If one was to find one main reason amongst many others to point to for the 1-0 defeat of the Bangladesh Test team to Sri Lanka, it must be the folly of the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) to have dared to play a Test series and before that, a limited over series against Sri Lanka without a coach. Instead, the responsibility was given to an apology of a coach, former Test player Khaled Mahmud, one with little known experience as a coach of a high level cricket team let alone a Test team. As a Test player, he was less than average. In fact, there was no earthly reason to give him charge of the team without being named as one.
In fact, to have entrusted a team of young players who are very talented but not matured and very temperamental to someone like him was absurd. It gave the impression that the BCB perhaps for some strange and unexplained reason, did not believe that the coach has a major role in a Test team. The discussion in the corridors of power of Bangladesh cricket according to informed sources was that the senior players of the team had a significant influence upon the BCB for their indifference in choosing a qualified coach. Hathurusinghe, the last Bangladesh coach, had left many months ago. In fact, a good time before leaving, the BCB knew that he had been offered the job of the coach of the Sri Lankan Team. Yet the BCB took no action to recruit of new coach for the Bangladesh Team.
Again according to sources close to the BCB, the reason for the Board's indifference was that the senior players of the Bangladesh team wanted the charge to go to Khaled Mahmud. He was given the charge on a trial basis with the Sri Lankan visit to secure for him the full-time job of the coach of the Bangladesh team. That made sense but purely from the perspective of the senior players because immature as they are, they thought that if Khaled Mahmud was named the coach, they would have greater control of the team. The crucial question is why did the BCB fall for it? They don't seem to have made much effort to choose a real coach for the team at a time when it is financially, to use a cliché, filthy rich.
The senior players with Khaled Mahmud - and with the Board indifferent - appear to have decided to prepare for the ChittagongTest a bowler's graveyard for a pitch in order to ensure a draw and for the Dhaka Test, a minefield for the batsmen where they thought their spinners would be able to catch the Sri Lankans with their pants down and win the test series against the once formidable but now on the decline Sri Lankan team. At a time when the Bangladesh players have established that both in Test cricket and limited overs format, they are no longer a pass-over team, it is strange that the players themselves and the BCB did not show the same faith in the Bangladesh team as its fans and cricket followers in the world of cricket cricket.
Bangladesh had the batsmen and bowlers to match Sri Lanka player for player going into the Test series. A little faith in the Team's abilities would have allowed the Bangladesh team to be competitive with the Sri Lankans with the outcome depending on the way they would have actually played. But by deciding to play for a draw in Chittagong and preparing the pitch accordingly, they achieved the objective but gave the moral victory to the Sri Lankans who used the placid pitch much better and outscored Bangladesh's first innings total of 513 by 201 more runs to a humungous 713. And stumps on day 4, with 3 down for 84, Bangladesh had faced the prospect of losing.
Instead, the Bangladesh team became the victim of the trap it had set for its opponent by preparing the Dhaka pitch as a bowler's paradise and a batsmen's minefield. The inspiration behind preparing such a pitch for the Dhaka Test came from the two Test victories in Dhaka in 2017 and 2016 against Australia and England respectively where neither team were good against spin bowling. All would have been well for the Bangladesh team had it not been for two reasons. First was the Sri Lankans player spin better than both Australia and England. The second and the most important reason is that the wily Haturasinghe, who was Bangladesh's coach in 2016 and 2017, is now the Sri Lankan coach.
Thus when he saw what his former Team's ad-hoc coach, its senior bowlers and an indifferent BCB had done to the pitch, he knew what to do instantly. What he decided that the Sri Lankan batsmen implemented was to bat with caution as the guide and where every batsman needed to contribute runs to the team. This strategy was explained by De Silva, the player of the Dhaka Test, when he was interviewed in the post-match presentation. As a result of the coach's strategy, he himself scored two half centuries, the second one undefeated, that allowed almost all the batsman in the team to contribute that in turn resulted in a total of 222 in the first innings and 229 in the second.
Haturasinghe had also taken into consideration the Bangladesh batsmen and their temperament that he knew like the back of his hand in fixing the strategy for his batsmen. And Mahmudullah, exposed his lack of knowledge of cricket when he defended his batsmen who were criticised in the media for playing their strokes and folding in the first innings for 110 and 123 for the second. He said that he did not believe it would be wise for the Bangladesh batsmen to curb their stroke play and that instead if they played their strokes, they would be in a better predicament. In the second innings, he was out by running down the wicket to hit a six, missing the line and giving a practice catch in the slips! In fact, most of the Bangladesh batsmen, following his advice, were out the same way as he was. If Hatu had been the coach or there was someone sensible in his place as the coach of the Bangladesh team, the advice to the batsmen would have been the same - that the pitch was difficult and stroke play was poison for the batsmen.
The Bangladesh batsmen opted for poison, encouraged by the captain and without a coach to correct that stupid encouragement. If Hatu was the coach the Bangladesh team or there was someone and not Khaled Mahmud in charge of the team, the only advice to the Bangladesh batsmen should have been to play watchful cricket and score in ones and twos and rule out the strokes needed for the 4s and the 6s. The Bangladesh batsmen are talented enough to have done what the Sri Lnakan batsmen had done and Mehedi Miraz proved that point by batting sensible crikcet and scoring 37 not out in the first innings. He, of course, did that because he is not a natural stroke player but nevertheless proved the point that the treacherous nature of the Dhaka pitch notwithstanding, the Bangladesh team with the defensive and correct strategy would have scored more than the paltry totals in the two innings and even could have won the test.
The Sri Lankan series underlined that Bangladesh's Test cricket is still in the wilderness and it lacks any sense of direction. This despite the fact that their cricketing abilities are undoubtedly much improved. Their losing predicament is due more to the lack of common sense among the players and utter irresponsibility of the cricket administrators. The immediate task therefore for those who can bring some sense in Bangladesh Test crikcet is the appointment of a coach of the highest class by trashing the thought that a local coach could do the job.
The writer is a former Ambassador.
serajul7@gmail.com