View Full Version : How soft is Bangladesh?
In my continuing efforts to talk up Namibian cricket, Bangladesh is in Namibia playing a few one days games. Results so far...
NAM 198/9, 50 ov (JB Burger 42, DB Kotze 31, Rana 29/3, Babu 32/2)
BD 199/5, 42.5 ov (Bidyut 72, Ash 43*, Rajin 29, KB Burger 47/2)
Bangladesh by 5 wickets.
BD 204/7, 50 ov (Ashraful 67, Rana 44*, Alok 21, Burger 36/2)
NAM 193/8, 50 ov (Walters 41, Ludik 34, Rana 33/2, Tapash 30/1)
Bangladesh by 11 runs
BD 261/7, 50 ov (Hannan 76, Sumon 65, Rajin 51, Burger 47/2)
NAM 254/7, 50 ov (Kotze 77*, Burger 57, Tapash 53/3, Rafique 35/2)
Bangladesh by 7 runs.
How crap are Bangladesh to come so close to losing to a tiny tiny country like Namibia? And Bangladesh has test status... :confused:
I'm rapt for Namibia, but could never fathom, and still can't, why Bangladesh was given Test status. No need to throw countries in aimlessly in an effort to make it a more global sport. Wait till they can at least challenge and beat teams like Zimbabwe before even considering it.
red+black
6 Feb 2004, 15:20
that's what happens when Asian cricket boards get an ounce of control.
what i'd like to see:
- bangladesh demoted
- zimbabwe banned from cricket until i see mugabe's severed head on CNN
- then zimbabwe reinstated
- ICC countries to regularly play each other and if it is deemed that one nation is wasting it's time playing other ICC teams, promote them. such dominance shouldn't happen for a few years i'd imagine.
nicko18-
I don't think anyone expected the Bangers to be so poor when they were given test status. Also, I think it's more a case of the Namibians improving out of sight than Bangladesh going backwards.
red+black-
Agree re Mugabe. The man is a monster. But the Zimbabwe cricketers shouldn't have to suffer because of their tyrant head of state. Although having Heath Streak play for Australia for a few years while Zimbabwe are out would be OK by me.
Originally posted by Rodion
nicko18-
I don't think anyone expected the Bangers to be so poor when they were given test status. Also, I think it's more a case of the Namibians improving out of sight than Bangladesh going backwards.
Perhaps not, but it doesn't hide the fact that a) they were very much below the standard of the worst test nation back then, and b) Kenya were a better side.
Adrian Shelton
6 Feb 2004, 16:25
Are these full ODI's?
catattack
6 Feb 2004, 16:45
Do a direct swap between Kenya and Bangladesh IMO.
BTW, are there any further developments with the Kenyans gaining test status? I heard a while back there was going to be some action in 2005, is that correct?
Originally posted by Adrian Shelton
Are these full ODI's?
They aren't considered international matches because Namibia isn't a full ODI nation (only the test countries and Kenya are). Probably just first class matches.
Steve Waugh won't be happy if Kenya are admitted to Test status he would have boosted his average a little more like he did against the Zimbos and the Bangladeshi's, also his record of a ton against every Test playing nation will be rendered useless as well.
thewhippersnapper
6 Feb 2004, 17:34
Originally posted by jozeph
Steve Waugh won't be happy if Kenya are admitted to Test status he would have boosted his average a little more like he did against the Zimbos and the Bangladeshi's, also his record of a ton against every Test playing nation will be rendered useless as well.
So dont give a team test status because of Steve Waughs record?
Seems Fair:rolleyes:
Theres no doubt Kenya should be in the tests instead of Bangladesh.
Originally posted by Rodion
nicko18-
I don't think anyone expected the Bangers to be so poor when they were given test status......
I don't think that's true. The bangas are certainly keen followers, but they never had anything resembling a first class competition or even a quality grade comp. Also, despite the sheer size of banga and the popularity of the game, only a very small percentage of those with any talent get an opportunity to develop their skills because of the poverty of Bangladesh.
Dav Whatmore is trying to get them on the right track, mostly by trying to get around the dodgy political set up they seem to have. The whole thing about domestic competitions isn't strictly true, Pakistan has a really odd and crappy set up on that account. Still better than Bangladesh.
Go Namibia...
dan warna
6 Feb 2004, 20:15
I believe Kenya was on the verge of ICC test status when their governing cricket council collapsed as did their first class competition.
they were put on hold indefinately.
a bit like Soccer Australia and the Tassie football league etc.
petty infighting and mismanagement etc leading to a collapse or financial disaster by what would otherwise have been a viable organisation.
Kenya cricket will be years fixing up that mess unfortunately.
TheSheik
6 Feb 2004, 20:17
Namibia, Kenya, Bangladesh (and any of the other cricket minnows you want to mention) should be in a 'second division' of world cricket and need to be head and shoulders above the rest before they get elevated out of that lot and into Test cricket status.
However, on the flipside, if they don't get to play against the world's best how will they ever improve ??
Don't worry about the Bangla's either, they will be very good in about 5 years time.
rchowell
6 Feb 2004, 21:51
Originally posted by nicko18
I'm rapt for Namibia, but could never fathom, and still can't, why Bangladesh was given Test status. No need to throw countries in aimlessly in an effort to make it a more global sport. Wait till they can at least challenge and beat teams like Zimbabwe before even considering it.I think Bangladesh was given test status because they have a population of 140 million and from what I've heard they are as cricket mad as India is more or less. Something that isn't the case in Zimbabwe and Kenya. I guess the theory is that Bangladesh are more likely to improve in the near future than say Kenya. It must be very strange having a national obsession with a sport you are absolutely woeful at.
As for Namibia well after the World Cup and the whole "Burger Boys" episodes they're my second fave team in world cricket. So go them!
red+black, banning Zimbabwe from all international cricket is the worst thing that could happen to them. They are in enough trouble as it is without that. Sport is sport, politics is politics. (And the sooner England realises that the better.)
I think your idea about the associate countries is sort of what is happening now - up until a few years ago it was pretty much Kenya, Bangladesh and then a lottery for 3rd. That's why they don't have to go through qualifying for the World Cup any more. It was the same with Zimbabwe a decade or two ago.
Black Thunder
6 Feb 2004, 23:46
Originally posted by nicko18
I'm rapt for Namibia, but could never fathom, and still can't, why Bangladesh was given Test status. No need to throw countries in aimlessly in an effort to make it a more global sport. Wait till they can at least challenge and beat teams like Zimbabwe before even considering it.
bangladesh were giving test status because of a HUGE push from the asian countrie.s
they may not seem to get along, but they prefer to side with each other than groups from outside of asia.
kenya were always a more advanced cricketing nation and should've been in long before bangers were.
NYC-Kaiser
7 Feb 2004, 00:29
Originally posted by TheSheik
However, on the flipside, if they don't get to play against the world's best how will they ever improve ??
well, you have the six nations challenge, also there is the world cup for a team like bang to get to play against top quality teams.
the above statements are in regards to just ODI's, so i guess that doesn't really answer the test status question but am i wrong to think that by level 2 teams playing each other more often, that that will improve them moreso then playing top teams that they aren't really even close to in talent?
while i am at it, what teams are considered second level?
holland
canada
namibia
USA
UAE
Scotland
(the 6 above are playing in 6nations challenge, the winner going to ICC champions trophy 2004 in england. the winner goes into the group of australia and nz)
theres a full list of associate members, but i have no idea how often any of them actaully play other countries-
http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/MEMBERS/ASSOCIATE_MEMBERS.html
rchowell
7 Feb 2004, 14:23
Originally posted by NYC-Kaiser
while i am at it, what teams are considered second level?
holland
canada
namibia
USA
UAE
Scotland
I've always felt that countries like Ireland and Denmark are held in fairly high regard. As far as the developing nations go. Scotland beat Ireland in the 3rd/4th playoff in the ICC Trophy in 1997 to qualify for the 1999 World Cup so certainly then Ireland weren't far off. Around the same time Denmark won the European Championships or something like that.
This might give a better idea of the state of "second level" international cricket. (http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/ICCT2001/ICCT2001_TABLE.html)
Originally posted by Rodion
Agree re Mugabe. The man is a monster. But the Zimbabwe cricketers shouldn't have to suffer because of their tyrant head of state. Although having Heath Streak play for Australia for a few years while Zimbabwe are out would be OK by me.
wont happen unless they find oil in zimb :p