SAfrica v Bdesh

[sasquatch]

South Africa 0/391 (81 overs)

Smith has an unbeaten double hundred (strike rate in the eighties)
McKenzie looking untouchable...

Should this be classed as a Test match?

[hearts on fire]

didn't South Africa get bowled out for around 180ish in a test or this test against Bangladesh?

[sasquatch]

Fair enough point, but they're about to put on 400 for the opening wicket, and smash all manner of records that have been made against opposition of much higher quality. It just seems wrong.

[brod]

Yeah, its a test for the scorers and stats man

[hearts on fire]

STUMPS day 1:
South Africa 0/405.

McKenzie 169 not out
Smith 223 not out

The previous record for most runs without losing a wicket on first day's play was 326 runs, scored by India against Bangladesh. Now GC Smith and N Mckenzie have obliterated that record.

[sasquatch]

One record they beat was the Taylor/Marsh stand in the 1989 Ashes, batting through the day for 306. As far as runs scored goes, they have massacred that one, and, although that particular English attack wasn't venemous, it could still be classed as a Test attack, as opposed to Bangladesh, even though I open myself up to the "What-about-the-Deshi-quick-who-took-six-wickets?" line of attack.

[spell_check]

Hey, the score looks nice.

[Pup]

I agree Sasquatch.

Not a good thing for cricket IMO.

[rod_rooster]

Smith is every chance of making over 400. Would be a real shame for Test cricket if that happened.

[spell_check]

To send a message to the ICC about there being too much cricket scheduled, would there be something done about it if South Africa go for the 1000 here?

[brod]

Funny, dont remember any sort of discussion about this when Bangladeah led after the first innings in the first test match of the series???

[spell_check]

Funny, dont remember any sort of discussion about this when Bangladeah led after the first innings in the first test match of the series???

Didn't know (or realise) there was a Test before this - wish Foxtel would show it though.

I guess it's because no Test team went through these type of defeats or days during their early years - not even Zimbabwe. And Bangladesh have been around for 7 1/2 years now - Zimbabwe achieved a lot more than what they have done so far in their first 7 1/2 years.

[spell_check]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

[rod_rooster]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Zimbabwe also produced some fine players. Andy Flower, Heath Streak, Alistair Campbell among others. Who has Bangladesh produced?

[brod]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

[rod_rooster]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

I think the most telling stat rather than the wins is from 52 test matches Bangladesh have lost 46 times. Zimbabwe only lost 26 times. Says a hell of a lot about the competitiveness of the two sides.

[brod]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

I think the most telling stat rather than the wins is from 52 test matches Bangladesh have lost 46 times. Zimbabwe only lost 26 times. Says a hell of a lot about the competitiveness of the two sides.

Agree with you , just wondering who the DID beat?

[spell_check]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

Two each against India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their first series win was in Pakistan in 1998.

[brod]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

Two each against India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their first series win was in Pakistan in 1998.

It would make sense that the Bangas beat Zimbabwe, but wasnt the win vs Pakistan??

[spell_check]

Bangladesh up to this Test had played 52 Test matches for 1 win 46 losses and 5 draws. Zimbabwe after 52 Test matches had 6 wins 26 losses and 21 draws. Coincedently for Zimbabwe that was the point when it went downhill.

Any idea who those six wins were against spelly?

Two each against India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their first series win was in Pakistan in 1998.

It would make sense that the Bangas beat Zimbabwe, but wasnt the win vs Pakistan??

It was Zimbabwe that Bangladesh defeated - http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statisti ... hCode=1751