I think most of us would agree that we could have done better if we had an extra pacer in the team yesterday. Lack of a pacer was very evident in yesterday’s pitch condition. But how would Bangladesh think-tank know that hey need an extra pacer? Easy—they should keep an eye on Banglacricket.com articles and discussions.
I was reading an article on BC. That’s what was mentioned in the article:
“Based on the historical analysis of bowling lineup formation in P. Saravanamuttu Stadium, we may see a pacer dominated bowling attack once again. In the only time they played on this ground, Bangladesh used a 3-1 pacer-spinner combination. Generally in PSS, two spinners were used when the bowling lineup was formed with five bowlers. So we can expect to see the inclusion of two spinners if Bangladesh goes for a five-bowler lineup. This is very much possible with two pacers, two spinners and medium pace support from any other batsman."
The article also said:
“So, even in the later part of a match (third and fourth innings), when the pitch should favor the spinner, pacers still played the dominating role in PSS. The pacers/medium pacers took almost 60% of the wickets that fell in the third and fourth innings of a match.”
Think-tank had the first-hand reading of the pitch condition. If they added this BanglaCricket.com historical analysis with the pitch reading—I am quite sure it would have been pretty easy for the think-tank to decide in favor of an extra pacer in the team.
With all those nice articles and some well-thought discussions in the forum—BC is certainly the website the think-tank should keep their eye on.
Referenced BC Article