You may say I'm a pragmatist, but I'm not the only one

**Zunaid** · #1 October 16, 2013, 11:48 PM

You may say I'm pragmatist, but I'm not the only one
Razab Q. Chowdhury
After the first Test against New Zealand ended in a draw, our forums lit up with what if scenarios. Should Bangladesh have gone for it? A member poses this question directly to our author who also happens to our resident arm-char all-rounder. His response is definitely worth a read.

Read article »

Discuss article »

Please discuss in the match thread

RazabQ · #2 October 17, 2013, 01:12 AM

Yay, glad to complete something FP worthy after a long time.

Tintin · #3 October 17, 2013, 11:48 AM

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

Saw this stat during the last Test of the Ashes - no team that has started its fourth innings with 44 overs or less available has lost the Test match. Teams those were set a target in 100 overs may have got out in 30 overs, but not when they were set a target in <= 44 overs.

PS : I don't know how the remaining overs were decided for older Tests when there was no stipulation on the minimum number of overs.

RazabQ · #4 October 17, 2013, 04:40 PM

Interesting. So if McCullum had set us 1 fewer over to go for the chase, then we'd have a much reduced risk of losing?

Tigers_eye · #5 October 19, 2013, 08:19 AM

Excellent analysis.

I think Shak needed the batting practice So did Tamim'ma.