• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

WI v Bangladesh

Don

Well-known member
u guys r so lucky u got to see the match.i was stuck in skool and kept getting bad reports like west indies were on 308 for 1 on junk like that.any way hooray for windies my boy chanders was not out hooray.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
luckyeddie said:
Very true.

It's interesting to note that (I believe) there's only ever been one ODI ton by a Bangladeshi batsman - in 95 attempts.

Dav Whatmore must have been pulling what little hair remains today - it seems they only bat from 7 down.
You believe correctly. Mehrab Hossain's 101 against Zimbabwe at Dhaka in March 1999.

However, his ODI average is now 24.94 (and 13.38 in Tests), and in April of this year, this happened (Cricinfo):

Mehrab Hossain, the only Bangladeshi to score a one-day international century, has been banned from domestic and international cricket for a year, after dishonouring the terms of his contract. He compounded his action by failing to appear at a Bangladesh Cricket Board hearing.

Mehrab had reportedly agreed to represent the drug manufacturer, Acme Laboratories, in the inaugural Corporate Cricket League competition, and had even accepted a 15,000 taka advance ($254.24). But he was subsequently approached by GrameenPhone, Bangladesh's largest mobile phone provider and current sponsors of the national team.

"I went through all the papers submitted by Acme, including a voucher of Tk 15,000 paid to Mehrab, and found no reason to doubt their claim," said Khondokar Jamiluddin, the chairman of the CCL committee. "The board acted on the organising committee's recommendation." A senior BCB official added: "We have decided to bar him for a year as he failed to appear before the BCB for a hearing on the Acme allegation."

Mehrab, 25, averaged 13.38 with the bat in nine Test appearances, and has also played in 18 ODIs. His last Test appearance was against South Africa in Dhaka in May 2003.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ah, good old Acme.

So is that why Bangladesh are playing guys who are no better than Wile E Coyote?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
eddy said:
haah but the west indies are crap........u guna get knocked out soooo fast. u will only beat useless teams :D
So insightful. Yes, we've only ever beaten the useless teams ey?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
eddy said:
haah but the west indies are crap........u guna get knocked out soooo fast. u will only beat useless teams :D
Interesting prediction here, too!
Though not saying I wasn't hoping South Africa were going to win.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tim said:
You'd think after 5 years as a test nation they could do a little better than being regulary bowled out for 100 odd & conceding more than 250 runs.
Just goes to show that you don't improve by playing Tests and ODIs, and ICC were wholly stupid to put them in there and devalue ODI- and Test-cricket for 5 years.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
Richard said:
Just goes to show that you don't improve by playing Tests and ODIs, and ICC were wholly stupid to put them in there and devalue ODI- and Test-cricket for 5 years.
In fairness they've played better Test cricket over the last year or so.
 

Swervy

Well-known member
Richard said:
Just goes to show that you don't improve by playing Tests and ODIs, and ICC were wholly stupid to put them in there and devalue ODI- and Test-cricket for 5 years.
i do agree that bangladesh were given test status early..but you have to remember NZ started tests in 1929..they didnt win a test until 1955/56 (45th test)..before which they averaged 24 runs per wicket and conceded 42 runs per wicket taken..and when they beat the WI in the 1979/80 series, that was only their 11th test win of all time.

Sri Lanka only won 1 test in their first 5 years of being a test playing team..and even after 10 years were still a very poor team.

These things do take time..I am sure that in 20 years time we will look back and wonder how we could have ever doubted it was the right choice to let them in..because I think they may well be right up there with the better teams by then.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
In fairness they've played better Test cricket over the last year or so.
Not if you listen to Richard.

But then again he probably won't consider them a substandard side if a run of 1 win in 34 isn't substandard.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I consider Bangladesh a massively substandard side.
I think there have been very small signs that things might just begin to change in the last year-and-a-bit.
So far, little has actually been altered.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
i do agree that bangladesh were given test status early..but you have to remember NZ started tests in 1929..they didnt win a test until 1955/56 (45th test)..before which they averaged 24 runs per wicket and conceded 42 runs per wicket taken..and when they beat the WI in the 1979/80 series, that was only their 11th test win of all time.

Sri Lanka only won 1 test in their first 5 years of being a test playing team..and even after 10 years were still a very poor team.

These things do take time..I am sure that in 20 years time we will look back and wonder how we could have ever doubted it was the right choice to let them in..because I think they may well be right up there with the better teams by then.
Things were rather different in those days!
Cricket has changed - you need far, far, far, far, far, far more gradual introduction now than you did even in the 80s.
I'm sure Bangladesh must have played far, far more Test-cricket than New Zealand did. Let alone a massive amount more ODI-cricket without looking like becoming a force.
 

Swervy

Well-known member
Richard said:
Things were rather different in those days!
Cricket has changed - you need far, far, far, far, far, far more gradual introduction now than you did even in the 80s.
I'm sure Bangladesh must have played far, far more Test-cricket than New Zealand did. Let alone a massive amount more ODI-cricket without looking like becoming a force.
you might be right!!!
but why does a team need a more gradual introduction now compared to the 80's?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Cricket is more scientific (!), professional, ordered and technical now than it was even just 20 years ago.
Sri Lanka's case shows this IMO. They didn't take too long to become worth their salt.
 

Swervy

Well-known member
Richard said:
Cricket is more scientific (!), professional, ordered and technical now than it was even just 20 years ago.
Sri Lanka's case shows this IMO. They didn't take too long to become worth their salt.
thats a fair point...but i dont know how Sri lanka fits into that, they were pretty damned poor for a long long time..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
They had Brendon Kurappu (a wicketkeeper with no particular brilliance with the bat) scoring a 200 (in the days when this was still a really special achievement) within about 6 or 7 years of their elevation.
Albeit they only really looked like they could beat anybody (at home) with the emergence of Murali.
 

Swervy

Well-known member
Richard said:
They had Brendon Kurappu (a wicketkeeper with no particular brilliance with the bat) scoring a 200 (in the days when this was still a really special achievement) within about 6 or 7 years of their elevation.
Albeit they only really looked like they could beat anybody (at home) with the emergence of Murali.
they had much better batsmen than Kangaroopoo...Sidath Wettimuny and Roy Dias...and Duleep Mendis was a great hitter...it was the bowling though that on the whole was very very poor until as you say Murali came along
 
Top