Bangladesh's Lack of Penetration with the Ball a Major Worry

In all likelihood, the Test between Bangladesh and India will end up being a draw. Much of the first day was lost to rain, and Day 2 was completely washed out. The forecast for the remainder of the Test isn’t great either. For Bangladesh, this might be a blessing in disguise. Their decision to play just one quick is somewhat curious and has already exposed the hosts, even with just 56 overs in the bag thus far.

Bangladesh have mentioned on a number of occasions in the recent past that they need to start taking 20 wickets. On the eve of the match, Bangladesh coach Chandika Hathurusingha was quoted by the Free Press Journal as saying: "We will try to select the team that gives us best chance to take 20 wickets.”

He also mentioned that the wicket wouldn’t be a “fast bowler’s paradise,” but that did not stop eyebrows from raising when Mohammad Shahid ended up being the only paceman in the side. 

In contrast to India, who went for three seamers on a batsman-friendly wicket, Bangladesh had just one quick option. The lack of penetration would soon show for the hosts. After losing the toss and being put in to bowl, Shahid soon became predictable. And when he was replaced just four overs into his second spell, his confidence most likely took a blow.

ESPN Cricinfo's Bangladesh correspondent, Mohammad Isam, suggested that there might be a reason why Shahid got the nod:

"

The team management's decision to pick Shahid as the lone seamer ahead of Rubel Hossain and Abul Hasan was quite a natural call for the team management that has shown most of its interest in new pace bowlers. The only other time when Bangladesh picked a single pace bowler in their bowling attack was against Sri Lanka last year when Al-Amin Hossain played. There too, Mushfiqur and Shane Jurgensen preferred the newbie ahead of Rubel and Robiul Islam. At the time, Al-Amin was a relatively unknown quantity with promise, similar to Shahid in this game.

"

Bangladesh's coach, however, suggested otherwise. Hathurusingha said, according to ESPN Cricinfo:

"

Rubel is coming after an injury, he was not 100 percent. We thought if Rubel bowled on this wicket, there could be a re-occurrence of his injury because he didn't get a chance to prove his fitness in a match. He is not fit to bowl on this kind of wicket. You need a lot of effort on this kind of wicket. If the wicket is helping fast bowlers, we could have gone different way.

"

That might be fair enough, and if the current evidence is anything to go by, it is indeed a tough slog for seamers. But the question then remains: Why have just one seamer to do all the hard work?

The rest of the Bangladesh bowling lineup has had to rely on vastly inexperienced players. While there is nothing wrong with focusing on the youth and giving them a chance, throwing one of your young players under the proverbial bus by not offering him much support is a little bit foolish.

Bangladesh might not be known as a country that produces great fast bowlers, but they seem to have shot themselves in the foot with the selection of their team for this Test.

Bangladesh has improved in leaps and bounds recently, particularly in the shorter formats of the game, but if they hope to be competitive in Tests, then selectors have to start thinking forward, and that means exposing players to conditions they might not always find helpful and backing up those who are being given a chance.