You believe correctly. Mehrab Hossain's 101 against Zimbabwe at Dhaka in March 1999.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.
So insightful. Yes, we've only ever beaten the useless teams ey?eddy said:haah but the west indies are crap........u guna get knocked out soooo fast. u will only beat useless teams
Interesting prediction here, too!eddy said:haah but the west indies are crap........u guna get knocked out soooo fast. u will only beat useless teams
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.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.
In fairness they've played better Test cricket over the last year or so.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.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.
Not if you listen to Richard.Mr Mxyzptlk said:In fairness they've played better Test cricket over the last year or so.
Things were rather different in those days!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.
you might be right!!!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.
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 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.
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 alongRichard 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.