[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
SS, I thought my take was abundantly clear that the draw was the only realistic and laudable target for BD, but I will elaborate (again), since you ask nicely

Well excuse us for not having ATB on your post at all times.

The first thing to consider was the target itself. Was McCullum's target gettable and viable or was it a smokescreen?

Chasing targets in Test match on the last day is NOT easy. In the Entire history of Test cricket there has been only 23 occasions where a team has chased down a target greater than 255 in the 4th innings. (http://www.cricket365.com/stats/test...ngs-run-chases). In the history of test cricket, 4th innings batting averages are typically about 10-15% lower than 1st innings averages. This is why stronger teams than ours have not gone for it with gettable targets. I give you two links for the India example:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-ind...ry/522606.html
http://duckingbeamers.com/2013/02/12...fficult-times/

So, statistically speaking, McCullum knew he was hardly taking any risks.

Gist of your entire post is "oh since this has NEVER been done, it shall NEVER been done." Very weak argument really. And by your own logic since the highest chased involved near-about 418 and less, then why is it that WE couldn't chase it?

We move to the next item: the New Zealand side of the equation. What was McCullum's motivation then if it wasn't some nostalgic FTW instinct? Well for a big-mouth who had claimed anything short of outright wins would be a failure, বড় কালাম ভাই had already had put the proverbial locomotion limb into the food-hole. He had only one shot. Put BD in with a plausible enough target for an immature team, watch them lose a bunch of wickets early on a pitch where forcing the pace was going to be a challenge and then hope the pressure (and NOT the ferocity of the bowling or the venom off the pitch) would cause us to collapse. He knew he couldn't possibly lose because if, God forbid the Tigers had, say rattled off 50 in the 1st 10 overs, he could just put everyone on the boundary and tell Bruce Martin and Boult to bowl 1 feet outside leg-stump to our right-handers and Sodhi and Braceweel the same to our southpaws. Wouldn't be done? Steve Waugh did it in the 2001 Brisbane test:
(http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/conte...ry/107884.html)

So to sum up, New Zealand set us on a fools errand in their one shot at maintaining some dignity from a match where they had been dominated (and could have lost had a few marginal calls gone our way). And perhaps there was an outside chance they could burgle a win.

...Oh I know what you will say. We are POOR boo-hoo-hoo Bangladesh. We are NOT strong. We are soooo weak and immature that we were bound to put axe on our feet. Such self-loathing, self-negating and self-sabotaging argument does little to inspire a team and to move forward and actually chase down targets.

Again gist of your argument is: It's hasn't been done, tau it hasn't been done by strong team. So that's why Kenya went to semis. That's why we gunned down Cardiff. Because it has never been done.

Now onto the final item: How Bangladesh approached the chase. Based on points 1 & 2, the pragmatists would already say, "dude get the draw, it will be your moral victory". But we have dreamers in the fan-base and immature batters in the line-up. Mushy's instructions to TiK and Anamul was: play your natural game, according to the conditions.

NO! They were not playing their natural game. Shakib was. Shakib was playing his stroke playing natural game. And "immature" batters is no excuse.

Throughout the match it was evident that the conditions were conducive to sticking around and not for forcing the pace. As I pointed out live, almost every batter who had tried to force the pace got out. Now NOT forcing the pace is not the same as slow scoring. If the bowlers are bowling a lot of tripe, take advantage. That's how Momin scored so fast in the first 100 runs of his. And forcing the pace against a new ball (on a slow pitch where the new ball was the most likely source of zip) was not the same as tonking a few against tiring spinners at the end of the match (as Shakib did).

Add on top of that the mindset of our openers. What would Anamul and Tamim be feeling if they had gone on to the Dhaka test with dual failures? Our batters _are_ an immature bunch. We would have already slightly lowered our chances of win on the more results oriented Dhaka pitch. And as others have pointed out, just recently, against the Windies, we thought we were better than Dhoni's bunch and "went for it". The result was a lecture from Chanderpaul to our batsmen on the grammar of Test match batting (can't find the Prothom Alo link).

Again the kernel of your argument is the "pitch" factor. Jeezus, pitch is not everything. Then one would just toss the damn coin, look at the pitch conditions and go home. PERFORMANCE is. That's HOW a game is played. You TAME the pitch, just like Shakib did.

Besides New Zealand had sorryass second string bowling line up. FACT is it was one-day match and Bangladesh is QUITE ADEPT at one-day successful chases. Again it was not 800 runs we were chasing. By ODI context - again Test is just a label, perception is everything - AND we had the wrong perception or intent to begin with.

It is in that mileau that we began our fourth innings "chase". The Kiwi bowlers certainly didn't give anything away and bowled mostly wicket to wicket lines. Nor was the field setting overly aggressive with fielders all around the batsman. So TiK and Anamul played the bowling to its merit and batted themselves into some form. New Zealand gave up the ghost fairly quickly and settled on getting their spinners some bowling practice. And that in turn was another mistake on McCullum's part. He should have called off the dogs when there was 1 hour of play left. Instead the situation was ideal for Shak to come in and get some batting form when (based on the evidence in the Caribbean, he couldn't even buy runs).

For all those fans who dreamed of a win or the NZ commentator who opined on our lack of adventure, I say "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". If we had went for it and lost, NO ONE would remember it. It would have been the traditional "there goes Bangladesh, losing a Test match" refrain.

To wrap up, we played good cricket, dominated in scoring rate, wickets taken and hight-lights and got the draw against a higher ranked team. Let's live to fight another day.

I don't think playing NONCOMPETITIVE match for a gettable target is "good cricket". It just settles the inferiority complex of the team further in. They were highly spirited by Gazi hattrick and Mominul 181 which was DESTROYED by some Shamimesque black-or-white shot caller curbing their enthusiasm. But cricket is more nuanced than that. It's not either hit or block. After playing 10 odd years, they should at least know that and chase down such targets in spite of wickets. Wicket is just a platform, how you play the game is entirely you. It's the same LAME excuse a disabled kid can pull: OH i am on wheel chair and REALISTICALLY and PRAGMATICALLY nothing will happen.

Do and take look at Hawking and other REALISTS. That dude who has sawed off arms and legs that are climbing heights.

Self-negating, self-defeating, demotivational, cynical excuses never did anyone any good.