Bangladesh

Is anyone else continually disappointed by these guys?

Full ICC members for 15 years or so, an absolute cricket barmy population, yet little to no progress ever shown.

They're not better than any of Ireland/Holland/Afghanistan, yet they're still full members and the others aren't?

They've no real domestic cricket structure either, so its not as if they're trying to improve (like the Irish are)

Just wanted to know how you guys feel about them?

Bit of an unprovoked attack haha, there was a discussion about them on a cricket podcast I listen too that interested me

It is an interesting discussion.

My personal view is that they are the ninth best team in the world and capable of beating just about anyone on their day in the limited-overs formats. They have a terrible habit of messing up when the world is actually watching, and of squandering good positions by following up a big partnership with a collapse. They did it in 2011 and look like doing it again unless they can turn it around over the last couple of games. But between times they've competed well in a lot of bi-lateral series, particularly at home to New Zealand and West Indies. They now have experience that they didn't have a few years back, even though the experienced players are still young in age terms, and some extremely exciting youngsters. With the support for cricket out there it would be remarkable if they didn't come good at some point - the stands have been pretty much packed, even for the 1st Round games not featuring the hosts, something that wouldn't have happened in most other places.

Why the issues?

The domestic cricket has long been an issue. They do have a structure, and still far more of one that any of the three Associates that you've listed (Ireland are trying to implement a three-day structure but Bangladesh's is more developed), but it has often been made up on the spot. In some years the internationals have snubbed the first-class competition for the lucrative one-day event, the Dhaka Premier League, that interestingly also features a healthy quota of journeyman county players! The Bangladesh Premier League's first season seemed to have a real impact on Bangladesh's cricket by allowing their players to play alongside world class players and experience world class coaches. However, the payment shambles and corruption scandals have unsurprisingly put off the leading lights since.

The other problem is that bi-lateral internationals have dried up for them. When they were hastily promoted to Full Member status in 2000 (not that they shouldn't have been made a Full Member, but that the transition took place far too suddenly) they seemed to be getting thrashed somewhere in the world every other day. That experience, and the increasing flouting of the Future Tours Programme by the top eight FMs, seems to have put opponents off. With only two or three short series every year (and they never play more than two Tests in a row) it is hardly surprising that they lag behind the top eight somewhat. Overseas tours have almost completely ceased too, except to Zimbabwe.

Are they better than the three Assocs you've mentioned? On the evidence of the last couple of months, including the Asia Cup where they were beaten by Afghanistan, maybe not. But I'd say that they are still well ahead of all three. Afghanistan, for all their bowling talent, were exposed in the 1st Round of this competition and have work to do. Ireland remain a very effective outfit but with Johnston gone are struggling a bit with the ball, particularly on flat pitches where Murtagh struggles. As for the Dutch they will be ecstatic with how they've gone - they've shown no form over the past few years and, though they've benefited from the availability of Myburgh, Cooper and van der Gugten, are playing well above their normal levels.

The final point I'd make is that criticism of Bangladesh's 'progress' rests to a large extent on an elitist assumption that if you can't play at the level of the top eight you shouldn't be at the top table. I disagree with this and actually think that this rather arbitrary bar should be lowered. The best way to resolve the status anomaly is to make Ireland and Afghanistan Full Members, not to remove Bangladesh's Full Membership. Increasingly some people, including Mike Selig on these boards, are arguing for the ending of status altogether. I'm not 100% convinced of this but it is a compelling argument...

BD are useless.......unorganized, not-serious, lacking temperament and discipline....and after a decade or longer of international cricket and NO PROGRESS....I have written them off as a case with no hope.

It's burdensome to watch their games even when they play India.......I do no know who their key cricketers and stars are.

If Afganistan , Ireland and Netherland get as much chance....they will do much better

speaking of mike, where is he?

At the moment clearly BD are better than Netherlands, Afg and Ire, but they are way below the top tier nations, may be there should be a 3 tier league of internation cricket.

1st Tier]Top 8
then comes

2nd Tier]Next Best 9
Zim, BD, Dutch, Afg, Ire, Scot, Kenya , Nepal and Canada.

3]Then finally all the associates

kingraf wrote:speaking of mike, where is he?

He has been online as recently as yesterday, but absent from these boards for a while.

I'd like to hear his thoughts on this being a VIP in French cricket

I much like Shelsey would like to see Ireland, Afghanistan and potentially the Dutch become full members. They're more than good enough, and have shown in Ireland/Afghan cases real growth that needs to be allowed to progress

I find it quite humorous that the only reason Afghanistan took this long to get good at cricket is because the Taliban banned it thinking it was an American sport....

They've since improved, and improved quickly - climbed five divisions in a ridiculously short space of time - and are already pretty close to Bangladesh quality-wise.

Yes I'd argue they are as good as Bangladesh Raf , unfortunately they had a disastrous campaign in this T20 world cup which won't help their cause.

kingraf wrote:I find it quite humorous that the only reason Afghanistan took this long to get good at cricket is because the Taliban banned it thinking it was an American sport....

They've since improved, and improved quickly - climbed five divisions in a ridiculously short space of time - and are already pretty close to Bangladesh quality-wise.

they do get the benefit though of porous borders with Pakistan.....and no proper civil / birth documents in the rural villages on either sides of the border.
Afghanistan has access to talents from both sides.

A real good move would be to let Afganistan, BD and Zim play as a FC side in the FC crickets in Pak, Ind and SA respectively

Mike's been busy teaching 5 and 6-year olds to play cricket recently (as well as a bunch of other cricket-related stuff), but I'm sure he'll be on this thread to comment reasonably soon (also I know he hasn't been watching the T20 so maybe that's why he's been away too).

On the topic, I tend to side with the view that the distinction between Full Member, Associate Member, etc. is silly, but really the reason Ireland haven't been granted Full Member status is entirely political. On BD, if Ireland (or Afghanistan) had had anything like the funding they have had over the years, you would expect some progress. It's all very well saying BD have progressed, and to an extent they have a little (ODIs especially, in tests and T20s they're still miles behind), but not nearly enough for me, certainly not as I'd expected them to.

Holland have generally looked much more of a threat in this tournament, and I honestly think Ireland would have been too.

I think another problem that hasn't been talked about also is the BD pitches: curators (certainly for tests) over there seem to have gone the route of preparing pancakes to give BD a chance of at least getting a draw. This isn't a good approach, as it only serves to hide the shortcomings of their players IMO (while discourageing bowlers in general, and BD really struggle in the seam bowling department).

Shelsey also makes a good point about the lack of proper series they play.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
I think another problem that hasn't been talked about also is the BD pitches: curators (certainly for tests) over there seem to have gone the route of preparing pancakes to give BD a chance of at least getting a draw. This isn't a good approach, as it only serves to hide the shortcomings of their players IMO (while discourageing bowlers in general, and BD really struggle in the seam bowling department).

I certainly agree with that.

On the distinction between FMs and Assocs as I said in my original reply I tend to sympathise with Mike and with Andrew Nixon from CricketEurope.com who is the one really pushing this position. However, I do think that some sort of difference is necessary in cricket. A situation where India and Estonia had an equal vote would be just as unfair as the status quo where all but the 10 FMs have no vote at all.

My suggestion would be a completely re-constituted ICC with an elected executive that act independent of the member boards. Major decisions would have to be ratified by the members through a form of qualified majority voting which ensures that an expanded group of FMs, to include initially Ire and Afg with the intention to grow further, have an exactly equal vote to the Associates (the unnecessary distinction btwn. Assocs and Affils would be eliminated). These votes would take place at annual conferences or specially convened conferences when a major change is proposed. Each Assoc would get one vote with the Full Member votes then divided proportionally according to cricket participation, but capped at ten or twelve to prevent India dominating. A clear criteria for Full Member status would also be outlined with applications ultimately voted on by all member under the QMV system I've just described.

It is worth pointing out that whatever changes we dream up here the turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas and anything that reduces the dominance of the FMs will continue to be resisted.

invisiblecoolers wrote:At the moment clearly BD are better than Netherlands, Afg and Ire, but they are way below the top tier nations, may be there should be a 3 tier league of internation cricket.

1st Tier]Top 8
then comes

2nd Tier]Next Best 9
Zim, BD, Dutch, Afg, Ire, Scot, Kenya , Nepal and Canada.
3]Then finally all the associates

 
That would be interesting, to see how they perform.

westisbest wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:At the moment clearly BD are better than Netherlands, Afg and Ire, but they are way below the top tier nations, may be there should be a 3 tier league of internation cricket.

1st Tier]Top 8
then comes

2nd Tier]Next Best 9
Zim, BD, Dutch, Afg, Ire, Scot, Kenya , Nepal and Canada.
3]Then finally all the associates

 
That would be interesting, to see how they perform.

  

and maybe a promotion/relegation system like EPL on the tiers would be fun.

Olly wrote:Is anyone else continually disappointed by these guys?

Full ICC members for 15 years or so, an absolute cricket barmy population, yet little to no progress ever shown.

They're not better than any of Ireland/Holland/Afghanistan, yet they're still full members and the others aren't?

They've no real domestic cricket structure either, so its not as if they're trying to improve (like the Irish are)

Just wanted to know how you guys feel about them?

2011-2013 they were undefeated in ODI's at home, went to Asia cup final losing by 2 runs, there problems recently are related to poor coaching and key players losing form in Nasir, Razzak, Gazi.

Whitewashed NZ few months ago, beat WI, Drew in Test series vs NZ

----------

Slightly unrelated, but today finch was out earlier on and didnt walk when he clearly nicked the ball, funny how warne completely ignored that one, but all the aussies went after broad for not walking..

KP_fan wrote:BD are useless.......unorganized, not-serious, lacking temperament and discipline....and after a decade or longer of international cricket and NO PROGRESS....I have written them off as a case with no hope.

It's burdensome to watch their games even when they play India.......I do no know who their key cricketers and stars are.

If Afganistan , Ireland and Netherland get as much chance....they will do much better

thats just incorrect - apart from 2014, BD has shown great amount of improvement, i doubt 10 years ago they could have whitewashed NZ or beaten WI.

They have some good players, Shakib is one of the worlds best players regardless of formats, Rahim has been in the top5 keeper batsmen in test matches over the last few years, Nasir is a great finisher lacking form, Taskin is also a good prospect 18 years old bowling line and length at 140 (but wont develop due to poor pitches for Fast bowling)