etc, they sure could manage to draw games which these new lot wouldn't be able to save even if their life depended on it.

I think [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] could weigh in on this as well. It's astonishing to note how many times batting lineups would tame out draws from absolutely hopeless positions. Hanif's 337 along with Wazir Mohammad's contribution at the port of Spain being one of the many such examples.

T20 is definitely one major reason; but the playing condition also helping better teams to force results.

Among very few good decisions, one great job ICC did was to ensure maximum playing time - strict fine on slow over rate, better drainage system, artificial light, extended hours, time make-up ... these has helped teams with advantage to force result.

For example, take the last 4 losses by PAK & BD - I can categorically say that MCG, SCG, Hamilton & Wellington Test was destined to draw in even 90s. Apart from better drainage, every day match was continued 30 extra minutes, from Day 2 on wards, 8 overs/day was made up; even Misbah missed a Test for slow over rate. Make it like 10 AM to 5PM ONLY cricket with teams free to bowl 10 overs/hour or batsmen changing gloves in every alternate overs when in trouble - all 4 Tests were boring draws. Besides, with improved gears, I can see Umpires allowing play even fading light these days - in 1976, once Umpires offered light to England tail at 4:30PM UK summer as Holding was threatening to injure them.

The WSC cricket started from such mess - Channel Nine was broadcaster of Ashes Series in AUS (when sun sets after 8PM in summer). For one Test (or FC match, can't recall) - match was almost washed out for 2 days from bad light - 3rd day, at 4:30 PM umpires started the game for 30 minutes & walked off after 8 overs, under scorching sun light. So Packer, already upset with loss of revenue, asked Umpires that, why they have stopped play with so many people waiting to watch & the light is gorgeous - Umpires told him that, it's rule - tradition demands that cricket isn't played after 5PM. Packer used a "F" word & he promised that, he'll fix cricket.

It started with the tag - "Big boys play at night" - gradually, he with his 2 cricketers (Benaud & Tony) forced ICC to bring many changes in Test cricket regrinding the over rate, extended hours, make up time, use of artificial lights, minimum 90 overs/day .... more or less, each of these rules started in AUS where Channel Nine was sole broadcaster & they set the playing conditions to allow maximum chances for a Test match to have direct result. Till early 2000s; for a decade, light permitting, they used to make up 1 hour for slow over rate & extend one more hour to make up weather loss - which was extremely physically demanding, hence now it has come to 98 overs max & 30 minutes extension - or 7 hours of maximum playing time - whichever is earlier (At MCG in late 90s, 1st day was washed out & ENG had to field for almost 8 hours in one day on that size of a ground - which forced the change)

I argued several times with Junaids - why Test matches should be extended to 500+ overs, to bring life in it - teams won't get away with wasting time or playing negative cricket. If current ruling & technology was applied, I can tell you that, that WI side won't have drawn that many Test in a decade that teams got away with them in a year. And, barring ENG/AUS - every other team would have almost similar, if not poorer record in their 1st 10-15-20 years, than what BD has in last 5/6 years .

 

[Eagle_Eye]

5 years time the only half decent players they have will be a spent force....

The less said about match stick glass medium pacers the better.... which reminds me where is Fizz? Still on the treatment table after over exerting himself in the few OD games that he played?

 

[jeetu]

http://www.cricketcountry.com/news/...wlers-not-used-to-long-spells-in-tests-567904

Chandika Hathurusingha: Bangladesh bowlers not used to long spells in Tests

Chandika Hathurusingha has cited Bangladesh bowlers not used to long spells in Test cricket, as the reason for the defeat in the first of the two-Test series against hosts New Zealand.

Bangladesh coach Chandika Hathurusingha has cited Bangladesh bowlers not used to long spells in Test cricket, as the reason for the defeat in the first of the two-Test series against hosts New Zealand, at Basin Reserve in Wellington. He also added that the team would need to undergo some serious work on their physical challenge to overcome the odds in the upcoming second Test at the Hagley Oval in Christchurch from Friday. In the opening Test, bowlers in the form of Taskin Ahmed, Subashis Roy and Kamrul Islam Rabbi had bowled about 99.2 overs to take the seven Kiwi wickets in Wellington, while they will need to prepare themselves for another long spell, following just a three-day break.

“I think it is a physical challenge of bowling in back-to-back Tests for long overs. If you look deep into their history, they are not used to bowling like 18 overs and then another 15 overs the next day. With the physical challenge comes the mental challenge as well. But the good thing is that this is the best condition for fast bowlers. We had a very green attack in the last game, who had an experience of two Tests between the three fast bowlers,” said Hathurusingha, reported ESPNCricinfo.

“One of them hasn’t played a first-class game for three years. But it is not an excuse. We prepared them the way we want. I think they bowled really well in the first innings. They bowled for 140-odd overs and created enough chances. Their [New Zealand] captain acknowledged it as well. What happened in the second innings had nothing to do with them. We lost because of batting,” he added.

“We can take lots of positives out of the last game. We were ahead in the game for four days until the last half an hour. We approach this [Christchurch Test] the same way as we did the last Test match. We batted really well in the first innings. We will have the same approach. We expect similar conditions here as well. If we happen to bat first, we will do the same thing. We are expecting to finish the game better than the last game,” he continued.

“I don’t blame one particular person. It is all about our batting group. We didn’t bat well in the second innings. What went through their head, I don’t know. It is definitely something to do with how they think, how they approach the second innings. We have discussed it and I am sure we are going to rectify it in the next game,” he concluded.