A Clash for the Ages: India vs. Australia, 1987 World Cup Thriller

 

The 1987 World Cup delivered countless moments of cricketing brilliance, but few matches stand out as vividly as the Chennai encounter between defending champions India and eventual winners Australia. The clash on that sultry October day remains etched in memory as one of the greatest contests in the tournament's storied history, a testament to the unpredictability and drama of cricket.

The Prelude: A Battle of Strategies

India, led by the charismatic Kapil Dev, won the toss and elected to field. The decision, perhaps influenced by the humid conditions, proved to be a double-edged sword. Australia, guided by their shrewd skipper Allan Border, came prepared with a meticulous game plan. Openers Geoff Marsh and David Boon executed it to near perfection, crafting an opening partnership of 110 runs that laid the foundation for a daunting total.

Marsh, the architect of Australia’s innings, compiled a masterful 110, blending patient accumulation with precise stroke play. Boon’s 49 complemented Marsh’s knock, as the pair nullified the Indian bowlers on a pitch offering little assistance. As Marsh later reflected, "It was important to bat first and create pressure. For that, one of us had to stay there, which I did."

Dean Jones, an integral part of the Australian middle order, highlighted the meticulousness of their approach: "One of the rules inscribed on our kitbags was: 'To lose patience is to lose the battle.' We focused on rotating strike and taking singles, making the opposition’s fielding look ragged."

The Six That Wasn’t—Or Was It?

A moment of controversy arose during the innings when Jones lofted Maninder Singh towards long-on. Ravi Shastri leapt at the boundary but signalled the ball had landed inside the rope. Umpire Dickie Bird took Shastri’s word, awarding four runs. However, Australian coach Bobby Simpson, observing from close quarters, insisted it was a six. Post-innings discussions ensued, and Kapil Dev, embodying the spirit of the game, agreed to adjust the score. The Australian total was revised to 270—a decision that would later prove pivotal.

India’s Fiery Response: A Tale of Momentum

India’s chase began with a flurry of aggression. Sunil Gavaskar, often criticized for his conservative approach in ODIs, unleashed an uncharacteristic onslaught, smashing 37 off 32 balls. His partner, Krishnamachari Srikkanth, dazzled with a 70-run blitz, leaving the Australians scrambling. Debutant Navjot Singh Sidhu, shedding his "strokeless wonder" tag, showcased audacious hitting, racing to 73 off 79 deliveries. By the time India reached 207 for 2, victory seemed a foregone conclusion.

Dean Jones aptly summarized the shift in Indian mindset: "It was surprising to see Sunny take the lead. He set the tempo and lifted the entire team’s confidence."

The Turning Tide: McDermott’s Spell of Magic

Just as India appeared poised for a comfortable win, Allan Border turned to Craig McDermott. The pacer’s second spell proved transformative. Mixing pace with cunning off-cutters, McDermott dismantled India’s middle order, sending Sidhu, Mohammad Azharuddin, and Dilip Vengsarkar back to the pavilion in quick succession. Ravi Shastri fell to a deceptive slower ball, leaving India’s lower order to navigate a mounting crisis.

"McDermott was like a racehorse," Jones remarked. "Once he got his confidence, he grew stronger and better. His 'gorilla teeth' were out, and the bite was real."

The Final Act: Drama at the Death

The match was a microcosm of cricket’s unpredictable nature, where every moment was fraught with tension and the outcome hung by the thinnest of threads. India, chasing a target set by Australia, needed just 16 runs from the final 24 balls, with 4 wickets still intact. The equation seemed favourable, yet the ghosts of earlier moments in the game, particularly the havoc wreaked by Craig McDermott, lingered. McDermott had put India on the back foot with his incisive spell, but with Kapil Dev and K. Srikkanth at the crease, there was still hope.

Kapil Dev, a man synonymous with Indian cricketing glory, had been the architect of many memorable victories. But in this instance, the pressure of the chase seemed to have gotten to him. He holed out to Simon O'Donnell, and suddenly, the equation became much more precarious. The score remained at 265, but now only 3 wickets stood between India and the elusive victory. At the same score, Roger Binny, who had been one of India’s unsung heroes in the 1983 World Cup, attempted to pressurize the Australian fielders with a quick single off Geoff Lawson. However, in a moment of brilliance, David Jones, positioned at mid-on, unleashed a direct hit that left Binny stranded, and India’s hopes were further dimmed. With Binny’s departure, India was now 265 for 7, and the chase seemed to be slipping away.

Yet, cricket is a game of ebb and flow, and Srikkanth, a batsman known for his fearless stroke play, was not about to give up. He struck Steve Waugh for two brilliant fours, both to the leg side, momentarily reigniting India’s chances. But as the score stood at 265, Manoj Prabhakar, who had been a key figure in India’s bowling attack, was next to face. He pushed a ball to cover and began to sprint down the wicket for a quick single. The tension was palpable as Allan Border, one of Australia’s most reliable fielders, swiftly picked up the ball and threw down the stumps with unerring accuracy. Prabhakar was run out, leaving India with just two wickets to go and the target still looming large.

As the final over began, Maninder Singh, the number eleven batsman, stood at the crease, facing Steve Waugh. India needed 6 runs to win, and the atmosphere was charged with an almost surreal sense of déjà vu. Maninder had been at the centre of a similarly tense finish in the 1986 tied match between India and Australia, and the memories of that encounter must have weighed heavily on his mind. But the man known for his calm demeanour in pressure situations was not easily rattled.

Maninder, with remarkable composure, played two intelligent shots. The first, a well-timed stroke past point for two runs, and the second, a neatly turned ball to backward square for another two. The equation had now narrowed down to 2 runs from 2 balls, and the tension was almost unbearable. The crowd, the players, and even the commentators could feel the weight of the moment. Jones, positioned at mid-on, later admitted that a sense of eerie déjà vu washed over him as he silently willed the ball into the air, hoping for a catch that would seal the match.

Steve Waugh, one of the most reliable bowlers in Australian cricket, ran in with the ball, his eyes fixed on the target. The ball, delivered with precision, was dead straight, and Maninder, in a moment of misfortune, missed it entirely. The sound of the ball clattering into the stumps echoed around the stadium, signalling the end of India’s valiant chase. The death rattle was unmistakable, and with it, India’s hopes of victory were dashed.

The final score of 269—one run more than the target set by Australia—was a cruel irony. India had fallen short by a mere 1 run, but the result was far more than just a statistic. It was a loss that cut deep, a loss that was defined not just by the runs on the scoreboard but by the moments that led to it. Kapil Dev’s decision to declare the innings had been a magnanimous gesture, aimed at giving his bowlers enough time to dismiss Australia. But in hindsight, it proved to be a double-edged sword. The two runs added during the break had, in the end, proven decisive.

The loss was one of the closest margins in World Cup history, and it underscored the razor-thin margin between success and failure in cricket. India had fought valiantly, and yet, the cruel reality of sport was that the smallest of mistakes, the slightest of miscalculations, could tip the scales in favour of the opposition. It was a defeat that would haunt the Indian team for years to come, a defeat that lingered not just in the numbers but in the hearts of those who had watched, lived, and breathed every moment of that unforgettable match.

The Aftermath: A Match for the Ages

The six—or four—that sparked controversy ultimately decided the outcome. Bob Simpson reflected, "It may have seemed like good fortune for us, but it was right."

The loss was a bitter pill for India, yet it underscored cricket’s inherent unpredictability. For Australia, it was a stepping stone towards their maiden World Cup triumph, solidifying their status as a cricketing powerhouse.

This match remains a symbol of cricket’s glorious uncertainty, where every run, decision, and moment can alter the course of history.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Bangladesh Cricket: Constructive Steps need to be Fulfilled by BCB

Bangladesh endured their second consecutive crushing defeat, with the first Test extending to the final day and the second succumbing within just two and a half days. On the third day, the visitors capitulated meekly, failing to last long on a pitch that was flat and highly conducive to batting. In both matches, the track remained largely unremarkable, but Bangladesh's batting and bowling exhibited fundamental flaws. Technically and temperamentally, the team appeared disjointed, leaving little to critique other than their own deficiencies—both in their application at the crease and in their inability to adapt to conditions that did not favor the opposition.

South Africa’s bowling attack, though not at full strength, did not present any particularly menacing challenges. The first Test saw them lacking firepower, while in the second, they operated with a depleted unit. Despite the absence of blistering pace or consistent short-pitched tactics to exploit the ribcage area, Bangladesh’s top and middle orders crumbled under relatively straightforward conditions. South African pacers, without delivering deceptive pace or attacking relentlessly, still found significant success.

Kagiso Rabada, in his post-day-two press conference, pointedly remarked, "About the Bangladeshi batsmen, I don’t know what happened. We just stuck to our plan and at the end of the day they got themselves out." This candid statement highlighted the stark lack of application and resolve among the Bangladeshi batsmen, underscoring a worrying pattern of self-destruction rather than any significant challenge posed by the opposition.

In a devastating collapse, Bangladesh was dismissed for 172 on the third day, following their meager total of 147 in the first innings. This marked their heaviest defeat to South Africa in Test cricket. It is imperative, however, not to hastily dismiss this result as an anomaly. There are critical lessons to be learned, both in technique and temperament, if the team is to rise from this setback and avoid further humiliation in the future.

 

Rethink about Mushfiqur Rahim’s Captaincy

This is not the first instance where Mushfiqur Rahim’s cautious approach has undermined Bangladesh's progress. While his defensive mindset has occasionally served the team, his emotional outbursts—often erratic and ill-timed—have become a source of ridicule in the global cricketing community. A Test captain must be a figure of authority, possessing not only a strong personality but also an innate sense of confidence and a proactive, attacking mindset. Unfortunately, despite over a decade of international cricket and five years at the helm of the national side, Mushfiq remains emotionally fragile and overly pragmatic in his leadership.

His ill-advised decision at the toss in the second Test was so baffling that it even left Faf du Plessis, the South African captain, astounded and prompted him to mock Mushfiq's choice. On the field, Mushfiq seemed uncertain, his leadership lacking clarity, and his batting—once seen as a strength—failed to inspire the team. He has yet to demonstrate growth, consistently repeating mistakes without the ability to learn or evolve from them.

It is time for the Bangladesh cricket fraternity to reconsider Mushfiq's role as Test captain. The team requires a leader who is not only resolute and emotionally stable but also bold and attacking in approach. At this juncture, it is clear that Tamim Iqbal might be the more fitting candidate to guide Bangladesh in Test cricket, offering the calm, confident, and decisive leadership that the team so desperately needs.

Imrul Kayes and Soumya Sarkar Need Break

Imrul Kayes repeatedly expressed his desire to open the batting, a wish that was eventually granted during Bangladesh's tour of South Africa. Unfortunately, he was unable to capitalize on this opportunity. His dismissals were disappointing, marked by soft shots that reflected a lack of mental fortitude. On the other hand, Soumya Sarkar, a player I had placed considerable faith in, proved to be a greater frustration. I had hoped he would address the technical shortcomings that had previously plagued him, but instead, he continued to fall victim to basic errors. His inability to manage an angled bat outside the off stump against pace bowlers—something that should be second nature at this level—raises serious concerns. If Soumya cannot rectify these fundamental flaws, it might be time for him to step away from Test cricket for a while, to reassess and refine his game. Similarly, Kayes also needs a break to rediscover his form and confidence.

With both of these players struggling, Bangladesh now faces the pressing challenge of identifying a reliable opening partner for Tamim Iqbal in Test cricket. While some local sports journalists and fans have persistently called for the return of Shahriar Nafees, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) should resist such short-sighted clamouring. Instead, they should look to the future, focusing on the promising talent emerging from the Under-19 team, which performed admirably last year. Additionally, several young players have been making waves in domestic cricket, showing potential that cannot be ignored. Batsmen like Saif Hasan, Yasir Ali, Zakir Hasan, and others are demonstrating the kind of skill and consistency that could make them worthy candidates for the opening position alongside Tamim. It's time for the BCB to place their trust in these emerging talents, who can make a lasting impact on the national team.

Is the Batting Coach Good Enough?

 The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of the previous batting coach, Thilan Samaraweera, ultimately opting not to extend his contract. However, the replacement they appointed has not demonstrated any superior credentials. His first-class career was modest at best, and his exposure to international cricket was minimal. Furthermore, his previous stint as a batting consultant yielded little in terms of measurable success. To make matters more perplexing, Akram Khan, one of the key figures within the BCB, revealed that the new coach was appointed to focus on the lower middle and lower-order batsmen—a statement that raised eyebrows, given the need for a comprehensive approach to the entire batting lineup.

Since Mark O'Neil took over as batting coach, it appears that Bangladesh's ability to perform in five-day matches has diminished. While the team showed resilience and character in New Zealand and against some of the world's best bowling attacks, and even exhibited strong temperament against Rangana Herath in Colombo, their performances at home against Australia and in South Africa were riddled with uncharacteristic errors. The top and middle order made elementary mistakes, reflecting a lack of mental and technical preparation. It seems that Mark O'Neil has not been able to maintain the progress achieved under Thilan Samaraweera’s tenure. Despite the potential for improvement, O'Neil has struggled to make a significant impact on Bangladesh's batting.

Given the underwhelming results, it is unlikely that the BCB should consider extending O'Neil’s contract. What Bangladesh urgently needs is a competent and experienced batting coach who can instill discipline, refine technique, and help the team consistently perform at the highest level. Without a capable leader in this role, the team’s batting woes are unlikely to be resolved.

Courtney Walsh has not been Impactful like Heath Streak

 The appointment of Heath Streak as Bangladesh’s bowling coach had a transformative effect, particularly on the pace bowlers, who began to bowl with a level of menace and intensity previously unseen. Under Streak, the bowlers embraced aggression and intent, setting a new benchmark for Bangladesh's bowling attack. However, following Streak's departure last year, the BCB brought in the legendary Courtney Walsh, a move that raised expectations among both fans and analysts alike. Yet, despite his vast experience, Walsh’s tenure has seen the pace attack lose some of its earlier vibrancy.

While Bangladesh's bowlers occasionally produce good spells, they no longer exhibit the same consistent aggression or intent that marked their time under Streak. This shift in approach is concerning for the BCB, as Walsh has been in charge for over a year, and by now, one would have expected a more tangible impact. The lack of sustained improvement under Walsh has left many, myself included, longing for the era of Streak’s leadership.

If Walsh is unable to deliver the results expected of him, the BCB must seriously consider whether continuing with his services is in the best interest of the team. Bangladesh needs a bowling coach who can inspire the same level of intensity and consistency that the team once displayed.

This Test series offers an opportunity for Bangladesh to reflect on its shortcomings and correct its mistakes. While this defeat should not spell the end of their aspirations, failing to address these issues could prove disastrous in the long run. Therefore, it is imperative that the BCB takes decisive and informed action to rectify the current course, ensuring that lessons are learned and the team can move forward with renewed purpose.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Liton Kumar Das: A Beacon of Resilience in Bangladesh's Struggle Against South Africa

The rain-delayed second day of the Test match saw the sun finally shine over the Manuang Oval Cricket Ground in Bloemfontein, but for Bangladesh, the day began in familiar frustration. South Africa’s Hashim Amla and Faf du Plessis, with their trademark class and effortless elegance, cruised to centuries, piling more pressure on Bangladesh’s beleaguered captain, Mushfiqur Rahim. Despite Rahim’s best efforts to curb the runs through defensive tactics, Amla and du Plessis's steady accumulation of runs highlighted the gap in quality, as Faf declared at a dominant 573 for 4.

In an unexpected turn, the injured Imrul Kayes took to the field, opening with Soumya Sarkar. Yet the early South African bowlers, led by Kagiso Rabada, Duanne Olivier, and Wayne Parnell, shattered Bangladesh’s top order with clinical precision. At 65 for 6, the collapse seemed inevitable, and a humiliating defeat loomed large. It was in this moment of despair that Liton Kumar Das emerged, providing a glimmer of hope amidst the wreckage of his team’s failing batting line-up.

Liton Kumar Das: A Moment of Resilience

The situation was dire. Soumya was dismissed cheaply, Mominul was caught behind, and Mushfiq, seemingly flustered, followed his teammates back to the dressing room after a spectacular catch by Temba Bavuma. Mahmudullah Riyad, a man of great temperament in the first innings at Potchefstroom, started with promise but perished to a poor shot against a wide delivery from Parnell. As Bangladesh’s hopes of mounting a respectable reply began to fade, Liton stood resolutely at the crease.

Liton, often a player of great promise but inconsistency, chose the moment to demonstrate his skill and mental fortitude. In the face of the relentless South African pace, he opted not for a defensive mindset but for an intelligent counterattack, reminiscent of classical batting rather than the frantic T20 style that dominates the modern game.

His first boundary came via an edge, but it was his second that showcased his true technique. Parnell, pitching on a good length, was punished with a boundary through long off—Liton had quickly assessed the length and got into position with remarkable clarity. His ability to read the bowler and play with such controlled aggression began to frustrate the South African bowlers.

The Art of Counterattack: Liton’s Mastery

After tea, Bangladesh’s position deteriorated further with the loss of Imrul Kayes and Sabbir Rahman, but Liton remained undeterred. He assumed the role of a calm anchor for the tail-enders, notably Taijul Islam, with great composure and remarkable skill. Liton’s shot selection against South African pacers was outstanding—he exhibited great technique and footwork, especially when confronted by the likes of Rabada.

Rabada, known for his searing pace, was taken on by Liton with remarkable poise. In the 22nd over, Rabada banged in a short ball, and Liton executed a superb hook shot, keeping the ball down on the ground. It was a shot executed with such sublime technique that it stood out as a rare gem in modern cricket, where the hook shot has become less of a common sight.

Liton continued to frustrate Rabada, who switched to a back-of-a-length line outside off. Liton, however, responded with a series of elegant strokes through the offside, two of which were classic boundaries, delivered with perfect timing and balance. Rabada, caught off guard by Liton’s flawless execution, had no answer.

A Lesson in Temperament and Technique

As the innings progressed, Liton’s composure was evident. Against Phehlukwayo, he unleashed a sequence of brilliant boundaries, taking control of the game and dragging Bangladesh out of a seemingly insurmountable hole. His fifty was a milestone, but it was the ease with which he found the gaps, even in the face of relentless pressure, that spoke volumes about his skill and character.

Liton’s partnership with Taijul Islam blossomed into a vital 52-run stand, showcasing his ability to marshal the tail. Phehlukwayo became the next victim of Liton’s calculated aggression, as he dispatched the bowler to all corners of the field, with four boundaries in a single over—a dazzling display of footwork and timing.

However, despite his brilliance, Liton’s innings came to a soft end. Attempting a pull shot against Rabada, he edged the ball to Faf du Plessis, bringing his fine knock to a close. Yet, his effort earned him wide recognition as one of the few bright spots in an otherwise grim batting display by Bangladesh.

Conclusion: A Test of Character

Liton’s innings, though ultimately falling short of what could have been a match-saving knock, provided valuable insight into what Bangladesh need to focus on in their quest for improvement in Test cricket. His batting was a lesson in the right attitude and the right technique. Liton demonstrated that, while the pitch might present challenges, the real test lies in the temperament and approach to the game. His ability to counterattack intelligently, his footwork against pace, and his composure under pressure all point to a player with the potential to be a mainstay in Bangladesh’s Test side.

His performance with both bat and gloves offers hope for Bangladesh’s future in the longer format of the game. Liton Kumar Das has shown that, with the right mental approach, no challenge is insurmountable—a sentiment that should resonate deeply within Bangladesh’s cricketing circle.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Mushfiqur Rahim’s Leadership: A Reflection of Fragility and Missteps

Leadership in cricket, especially at the Test level, is a crucible that demands clarity of thought, tactical acumen, and the ability to inspire. Mushfiqur Rahim’s captaincy during the Bloemfontein Test against South Africa, however, painted a picture of confusion and a troubling lack of accountability. His decisions on the field, compounded by baffling statements off it, not only hurt Bangladesh’s chances but also raised serious questions about his suitability as a leader. 

The Toss: A Gift Squandered 

Winning the toss in cricket is often considered an advantage, offering the captain a chance to dictate terms. Yet, Mushfiqur’s post-match statement—“I think it was my mistake to win the toss”—defies both logic and expectation. This comment, delivered with an emotional undertone, betrayed not only his fragile confidence but also his inability to shoulder responsibility. 

The essence of captaincy lies in using opportunities wisely. At Potchefstroom and Bloemfontein, the toss presented Mushfiqur with a chance to leverage conditions favourable for batting first. Instead, his misreading of the pitch resulted in decisions that left his team vulnerable. To attribute failure to the fortune of winning the toss reflects a mindset unfit for the rigours of Test leadership. 

The real question is not about the toss but about Mushfiqur’s inability to read the track.

Was it the toss or the captain’s judgment that failed Bangladesh? The answer is glaringly obvious. 

The Blame Game: Bowlers and Beyond 

In his post-day press conference, Mushfiqur laid blame on the bowlers, stating, “Our bowling wasn’t up to the standard.” While the bowlers’ performances were not exemplary, this critique conveniently ignored the captain’s role in their ineffectiveness. 

Let us revisit the critical moments: 

1. Field Settings: Starting with only two slips for Mustafizur Rahman, despite favourable conditions, deprived the bowler of attacking options. A leg slip was inexplicably placed, forcing Mustafizur to bowl on middle and leg, playing into Dean Elgar’s strengths. 

2. Bowling Changes: Within the first six overs, Mushfiqur replaced his new-ball bowlers with Rubel Hossain and part-timer Soumya Sarkar—a chaotic rotation that disrupted rhythm and ceded momentum to the South African batsmen. 

3. Defensive Fields: Throughout the first session, defensive field placements allowed the opposition to settle. Aggressive bowling without aggressive fields is akin to a blade without its edge. 

4. Captain’s Positioning: Mushfiqur’s decision to field outside the inner circle, citing instructions from the team management, was perplexing. A captain’s presence in the inner circle is vital for strategy and communication. Delegating this responsibility to others undermined the very essence of his role. 

Blaming the bowlers for failing to execute plans is futile when the plans themselves are flawed. Leadership demands ownership, and Mushfiqur’s reluctance to acknowledge his missteps only deepened the team’s woes. 

The Role of a Captain: Courage, Intelligence, and Autonomy 

Mushfiqur’s claim that he was merely following the team management’s instructions raises a fundamental question: why, then, is he the captain? Cricket, unlike soccer, places the captain at the heart of decision-making. While inputs from coaches and team management are valuable, the captain must have the courage and intelligence to make independent decisions on the field. 

A captain who abdicates this responsibility reduces himself to a figurehead, eroding the team’s trust and morale. Mushfiqur’s remarks not only reflected a lack of autonomy but also hinted at a tendency to deflect blame—a trait unbecoming of a leader. 

The Personality Gap 

Leadership in Test cricket requires more than tactical knowledge; it demands a commanding personality, the ability to inspire confidence, and the resilience to face adversity. Mushfiqur’s repeated missteps and emotional responses suggest a leader struggling under the weight of expectations. 

Contrast this with players like Tamim Iqbal, whose assertive personality and understanding of the game have often been evident. Tamim’s leadership qualities, coupled with his ability to handle pressure, make him a compelling candidate for the role of Test captain. 

The Way Forward 

For Bangladesh cricket to progress, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) must reevaluate its leadership choices. Mushfiqur Rahim’s tenure as Test captain has been marked by inconsistency, defensive tactics, and an inability to learn from mistakes. While his contributions as a player remain invaluable, leadership may not align with his strengths. 

Investing in a captain like Tamim Iqbal, who embodies the qualities of a modern leader, could rejuvenate the team and instil a sense of direction. Leadership is not about avoiding mistakes but about learning from them and inspiring others to rise above challenges. 

Conclusion 

Mushfiqur Rahim’s captaincy at Bloemfontein will be remembered not for its strategic brilliance but for its misjudgments and misplaced accountability. His comments off the field only underscored the gaps in his leadership. For Bangladesh cricket, this moment should serve as a turning point—a chance to reflect, reassess, and rebuild. Leadership is the cornerstone of success, and it is time for Bangladesh to find a leader who can truly rise to the occasion. 

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

The Enigma of Mushfiqur Rahim’s Captaincy: A Study in Stubbornness

On October 4, 2017, ESPNcricinfo’s South African correspondent, Firdose Moonda, painted a vivid picture of the Bloemfontein pitch ahead of the second Test between South Africa and Bangladesh. Photographs showed a verdant strip, indistinguishable from the outfield, sparking speculation of a pace-friendly track. By the time of the toss, however, the reality was starkly different. Persistent rain had kept the pitch under covers, and what emerged was a dry surface, devoid of the anticipated grass and bounce. It was, as South African captain Faf du Plessis quipped, “a very normal cricket wicket,” ideal for batting first. 

Yet, Mushfiqur Rahim, leading Bangladesh, defied conventional wisdom and chose to field first—a decision that raised eyebrows and evoked ridicule. Du Plessis, with a smirk, encapsulated the incredulity of the moment, remarking, “Nine times out of 10, you bat first.” What followed was a masterclass in poor decision-making and flawed execution, an episode emblematic of Mushfiqur’s troubled captaincy. 

The Repetition of Errors 

Cricket, at its highest level, demands adaptability and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. Yet, Mushfiqur Rahim’s tenure as captain often seemed like a case study in the refusal to evolve. His decisions at Bloemfontein mirrored the errors made just days earlier at Potchefstroom. The toss decision, the defensive field placements, and the chaotic use of bowlers—all pointed to a captain who either lacked awareness or stubbornly resisted the lessons of experience. 

The decision to field first was perplexing enough, but the execution compounded the problem. Mustafizur Rahman, operating with the breeze from the Loch Logan End, was given a defensive field with only two slips and a leg slip—a placement that forced him to bowl on the middle and leg stump, allowing Dean Elgar to score with ease. Subashis Roy, after conceding 15 runs in a single over, was inexplicably replaced by part-time medium-pacer Soumya Sarkar within the first five overs—a move that defied logic on the opening morning of a Test match. By the 10th over, Mushfiqur had already cycled through four bowlers, a pattern more befitting of a club-level game than international cricket. 

Defensive Fields and Aggressive Bowlers 

Even when the Bangladeshi pacers found rhythm post-lunch, Mushfiqur’s defensive field placements undermined their efforts. The aggressive intent of Mustafizur, Rubel Hossain, and Subashis Roy was neutralized by a captain who seemed more intent on damage control than wicket-taking. South Africa’s batsmen, untroubled by the lack of attacking fields, treated the session as a leisurely outing, accumulating runs with ease. 

This recurring pattern of defensive captaincy not only frustrated the bowlers but also highlighted a deeper issue: Mushfiqur’s inability to trust his players and his own instincts. In Test cricket, bold decisions often yield the greatest rewards, but Mushfiqur seemed trapped in a cycle of indecision and fear. 

The Psychological Barrier 

Why does Mushfiqur persist with these flawed strategies? Psychology offers a potential explanation. Experts describe a phenomenon known as choice-supportive bias, where individuals rationalize their decisions post hoc, attributing positive qualities to their choices while downplaying their faults. Mushfiqur’s repeated justifications for his decisions—often couched in emotional or weakly logical terms—suggest a deep-seated reluctance to acknowledge mistakes. 

This bias is further compounded by a tendency to avoid discomfort. Admitting to errors is inherently unpleasant, but it is also the first step toward growth. Mushfiqur’s refusal to confront his missteps creates a self-perpetuating loop: flawed decisions lead to poor outcomes, which are then rationalized, ensuring the cycle continues. 

A Case Study in Leadership 

Mushfiqur’s captaincy offers a fascinating case study for leadership and behavioral psychology. His steadfast adherence to flawed strategies, even in the face of repeated failures, underscores the importance of adaptability and self-awareness in leadership. Neuroscientists and psychologists might find in him a rare subject to study the mechanisms of stubbornness and the barriers to learning from failure. 

For Bangladesh cricket, however, this is no academic exercise. Leadership at the international level is not just about tactics; it is about inspiring confidence, fostering trust, and making decisions that maximize the team’s potential. Mushfiqur’s struggles as captain suggest a disconnect between his role and his natural inclinations—a gap that has often left Bangladesh adrift in critical moments. 

The Way Forward 

To move forward, Mushfiqur must first confront the truth of his own fallibility. Mistakes, while inevitable, are only valuable if they lead to growth. A captain who cannot learn from the past is a liability to his team, no matter how skilled he may be as a player. 

For Bangladesh cricket, the lesson is equally clear: leadership is not just about seniority or individual talent but about the ability to adapt, inspire, and make sound decisions under pressure. As the team continues its journey on the global stage, it must prioritize leaders who embody these qualities, ensuring that the lessons of Bloemfontein are not lost to history. 

Thank You

Faisal Caesar