I have to confess that I didn’t think the hosts would get anywhere near 286 when the chase began. Fourth innings runs are hard. Really hard. So the fact they got within 22 runs was a fantastic effort. Well played Bangladesh.
I also think the Bangladeshis can consider themselves a tad unlucky – at least when it came to that tense mini-session that decided the game on the fifth day. The Taijul Islam LBW looked close but my no means plumb in real time – the review seemed a little speculative and our fielders didn’t look overly confident.
Meanwhile, the Shafiul Islam LBW certainly didn’t look out to me. My initial reaction was that it was either missing the stumps entirely or the batsman was outside the line. Was he playing a shot? I think he probably was in the end. It’s impossible to tell what goes through the mind of a number 11 but my theory is this: he initially planned to leave the ball but changed his mind when he saw the extravagant late swing. Unfortunately he couldn’t get his bat down because his leg was in the way – a result of poor technique rather than a conscious decision to leave the ball. Basically it was a borderline decision that easily could’ve gone the other way.
As for England, well, I guess today’s result is a tad bitter sweet. It’s obviously great to win but we were pushed harder than most observers imagined. The raucous celebrations at the end were probably a sign of intense relief more than anything else. Without the heroics of Ben Stokes we would have lost. That’s the bottom line. Who else, other than Bairstow, had a good match?
Although we’ll head into the second test one game to the good, Chittagong has raised more questions than answers. Our spinners have generally been found wanting – this wasn’t totally unexpected but it’s still hard to stomach – and our top order failed badly in both innings. Cook, Duckett and Ballance mustered just 55 runs between them across two innings. Every single one Bangladesh’s top seven, on the other hand, made a useful contribution at some point.
I for one would shake things up before Dhaka. England hate making changes to their batting order – they’d rather give players far too many chances than one chance too few – but how much longer can they justify picking Ballance? I hope he proves everyone wrong but he looks out of sorts against both pace and spin – a result of a poor techniques he’s been unable to change. Why Jonny Bairstow, a far superior batsman in every way, is batting three places below him is one of the mysteries of the modern age. I would bring in Hameed, move Duckett to four, and move Jonny to five or six.
Alastair Cook also needs to think about his tactics. He was desperately negative in the fourth innings. Although I have some sympathy for him, because he blatantly has no confidence in any of our spinners, he needs to back them or ask the selectors to sack them. If he’s not going to put men around the bat on a raging bunsen when is he going to attack?
As for Bangladesh, they might think things are coming together rather nicely for them. This was their narrowest ever defeat in test cricket – not bad for an underdog that hadn’t played a single test for over a year. I think it’s clear for everyone to see that they’re improving. Let’s hope they start playing more test match cricket.
What’s more, Bangladesh have now discovered a formula that unsettles England. It’s hardly rocket science – there are flies living in the Thar desert that know we’re vulnerable against the turning ball – but they might believe they can actually execute this plan next time around. The hosts will certainly head to Dhaka a more confident team than they were a week ago when their coach told everyone not to expect miracles.
From what we’ve over the last few days, it won’t be such a miracle if Bangladesh beat England in Dhaka. We need to start playing a hell of a lot better than this or India could get very messy indeed.
James Morgan
I think looking at the positives that any win in alien conditions by an inexperienced team has to be celebrated.
A lot of people told me Bangladesh would be a far sterner test than I expected and so it proved to be.
I leave the negatives to others…
Yes. Lots of areas for England to improve, but also a strong possibility that they will. Many of the players have only been out there a short time. I just hope that the next match is as gripping and intense as this one.
India could well become a tour to forget (and England forget tours quite easily when they’ve gone wrong), but I think England have enough fight in them to avoid the worst, and this tour is already helping in this sense.
First and foremost, it was a brilliant test match, with the swings and ebbs and flows that a test should have (unlike, say, the Pakistan v West indies games in UAE, where one side is clearly better). Both teams can take credit for that, and I think the groundsman should be applauded for preparing a pitch that assisted the bowlers, but allowed batsmen to get in. Of course it was more to the home team’s liking. What do you expect?
Looking forward to the next test (and, after that, I am looking forward to it), I entirely agree that Ballance has to go (I watched him live at Old Trafford in the summer, and he looked out of touch then), so Hameed to open and Duckett at 3 or 4 makes sense. I would also bring in Ansari for Batty to provide more variety.
Of the other England players, Bairstow batted well, and Moeen’s 68 on day 1 was vital, so I’d give them some positives.
I think any victory for an away side on a raging Bunsen in the sub continent can’t be overlooked, even if it is against Bangladesh as opposed to India, SL or Pakistan.
The spinners are a concern, but I think they may improve with games (rather, I sincerely hope so!) and yes Ballance needs replacing. I would perhaps go with Buttler and rejig the middle order so not to mess with Duckett too much.
My overriding feelings at the end of this game are that England are still clearly a young side learning on the job, but that they have a good winning habit at the moment.. and also 2 or 3 world class performers who are going to cause any opposition issues.
I think India may well prove a step too far though and be a heavy defeat, but at least this side seems to learn it’s lessons.
Comparing a win this time out in Bangladesh compared to having played them nigh on 6 and a half years ago are two different things. The weaknesses in England’s batting line-up are nigh on regardless of the type of bowling rather than what they have faced. If anything it can only have been a good thing that England won without a major batting contribution from Cook and Root (two guys who CAN play spin) and that guys who might have been considered vulnerable (Stokes and Bairstow) have led the team.
No surprises the quicks looked better bets to take wickets than the seamers when the going got tough.
Fantastic test match and one that we can all enjoy now we have won! Lets also not forget that Cook, Root, Balance, Broad etc have not played a competitive match for (in some cases) nearly 2 months so were a little ring rusty. That said, the spinners were poor. Can you imagine Swann on that wicket? In his pomp he would have picked up a hatful of wickets so we do have concerns there, especially with India just around the corner.
Any changes…. you know England, not for Dakha that’s for sure !
If my skipper tried to give me the field Cook gave Rashid on the 4th day, I’d have some choice words for him. Fortunately, my skipper is a better captain than Cook, as is probably every single cricket club skipper in the UK.
The one thing spinners need is dot balls. Without dot balls, you can’t work a batsman over, build pressure and set him up, and with 2 men in catching positions and 4 on the boundary, that leaves 3 men to save the single. I don’t care who you are, you won’t take wickets bowling with a field like that. Needing only to score slowly anyway, the Bangladeshis must have loved all the easy, no-risk singles.
“As for England, well, I guess today’s result is a tad bitter sweet. It’s obviously great to win but we were pushed harder than most observers imagined. The raucous celebrations at the end were probably a sign of intense relief more than anything else.”
Those observers should hang their heads in shame, then. Bangladesh are a much better team than their record suggests. And at home on a raging turner like that, they’d test any non-subcontinental team.
“Without the heroics of Ben Stokes we would have lost. That’s the bottom line. Who else, other than Bairstow, had a good match?”
Well I’d say that for a number five batsman, Moeen Ali. But regardless, it doesn’t matter that without one of our players we’d have lost. So what? He is one of our players. Over the past few years I’ve read how we’re over-reliant on Cook, Broad, Root, Anderson, Swann and now Stokes. Being reliant on your best players is an inevitability. Save for the great West Indies and Australia teams of the past few decades, I can’t think of too many teams that haven’t been reliant on a few key personel. England have areas of worry. Our top four still looks desperate despite having Cook and Root in it. But we look a decent team at the moment, and one that is still on the up. So there was no bitter sweet element in this win for me. It was hard-fought in conditions that played completely to our main weakness.
Yes Bangladesh are improving but they’re still 9th in the world rankings and hadn’t played test cricket for over a year. I don’t think it was unreasonable to have expected England to win by more than the skin of their teeth and a couple of borderline lbws.
This tour is all about preparation for India in my view, so sneaking past Bangladesh by the slimmest of margins (despite winning the toss) is nothing to celebrate imho. This game has been a wake up call and I’m now more concerned about India than I was before.
Privately I think the management will also be concerned. The performance of our spinners does not bode well, and whether we like it or not it’s the spinners who will have to play the defining role in India. That’s my 2p anyway.
They didn’t win because of ‘a couple of borderline lbws’. They won because they largely played the better cricket. And borderline or not, the first of today’s two was clearly out. The second was correctly given (that was an afterthought, not a shot – and it’s not as if Bangladesh would have been nailed-on winners had it not been given). I’m not sure you can get a lucky lbw decision using DRS. If it’s hitting the wicket and the on-pitch call goes your way, you can have no complaints.
Bangladesh not having played at home for so long works against them and makes their stats look worse than they are. Their one-day and T20 form shows that they are improving in their cricket and are more than the easy targets that they were five or six years ago. And could there have possibly been a wicket more prepared for the home side? I’m not complaining – home sides should get an advantage – but I don’t think any nation that struggles to play spin would have found batting against this Bangladesh side easy.
Yes, the quality of this generation of England spinners is poor (how Leach didn’t make this trip is beyond me). But knowing our spinners are second rate in international terms is hardly news, is it? To be honest, they performed largely as I’d expected. No better, no worse. Bangladesh’s spinners were better, yes, but again, that was always going to be the case. The good news on that score is that there appears to be better coming through.
I’m concerned about England’s prospects in India. But then I was before this test. We’re not well equipped to win a series in India; that was true both before and after this test. I doubt we’ll see a pitch that turns so much that spinners are routinely opening the innings in India, however. England have come through a tough test here.
All fair points but it looks like your expectations were a tad lower than mine. I’m not saying we won because of the lbws I’m just trying to emphasise that 22 runs is nothing really in the context of a 5 day test. The margins were very fine and I think England should be better than that. The result really could’ve gone the other way.
I actually disagree that we largely played the better cricket too. Our spinners were out bowled and our top order played poorly by comparison as well. Bangladesh played very well and I certainly think it was a moral victory for them. Just my opinion.
I didn’t think Bangladesh would be a pushover but I did expect England to win and defend 280 odd in the 4th innings, on a turning pitch, with 3 spinners in the side, more comfortably than they did. I completely agree re: Leach by the way.
While Moeen’s first innings knock was crucial, remember that he would have been out for single figures had Bangladesh reviewed his first not out lbw.
I don’t really indulge in ‘what ifs’ because what counts is what is in the scorebook. They didn’t review so it doesn’t matter! I might just as well say that if Bairstow hadn’t dropped Sabbir Rahman when he had, I think, 33 the victory might have been much more comfortable! But drop him he did…and it really is no use speculating!
Runs scored by each batsman in the match by both sides:
103 (Stokes)
99 (Bairstow)
87
87
83
82 (Ali)
64
55 (Woakes)
55
55
41 (Root)
35 (Rashid)
29 (Duckett)
27
23 (Broad)
19
16 (Cook)
10 (Ballance)
4 (Batty)
2
2
0
The England upper order did not distinguish itself – and must be hoping that Bangladesh didn’t notice and won’t open their bowling with spin again.
And to add the obvious and oft-repeated question – why can’t England produce top-quality spinners? Mehedi looks a class above any current England-qualified player – at the age of 18.
We have a magic solution – play no f/c cricket in high summer! That’ll help!!
We import foreign spinners who (more often than not) impede development of English spinners. You may say that the same applies to bats and seamers – but often there is only room for one specialist spinner in a county side. This effect can be seen at Warwicks, where the excellent Jeetan Patel has impeded the progress of the likes of Josh Poysden. I now fear a similar effect at Derbyshire. I have previously said that I think Matt Critchley has the potential to be the best all rounder/spinner in the country (far better than Rashid). Now Derby have signed Imran Tahir and I fear that Critchley will be played as a specialist bat in 2017 with few opportunities to develop as a leg spinner.
I take your point about Cook’s defensive fields but two or three loose and expensive overs could have cost us the game. The run chase was tight. Obviously the spinners are there to take wickets, but the field placing decision will not have have been straightforward. If the Bangladeshi batsmen had got after one or more of our spinners, it would have been curtains for them and us.
The England batting was decidedly under par. Cook was jet lagged and undercooked so he has a bit of an excuse, but outside of Stokes the remainder of the top six need to do better. With an extra hundred on the board Cook might have used our spinners to better effect. They need to be bowling in attacking conditions before we reach India so we know how they will perform under pressure.
Bangladesh are a much improved side and were unlucky in the end. They put up a great fight and much credit is due to them. England did well to keep on going in the heat and alien conditions with Stokes and our seamers giving it all that they’ve got. It was a tense and exciting match. Congratulations go to both sides.
Listening to Bayliss I don’t expect to see a changed team for the next test. Maybe Ansari for Woakes. A leftie would give a useful variation against the right handers. The batting choices are limited. I trust Hameed is not there to carry the drinks so if Duckett fails to make it good I would hope to see him alongside Cook in India. Ballance for Buttler doesn’t seem like a good idea so any team change would clearly mean a shift in the order with Duckett coming in at 4. Ansari could also take that spot if he is given a chance to come into the side.
Ansari for Woakes? Woakes, the England bat with the highest batting average in the test (check it)? Woakes, the only England seamer who has looked test standard over 2016 as a whole? It certainly was a mystery why he only bowled 14 overs in the whole test when he went at under 2 an over and was as likely to get wickets on that strip as any seamer. I think you can put that down to Cook, although even I think the comments by AB above on Cook are a bit OTT :). As for Stokes; nice to see him give his ‘once every 10 games performance’ – but we should not get carried away with his bowling figures. 5 of his 6 wickets were against 8/9/10/11 – and the Bangladesh tail sometimes looked as if they barely knew which end of the bat to hold. Stokes just happened to benefit from Cook giving him the rabbits.
Jimmy got all the rabbits beforehand!!
Appreciate your thoughts Andy.
Woakes simply because he was under used and I considered that there might be a good reason for it. Perhaps he’s carrying a niggle? Also it means not dropping a spinner and it would be the smallest change. Not my first choice but maybe the way Bayliss might go.
Love Woakes. He’s a favourite. :-)
Spot on on Woakes. However with seven tests in seven weeks in those conditions, rotating seamers does seem to make sense. I think Broad would be the more obvious candidate to rotate though.
However completely disagree on Stokes – recommend you check out his stats for the last 12 months. There was a time when the “once every 10 games” accusation had some measure of truth, but he’s a different player now.
Stokes test stats for the last 12 months; 17 innings (all out), 648 runs at an average of 38. However, the average is boosted from 23 by that innings of 258 – which seems to confirm he is inconsistent. Bowling, 26 wickets at 26 each – good. I would always pick Stokes, but as an all rounder with the batting order from 6-8 dependent on circumstance. I simply do not see him as a regular bat at 5 or 6. Apologies if my post seemed to be a dig at his bowling which I see as more valuable than his batting. However the fact that he cleaned up the tail in this test seems incontrovertible.
I was thinking across formats actually, check out his ODI performances too. But it’s also the manner of his contributions which often seem to be match changing moments – any team would love to have him.
For a long time it felt like he offered a lot to the team but the numbers didn’t necessarily back that up – that is changing.
The thing is, they weren’t overly-defensive fields, they were just horribly, horribly, U12 level, incompetent fields. When the opposition have all day to score 80 odd, but on a turning pitch where big shots carry a lot of risk, why would you just give them easy singles? Its beyond stupid, its actively trying to give the game away.
To be fair, some of Rashid’s bowling wouldn’t have looked out of place at U12 level.
Its hard to bowl with ludicrous fields that are setting you up to fail unless you bowl 6 unplayable balls every over.
Hey Adil, the opposition only need singles, so I’m going to leave big gaps at cover, mid off, mid on and midwicket, so there is no need for them to take any risks whatsoever, and even your good balls will go for runs.
His stats for 2016 were good. Stats for 2012 through 2015 less so.
Bumble putting it out there that it’s a possibility Buttler will come in for Ballance.
Bairstow to retain the gloves.
Would that be Jos Buttler, the batsman with a worse test record than Ballance, a far worse first class record, and who hasn’t made a first class 50 for over a year? I’m all in favour of giving someone else a go instead of Ballance but Buttler would be one of the few options that would be a downgrade in my book.
If Buttler plays with Bairstow keeping (and Jonny should keep the gloves after his improved display here) that means the selectors think Jos is one of the best 6 specialist batsmen in England. He’s certainly one of the most talented players around but his first class record suggests he’s not in the top 50 or 60 batsmen in England. He may well come good, and prove the doubters wrong, but his selection would be a huge leap of faith.
I still cannot understand why they took Buttler instead of Billings. Billings is a far superior keeper to either Bairstow or Buttler and has much more of a red ball batting technique than Buttler.
That lbw wasn’t out – at the moment the ball hit the pad, the batsman was clearly trying to get his bat to it. From reading the laws, it seems entirely obvious to me.
There seem to be 2 possibilities. Either the late movement of the bat was a classic ‘play behind the pad’ ploy, in which case it was out, or he really was trying to get to the ball – in which case he was such a poor bat that being given out probably only accelerated the end by 1 or 2 balls.
He clearly tried to hit it after it started to swing. Whether or not he would have been out a few balls later is irrelevant – the decision was incorrect.
Had England lost to a decision liked that I think we all would’ve been fuming. I actually didn’t want it to be given out when we were waiting for the review because I wanted us to win on an decisive and uncontroversial note. It just seemed like an unsatisfactory way to end a brilliant contest.
“Had England lost to a decision liked that I think we all would’ve been fuming.”
I wouldn’t. It was a brilliant piece of reverse swing bowling that warrants much more praise than it’s getting. Thrusting your pad out like that and hiding your bat behind it is not ‘playing a shot’. If you give an umpire a decision to make like that, you can have no complaints if it doesn’t come down on your side.
You may be right, but I have seen many batsmen play behind the pad (I have done it myself) and that is not attempting to play the ball. On balance I think you are correct because playing behind the pad is usually more obvious from the first movement. I agree it is unsatisfactory.
I think England should actually make quite a lot of changes next test. Firstly because the seamers will struggle to play all the tests and rotation shouldn’t be a bad tactic as; 1, Will Bangladesh back the performance up and 2, the side isn’t settled anyway.
If definetly leave out broad as he has plenty of experience, and bring in ball, perhaps Finn for woakes too but I’d probably want to keep woakes who also doesn’t have much experience in conditions and can do a good job at drying things up if the spinners struggle.
I’ve always thought its curious that England see Duckett as a red ball opener. Yes his stats have picked up dramatically since he moved up the order for Northants, but when asked about position he seems to confirm that he opens mainly so that he faces higher quality bowling to enable him to improve and push for test inclusion, he still looks a (very good) middle order batsman. Usually a player like him coming into a side would be given a chance to bed in at 6 and move up as they improve, unfortunately for him he has to bat in the top 4 due to the balance of England’s side.
Because of this I wouldn’t worry at all about moving Duckett to four and bringing in hameed who just looks to be one of those special players that will have a long successful career. Ballance played a very good innings of 70 2 tests ago and wasn’t dismissed in the warmup games so I think dropping him would be unfair but for me, he just doesn’t fit right now, I hope he goes back to county cricket and rediscovers the brilliant form of 2 years ago.
Moeen I thought had a very good game, he has a lot on his plate and should definetly be used in an attacking way as he can bowl absolute rippers, I hope he nails number 5. Stokes should play but I wouldn’t look to bowl him until it reverses, we don’t need him getting Injured. Bairstow too was brilliant, 7 tests will be a huge test of durable for him.
I thought batty bowled well, definetly better than rashid who I just do not think is a red ball bowler of much class, those fields were not cooks fault. Rashid has to be left out and replaced by ansari, it should be leach but ansari could be very effective in conditions, can drive the ball into surface with plenty of revs and has experienced bowling long spells, unlike mo or rashid.
I really hesitate to say this, but Batty approaches the crease with a very bent elbow. I haven’t had the benefit of slow-motion, but in real time it does look suspiciously like he straightens it in the delivery.
What do others think?
I don’t think there’s a problem with Batty’s action myself. His arm looks pretty straight in the actual delivery.
On a side note, Batty learned to bowl the doosra when he was at Worcester, but he could only bowl it from 19 yards away! Couldn’t get it right from 22! He might well have bowled that with a bent arm though :-)
That’s the problem, James. If his arm is bent before delivery and straight while delivering, he must have straightened it, hence thron it?
All bowlers begin their delivery with a bent arm. The key is whether the arm straightens more than 15 degrees between the moment the hand is raised above the shoulder to the moment the ball is released. I think batty has a pretty solid bowling action, actually.
Spot on. He throws it
I enjoyed the test match. It was a good test wicket that allowed runs to be scored but not stupid amounts. It was not a Bunsen as some are calling it but it took spin as you’d expect in Asia.. no one sensible wants Asian flat tracks as they produce the most Boring run fests
Anyway, cooks captaincy wasn’t great but rashid bowls so much tripe (along with jaffas) that cook felt the need to defend the bad ball which mean the couldn’t have more catches (gully).
Stokes… bowling was enjoyable to watch but his first innings was awful. He looked so so so so bad. Bairstow bless him is looking a decent 6/7 test batter p.. fair play.
Stokes second innings, give him his dues he put away all his white ball mentality and shots and dug in.. proper test batting.. well batted lad.. please stop what you normally do and do that more often!!! He is inconsistent as others point out and that’s why he’s not a top six test batter. He does have a game changing ability though suited to 7/8
Enjoyable test match though, between two average sides.
Why isn’t Jack Leach out there? His stats should make him an automatic choice.