Afghanistan vs Ireland | Only Test | Dehra Dun, India

Looking forward to this, Ireland have shown they can compete against the Afghanistan spinners and even dominate them, so this should be a great Test.

The thing about this matchup is that Ireland will fight tooth and nail for the entirety of the Test, Afghanistan will likely have multiple batting collapses but they could win the game in one session on the back of Rashid Khan.

Very surprised Mujeeb was dropped

Everytime I see Rashid Khan listed at 20 it doesn't half annoy me.

Same with Mujeeb.

I'm backing Ireland here to the hilt, hoping they can put Afghanistan in their place.

sloandog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:36 am

Everytime I see Rashid Khan listed at 20 it doesn't half annoy me.

Same with Mujeeb.

I'm backing Ireland here to the hilt, hoping they can put Afghanistan in their place.

Afghanistan used to be my second favorite side, but now I'm not so sure. That underdog factor has worn off IMO. I think I might actually be rooting for the Irish here. Although in a hypothetical World Cup matchup, I'm sure to be backing AFG in a clash vs Ireland.

Ireland from 37-0 to 55-5.

Rashid Khan 2 wickets in his first 3 balls.

Methinks Cameron Dow will be a handful on this surface, especially if Afghanistan has to bat last.

Dockrell and Mcbrine could also get into the act. And Stirling.

Afghanistan need 118 runs to win with 9 wickets in hand, the pitch still looks good for batting so Afghanistan should win this easily. BUT there’s always a chance of a collapse especially from Afghanistan so Ireland are still a chance.

I think Ireland will look back on this Test and kick themselves for being too negative with their selections, they seemed to hedge their bets with ‘bits and pieces’ players. Can’t see why Rankin was left out? His pace and bounce would have caused Afghanistan issues and looking at McBrine, Dockrell & Cameron-Dow they’re very similar bowlers not sure why they needed two of Dockrell & Cameron-Dow? Surely one was enough?

Stuart Thompson was probably deserving of selection since he did well against Pakistan (also took 3 wickets in the 1st innings) but I think Rankin could have won them the match.

Also this keeper they’ve got can’t bat for s**t.

From what I’ve seen so far I still think Zimbabwe should beat both these sides in Tests.

Well done to the Afghans. Convincing win after some reasonable bits of resistance from the Irish. Rankin wouldn't have done anything on this pitch to be fair, and he's a very average bowler to begin with. Maybe on a pacey surface he might cause some problems with his height and bounce.

The game was lost with Ireland's top order collapses in both innings. Really expected more from them given their vast county cricket pedigrees. But these conditions are tough for non Asian teams that play spin poorly, and then have spinners who can't consistently put the ball in the right area.

Ireland would most likely win in Irish conditions, given how much Pakistan struggled there. Afghanistan would most likely find a way to beat Zimbabwe home and away though. They really don't enjoy losing to ZIM. Ireland would struggle against Zimbabwe in Tests. AFG > ZIM > IRE in Tests at the moment I think.

I think Afghanistan's next Test is in Bangladesh in October and Ireland will be hosting Bangladesh next summer (2020).

I’d take Rankin over any Bangladesh Test bowler

http://m.espncricinfo.com/ireland/conte ... 24599.html

Very very good record in county cricket

The Afghanistan seamer got wickets and so did Thompson so I think Rankin could have made a difference.

Do you think Afghanistan would beat Bangladesh? Because remember Zimbabwe beat Bangladesh in their own back yard so going off your ‘logic’ that Afghanistan would beat Zimbabwe ‘home and away’ I guess Afghanistan beats Bangladesh ?

jaybro wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:09 pm

Do you think Afghanistan would beat Bangladesh? Because remember Zimbabwe beat Bangladesh in their own back yard so going off your ‘logic’ that Afghanistan would beat Zimbabwe ‘home and away’ I guess Afghanistan beats Bangladesh ?

If a full strength Afghanistan team plays Bangladesh minus 2 or 3 of our major players, its entirely possible that we could in fact lose to Afghanistan. I wish I didn't have to admit it, but the reality is that Bangladesh are still the 9th ranked side in Test cricket. I really thought we'd be pushing for 6-7th by now, but apart from briefly sneaking past the West Indies into 8th, we haven't moved up in the past 4-5 years.

Rankin being better than any BD quick, isn't saying much. Granted with Jayed-Ebadat-Khaled BD finally have a seamer corp that possesses some degree of skill. Guys like Rubel and Shahadat did nothing except bowl in all the wrong spots (excluding the latter's odd five-fer).

As we’ve discussed previously Zimbabwe weren’t full strength either so it was an even playing field 😉

I only compared Rankin to the BD boys because of your thread about them where although you didn’t claim they were world beaters you did speak glowing about their strengths, whilst poor old Boyd Rankin with over 300 first class wickets @26 was dismissed as ‘a very average bowler’

Doesn’t seem like a fair analysis

jaybro wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:05 am

As we’ve discussed previously Zimbabwe weren’t full strength either so it was an even playing field 😉

Buuuuuuut, Tamim + Shakib + Fizz > Ervine + Burl + Mumba + Cremer. Shakib alone might have covered the 150 run margin in the Sylhet Test...he could score 75 runs across both innings and had helped restrict Zim's total by another 75 runs across both innings.

As far as FC cricket goes, there's a huge step up from their to Tests, especially for a fast bowler in Asian conditions. Jayed too has 200 odd wickets at 28 in unfriendly conditions, but the step up to even a Test vs Zimbabwe is at least one order tougher, as we have seen.

Jayed and Ebadat utilized the new ball better than Boult and Southee in 3 out of 4 innings. That is a fact like a statistic. I stopped short of saying they are better bowlers (I like to have some credibility as a poster), but I've said thats showing a bit of progress. More than we have seen from Rubel or Taskin or Kamrul or Shubashish.

Ahh you are a punish tbh, you talk hypotheticals when it suits then call dropped catches as Facts or even stats.

There is no question Bangladesh is a stronger side with Shakib & Tamim (Fizz played 2nd Test did f**k all) and yes they’re better than Cremer & Ervine BUT you can’t 100% say they would have changed the match. Just like there’s no way to say Ireland would have won if Rankin played or if they played an extra batsman, I merely suggested that I think they will look back and regret that they were ‘hedging their bets’ with bits and pieces players instead of playing their premier fast bowler who had a proven first class record.

The whole Bangladesh seamers used the new ball arguement better you can have if it makes you feel better? But the facts are the stats show all the Bangladesh bowlers got an absolute pasting ! All of them!

You say it’s a fact or stat because of the dropped catches? Well again it’s only hypothetical that they would have ended with better figures because for one we will never know and even in the second test where the openers went early Bangladesh still got hammered and got beat in under three days.

I don’t see you mentioning the dropped catches on the 2nd Test v Zimbabwe off Mominul & Mushy that could have had Bangladesh all out for under 150? Or the fact Chatara got injured after 1 day? Or the fact Imrul Kayes got dropped on 9 (I think in the 1st ODI) by Mavuta then to go on and dominate the entire series?

You are very blinded by the love you have for your side.

jaybro wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:11 pm

You are very blinded by the love you have for your side.

Absolutely. But thats true of most fans. ZIM fans think they will win a series against Afghanistan every time. PAK fans think they have a legit shot at winning the World Cup.

Ahh you are a punish tbh, you talk hypotheticals when it suits then call dropped catches as Facts or even stats.

There is no question Bangladesh is a stronger side with Shakib & Tamim (Fizz played 2nd Test did f**k all) and yes they’re better than Cremer & Ervine BUT you can’t 100% say they would have changed the match. Just like there’s no way to say Ireland would have won if Rankin played or if they played an extra batsman, I merely suggested that I think they will look back and regret that they were ‘hedging their bets’ with bits and pieces players instead of playing their premier fast bowler who had a proven first class record.

1) Most likely Ireland would NOT have won if Rankin played in place of one of the other bowlers. Ireland lost this Test because their top order didn't do jack s**t. And secondarily, their spinners didn't exert the same pressure that Rashid and Co did. They didn't lose because of Murtagh or Thompson. I'll double check with the scorecard just to make sure. Ireland lost because all of their runs came from the guys batting at 10 and 11. You can't win a Test match that way.

2) I will agree that bits and pieces players are bad idea in Test cricket as a general rule. That being said, I the bits and pieces seamers like Thompson and Murtagh did a pretty decent job if you factor in their batting contributions to go with their wickets. Its more likely Ireland would have lost by a bigger margin with Rankin in place of either Murtagh (80 runs) or Thompson (3 wickets), given Ireland would be unlikely to play all 3 seamers.

3) With Shakib and Tamim no 100% guarantee we'd have won that Sylhet Test...maybe 75%.

4) Fizz did get the breakthrough wicket of Williams at the point where ZIM had a probable chance of saving the Test and series. And it was a pretty good ball to get rid of ZIM's second best batsman (at the time on form).

The whole Bangladesh seamers used the new ball arguement better you can have if it makes you feel better? But the facts are the stats show all the Bangladesh bowlers got an absolute pasting ! All of them!

You say it’s a fact or stat because of the dropped catches? Well again it’s only hypothetical that they would have ended with better figures because for one we will never know and even in the second test where the openers went early Bangladesh still got hammered and got beat in under three days.

All I've said is there new ball bowling is reason to believe they have some potential to work with. I agree that they are still the worst Test seam attack out there - excluding Afghanistan and Ireland. And Rankin and Yamin might single handedly make those two attacks better. I totally agree. I'm just excited about the POTENTIAL, even if no one else is.

I don’t see you mentioning the dropped catches on the 2nd Test v Zimbabwe off Mominul & Mushy that could have had Bangladesh all out for under 150? Or the fact Chatara got injured after 1 day? Or the fact Imrul Kayes got dropped on 9 (I think in the 1st ODI) by Mavuta then to go on and dominate the entire series?

There's a subtle but important difference here:

I'm admitting that Jarvis and Chatara bowled f***ing gorgeously during that game. I think I even posted about on the match thread (lemme find it)...

OK here it is (http://www.zimcricketforums.com/viewtop ... =50)...4th post on page 6. KJ and Larry absolutely outbowled the BD seamers in that entire game.

In contrast, you've looked only at the stats from the BD attack in NZ - stats which I haven't disputed, btw. Stats are facts after all. I'm only talking about new ball bowling and the potential it translates to. 2 wickets, 1 regulation catch dropped = 3 chances (2 of them softish, but 1 of them from a jaffa). Plenty of pressure from accurate dot balls being bowled. Decent stuff IMO. The BD seamers outbowled the NZ attack with the new ball in 3 out of 4 innings. 12 for 2 is better than 53-0 from the first 10 overs. Thats all I'm saying.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:16 pm

1) Most likely Ireland would NOT have won if Rankin played in place of one of the other bowlers. Ireland lost this Test because their top order didn't do jack s**t. And secondarily, their spinners didn't exert the same pressure that Rashid and Co did. They didn't lose because of Murtagh or Thompson. I'll double check with the scorecard just to make sure. Ireland lost because all of their runs came from the guys batting at 10 and 11. You can't win a Test match that way.

No doubt they would have lost considering how bad they batted, the only thing I said was I reckon they would regret not playing Rankin as he could have troubled Afghanistan. In hindsight it wouldn't have made a difference, we can sit here and say 'what if they scored more runs, maybe then the non-selection of Rankin would have been a mistake' but lets not go down that argument.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:16 pm

2) I will agree that bits and pieces players are bad idea in Test cricket as a general rule. That being said, I the bits and pieces seamers like Thompson and Murtagh did a pretty decent job if you factor in their batting contributions to go with their wickets. Its more likely Ireland would have lost by a bigger margin with Rankin in place of either Murtagh (80 runs) or Thompson (3 wickets), given Ireland would be unlikely to play all 3 seamers.

Yes the runs by Murtagh were very important and Thompson took 3 wickets, BUT runs from your No.11 are more so good luck than good management, and for Thompson he's a gentle medium pacer who probably did better than expected with the ball but did nothing with the bat. I will guarantee you they picked Thompson because of his batting not his bowling, if it were purely about bowling they pick Rankin everyday, they've hedged their bets much like Zimbabwe do with Tiripano and Bangladesh used to do by picking batsman and part time spinners to bat @ 8 in Tests.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:16 pm

3) With Shakib and Tamim no 100% guarantee we'd have won that Sylhet Test...maybe 75%.

Again much like the Bangladesh bowled better with the new ball if you want to say Bangladesh would have 75% chance of winning that test what ever you can have it, but along with the shithouse bowling numbers from the seamers stats show the real and only story that counts.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:16 pm

4) Fizz did get the breakthrough wicket of Williams at the point where ZIM had a probable chance of saving the Test and series. And it was a pretty good ball to get rid of ZIM's second best batsman (at the time on form).

One wicket lol hardly a match winning performance, for the rest of the match he was shithouse. This is what i'm saying about you concerning Bangladesh, you look at one little aspect and ignore the rest. You talk about the dropped catches but forget that they were going for 5 an over, even in the 2nd Test where both the openers got out early Williamson and Taylor smoked them.

You argued also in another post that the wickets for the Kiwis were mainly off bad shots from Bangladesh batsman, so Bangladesh bwoled better with the new ball but they dropped their catches and the Kiwis bowled s**t but luckily the Bangladesh batsman gave their wickets away. Take a step back and just look at that please.

jaybro wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:38 am

One wicket lol hardly a match winning performance, for the rest of the match he was shithouse. This is what i'm saying about you concerning Bangladesh, you look at one little aspect and ignore the rest. You talk about the dropped catches but forget that they were going for 5 an over, even in the 2nd Test where both the openers got out early Williamson and Taylor smoked them.

Ok, I'll play since I've got little else to do on my day off :)

Econ rates for the Test series as a whole:

Wagner - 3.32

Boult - 4.04

Southee - 4.35

Henry - 4.45

Jayed - 4.03

Ebadat - 4.44

Khaled - 4.96

Fizz - 5.28

Jayed and Ebadat were right around where Boult and Southee were. Not surprising given how flat the wickets were in Hamilton and Wellington. Just as a reminder, Jayed and Ebadat had a total of 3 Test caps coming into the series, Boult and Southee had around 120. Not really a comparison. Context is key. Yes, Boult bowled a couple of cracking deliveries during the series but so did Jayed. Ebadat had some decent balls as well.

Remember the last BD-ZIM series. Jarvis had 12 wickets @ 15 or something crazy, but I still thought Khaled had been the most penetrative seamer from either side in that match/series. OK I'm biased, I'll admit it. But I was basing it on my perception of the percentage of times each bowler was beating the bat or troubling the batsmen. I didn't actually calculate it (I can if need be), but I felt as though Jarvis and Chatara got most of their wickets from the BD batters throwing it away. Again, don't quote me on that, because I could be wrong, although I don't think I am.

You argued also in another post that the wickets for the Kiwis were mainly off bad shots from Bangladesh batsman, so Bangladesh bwoled better with the new ball but they dropped their catches and the Kiwis bowled s**t but luckily the Bangladesh batsman gave their wickets away. Take a step back and just look at that please.

Incorrect. The BD batsmen didn't throw their wickets away against the new ball, so I wouldn't have said that. We had opening stands of 57 (10.2 overs), 88 (22.3), 75 (20.4), and 4 during the series. Tamim and Shadman didn't throw their wickets away...the Kiwis just bowled in bad areas. Those 3 opening partnerships were scored at 4.11 runs per over.

In contrast, Jayed and Ebadat bowled spells of 0-29 off 10 overs and 2-60 off 17.

So combined new ball spells across the series was 2-89 for the BD quicks at 3.30 an over.

And for NZ 2-259 at 4.08 an over.

Now please read this carefully, because I'm sure you will acknowledge that I generally choose my words very carefully...what I've been saying ad nauseum on this thread is that the BD new ball bowlers have out-bowled the NZ new ball bowlers, and that I BELIEVE its a good sign for their future as a Test seam attack. The stats back me up:

2 for 89 at 3.30 runs per over for BD bowlers till the first change.

versus

2 for 259 at 4.08 runs per over for NZ bowlers till the first change.

What I am NOT saying is any of the following:

- Bangladesh fast bowlers are better than Boult and Southee

- Bangladesh fast bowlers outbowled Boult and Southee throughout the Test series

- Bangladesh fast bowlers are world class

- Bangladesh fast bowlers don't have any room for improvement

- Bangladesh fast bowlers are the best in the world

I'll give you one final example. That of the Sylhet Test from a few months ago. The Zimbabwe spinners outbowled the BD spinners. That doesn't mean the ZIM spinners are better, it just means they utilized the conditions more appropriately and put their skills to better use all things considered.

I know that you may feel my English comprehension is lacking. But I just want to point out that I am American born. In fact, I was born in perhaps the most erudite place in the entire world (the city of Boston has more universities per square mile than any place I can think of, with Harvard and MIT of course leading the way). I can assure you, I'm at least competent in English, and I'm a medical doctor by education, if not by profession.

As I said you can have it if you want the Bangladesh seamers Bowles better with the new ball, there are you happy?

Also I can’t see what or why anything from the seamers would give you much hope for the future? I’m not saying the guys don’t have potential or won’t improve, but they were f***ing terrible this tour. As you pointed out they all went for nearly 5 an over except Jayed who went for just over four, and barely took a wicket between them.

The remark that Khaled Ahmed was the most penetrating bowler on either side again shows you are blinded 😂 please go back watch the highlights, if Jarvis and Chatara weren’t the two best seamers in that series I’m Santa clause 🎅

Also I’ve never questioned your English, it’s your eyes that concern me and inability to ever admit you could be slightly wrong

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:45 pm

Our bowlers should get a bit of laxity at this point. Boult and Southee looked markedly unthreatening on this pitch in both innings. Boult bowled just 2 wicket taking balls in the entire game I believe (one of them to a tailender). Mehidy might look unthreatening when the ball isn't turning, but Boult and Southee look the same when the ball isn't swinging. Together, the two guys went at close to 5 an over I think.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:39 am

jaybro wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:21 am

Difference is Southee and Boult got 6 wickets each

Difference is the batsmen they were bowling too. If the Kiwi batters threw their wickets away, Mehidy might have bagged a couple more. Majority of Boults wickets and all of Southee’s were from regular deliveries. No extragavent lateral movement or deviation.

I suspect Wellington will also be a flat pitch but with a lot of wind gusts.

Two quotes from you clearly indicating that you believe the Bangladeshi batsman gave their wickets away with poor shots.

You’ll argue you were only talking about the openers, but if you go back and check I didn’t mention the openers.

Another clear case you don’t read or bother to take note of what others write.

jaybro wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:22 am

As I said you can have it if you want the Bangladesh seamers Bowles better with the new ball, there are you happy?

Also I can’t see what or why anything from the seamers would give you much hope for the future? I’m not saying the guys don’t have potential or won’t improve, but they were f***ing terrible this tour. As you pointed out they all went for nearly 5 an over except Jayed who went for just over four, and barely took a wicket between them.

The fact that they might have potential and might improve gives me hope for the future. If there is no hope, is there any need to be a cricket fan?

If I can really have it that they bowled better during the new ball spells, I don't think it would have been necessary to imply that Southee is a has-been bowler. And before you deny it, thats what you implied by citing him being dropped from those UAE Tests. His recent averages are better than his career averages, so it hardly seems probable that he's losing it.

The remark that Khaled Ahmed was the most penetrating bowler on either side again shows you are blinded 😂 please go back watch the highlights, if Jarvis and Chatara weren’t the two best seamers in that series I’m Santa clause 🎅

OK, I'll take that one back. Jarvis and Chatara bowled a terrific spell on the first morning in Dhaka and that does take them up above Khaled. Plus the fact that they were bowling in alien conditions, and aren't vastly more experienced than Khaled.