A Test Match That Died a Slow Death: Chittagong’s Pitch Fiasco

At 3:20 pm local time, Mahmudullah Riyad and Dinesh Chandimal shook hands, signalling the end of the first Test between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Chittagong. A match that spanned five laborious days concluded in a draw, leaving cricket fans with little to cherish apart from personal milestones. The pitch, a lifeless stretch of turf, offered no assistance to bowlers and ensured a run-fest that stretched the patience of even the most ardent Test cricket enthusiasts.

The statistics were damning: 1,533 runs scored for the loss of just 24 wickets over five days. While batsmen like Mominul Haque, Dhananjaya de Silva, Kusal Mendis, and Roshen Silva feasted on the benign surface to notch up centuries, others such as Tamim Iqbal, Mushfiqur Rahim, and Liton Das fell agonizingly short. Dimuth Karunaratne, ironically, would be the most disappointed of all, failing to even open his account on this batting paradise.

Yet, amidst the accolades for Mominul Haque, who became the first Bangladeshi to score centuries in both innings of a Test, there was a lingering sense of hollowness. His technical flaw—bringing the bat down from the gully region instead of straight—remains unaddressed, a concern that will likely haunt him on more challenging surfaces. Praises for such feats on this dead track seem misplaced, for this was not a Test that celebrated the spirit of cricket but rather exposed its vulnerabilities.

The Death of Contest

The Chittagong pitch was a disaster for Test cricket, a poor advertisement for the format’s relevance. Zahid Reza, the local curator, prepared a wicket that failed to deteriorate over five days, depriving bowlers of any semblance of assistance. The bounce remained low and slow, the turn negligible, and the contest between bat and ball virtually non-existent.

According to the International Cricket Council (ICC), a good Test pitch should strike a balance, offering something for bowlers early on while progressively deteriorating to challenge batsmen as the match wears on. By those standards, the Chittagong surface was a travesty. It favoured batsmen excessively, reduced bowlers to mere spectators and robbed the match of any intrigue or excitement.

ICC Standards and the "Poor" Rating

The ICC rates pitches based on several criteria, emphasizing the need for a fair contest between bat and ball. Pitches are categorized as "very good," "good," "average," "below average," "poor," or "unfit." A "poor" pitch is one that fails to provide bowlers with sufficient opportunities or skews the game excessively in favour of batsmen. The Chittagong pitch fits this description perfectly.

Consider the Boxing Day Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) in 2017. The ICC deemed that pitch "poor" after only 24 wickets fell in five days, with just 1,081 runs scored. The lifeless nature of the surface led to widespread criticism, and Cricket Australia faced significant scrutiny. If the historic MCG was not spared, why should Chittagong escape similar censure?

Lessons from History

Bangladesh’s recent successes in Test cricket have come on challenging tracks that offered assistance to bowlers. Memorable victories against England and Australia in 2016 and 2017 were achieved on turning pitches in Mirpur. Tamim Iqbal’s gritty century against England in 2016 on a spinning track remains far more significant than Mominul’s twin centuries on this lifeless deck.

By preparing such dead surfaces, Bangladesh risks stagnating in their development as a Test-playing nation. These tracks may inflate batting averages and pad individual records, but they do little to prepare the team for the rigours of international cricket. Worse, they reflect a fear of losing—a mindset that will only perpetuate the team’s struggles abroad.

Accountability and Change

The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) must take accountability. Just as they sought explanations from Gamini Silva for the Mirpur track during the Tri-series final, they must hold Zahid Reza accountable for this debacle. Test cricket thrives on competitive surfaces that challenge both batsmen and bowlers. Preparing pitches that are devoid of life not only harms the game but also tarnishes Bangladesh’s reputation as a host nation.

The Way Forward

If Bangladesh is serious about improving in Test cricket, they must abandon the practice of preparing such docile tracks. True progress comes from competing on surfaces that test technique, temperament, and strategy. Home advantage should not mean stripping the game of its essence but rather leveraging conditions to foster growth and resilience.

For now, the Chittagong Test will be remembered not for the records it produced but for the opportunities it squandered. It was a match that promised much but delivered little—a stark reminder of what happens when the balance of cricket is sacrificed at the altar of convenience.

 

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Day 4: Bangladesh Under Pressure as Sri Lanka Tighten the Noose

 

“We have a pretty good chance to win the Test. It is a pretty good wicket. It is all turning from the rough and outside the stumps. We are hoping to start the day well. We are bowling in good areas, line and length.”

These were the confident words of Niroshan Dickwella, Sri Lanka’s charming and ever-optimistic wicketkeeper, at the end of Day 4 of the first Test in Chittagong. For followers of Bangladesh cricket, such a statement might have been unexpected on a pitch that had been an unyielding paradise for batsmen. Bangladesh, after all, had vocally advocated for pitches tailored to their strengths, yet the very track they wished for seemed to have betrayed them.

As the scoreboard read 81 for 3 at stumps, with two of Bangladesh’s in-form batsmen back in the pavilion, questions about the team’s temperament resurfaced. Could the Tigers handle the pressure of chasing down a daunting target? History suggests they have shown flashes of resilience under scoreboard pressure, but all too often, these moments have ended in disappointment. Once again, the specter of collapse loomed large.

A Tale of Missed Opportunities

Dickwella’s assessment of the Chittagong wicket was accurate: the ball was turning, but only from the rough and primarily outside the stumps. On Day 4, such behavior from the pitch was to be expected, but the surface remained fundamentally good for batting. Isolated instances of turn and uneven bounce should not have unsettled the hosts. A positive mindset and disciplined shot selection were the need of the hour. Instead, Bangladesh’s top order faltered, playing into Sri Lanka’s hands.

Sri Lanka had declared earlier in the day with a lead of 200 runs, setting the stage for Bangladesh to salvage the situation. Tamim Iqbal and Imrul Kayes began promisingly, stitching together a 50-run partnership before the drinks break. However, the calm was short-lived. Kayes’ ill-advised ramp shot against Dilruwan Perera, despite the field being adjusted moments earlier, epitomized poor decision-making. The ball, innocuous in its trajectory, caught the toe-end of the bat and was gleefully pouched at square leg. It was a gift Sri Lanka didn’t need to ask for.

Tamim, who had been handling Lakshan Sandakan’s quick deliveries with relative ease, then fell to a lapse in judgment. Chasing a wide skidder outside off-stump, he edged to Dickwella, playing a shot more suited to a limited-overs game. On a surface that still favored batsmen, such dismissals were less a testament to the bowlers’ guile and more an indictment of the batsmen’s lack of application.

The Spin Web Tightens

While Perera and Sandakan had already made their mark, the wily veteran Rangana Herath entered the fray in the final over of the day. His subtle variations and unerring accuracy were on full display as he trapped Mushfiqur Rahim at silly point. Herath’s late strike bolstered Sri Lanka’s position and lent weight to Dickwella’s optimistic post-match comments.

Tactical Insights and Oversights

Dickwella’s observations about the rough outside off-stump deserve attention. On Day 3, a specific area on the back of a length around off-stump began to show signs of uneven bounce, with puffs of dust rising ominously. Such nuances are critical on flat tracks, offering bowlers a glimmer of hope. Sri Lanka’s think tank, led by the astute Chandika Hathurusingha, capitalized on these cues, directing their spinners to exploit the rough with precision.

In contrast, Bangladesh’s tactical approach appeared reactive and uninspired. Their inability to identify and target these areas highlighted a lack of situational awareness. On a surface as docile as this, such oversights can prove costly.

The Road Ahead

As the final day looms, Bangladesh must tread carefully. The rough areas on the pitch will continue to pose challenges, but the onus is on the batsmen to adapt and display resolve. Positive intent, combined with judicious shot selection, will be crucial. Anything less risks turning this match into an embarrassment for the hosts.

For Sri Lanka, the equation is simple. With the momentum firmly in their favour, they will aim to maintain pressure and exploit any chinks in Bangladesh’s armour. The Tigers, now cornered, must summon every ounce of grit and determination to salvage a draw if not an unlikely victory.

In the end, this Test may well be remembered not for the lifeless pitch but for the stark contrast in how the two teams approached its challenges. One embraced the nuances; the other was undone by them.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

 

The Controversial Adelaide Test: A Clash of Skill, Grit, and Frustration

Few Test series in the modern era have matched the intensity, passion, and controversy of South Africa’s 1997-98 tour of Australia. The two sides, both brimming with world-class talent and fierce competitiveness, collided in a gripping contest that was ultimately overshadowed by an umpiring decision that still fuels debate.

Heading into the third and final Test in Adelaide, Australia led the series 1-0 after a crucial victory in Sydney. For South Africa, this match was not merely an opportunity for redemption—it was a battle to reclaim their standing against a team that had, time and again, found a way to break their resistance. The Proteas dominated large portions of the Test, putting themselves in prime position to secure a rare overseas win. But as the final moments unfolded, a single decision—one that blurred the fine lines between technicality and spirit—would leave the visitors seething.

The Defining Moment: Hit-Wicket or Not?

Australia, set a formidable target of 361, found themselves reeling at 202 for six. Mark Waugh, their elegant stroke-maker, stood firm amid the ruins. His resistance was admirable, though his survival owed much to South Africa’s generosity in the field—particularly Adam Bacher, who put down multiple chances. Yet, the moment that incited the most fury came in the dying stages of the match.

With just eight overs remaining, Waugh took a sharp blow to the arm from a Shaun Pollock short delivery. The ball ballooned toward gully, where Pat Symcox dived forward to claim what he believed to be a fair catch. The South Africans erupted in appeal, but umpire Doug Cowie turned it down. As Waugh turned away, the edge of his bat brushed against the stumps, dislodging the bails. Square-leg umpire Steve Randell noticed it immediately, and a fresh appeal followed.

The decision was sent upstairs to third umpire Steve Davis, who meticulously reviewed the incident against ICC’s Law 35. The law stated that a batsman could only be given out hit-wicket if the stumps were broken either while preparing to receive, in the act of playing a stroke, or immediately after setting off for a run. Waugh’s dismissal, Davis ruled, did not meet these criteria. He was given not out.

For South Africa, it was a hammer blow. To them, the evidence was clear—Waugh had lost control of his bat, and in their eyes, that was enough. Pollock later lamented, “If a batsman loses control and hits the stumps, that’s out.” The frustration was palpable, and their captain, Hansie Cronje, made his displeasure brutally clear.

Cronje’s Rage and the Fractured Spirit of the Game

The aftermath of the decision saw one of the most infamous acts of protest in Test history. Enraged by what he perceived as an injustice, Cronje stormed into the umpires’ dressing room and drove a stump through the door. It was an uncharacteristic moment for a man known for his composure, but it symbolized the raw emotion that had gripped his team.

Symcox, reflecting on the match years later, did not attempt to conceal his lingering bitterness. “There was no doubt he was out, we all knew,” he remarked. “At that stage of South Africa’s development as a team, it was quite critical.”

Not everyone, however, saw the incident through the same lens. Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy staunchly defended the decision, arguing that Waugh’s bat had struck the stumps well after the stroke had been completed. “I was of the opinion it was the right decision,” he said, adding that Cronje’s furious reaction was unbecoming of a leader. “A team management letter from the South Africans was the only apology. We thought at the time that it was a bit soft.”

Mark Taylor, Australia’s captain, was equally firm in his belief. “I thought the umpire made the correct decision,” he said, before acknowledging the inevitable divide in opinion. “Ask Hansie, and he’ll probably say something completely different.”

A Legacy of What-Ifs

For all the controversy surrounding the hit-wicket ruling, it was not the only moment that cost South Africa the match. The ten missed catches—three of them by Bacher alone—were a far greater self-inflicted wound. Waugh, reprieved multiple times, carried his bat for an unbeaten 115, ensuring Australia held on for a series-clinching draw.

Yet, for South Africans, the wound remains. The 1997-98 Adelaide Test is not merely remembered as Dave Richardson’s farewell or a hard-fought stalemate. It is recalled with a lingering sense of injustice—a belief that fate, and the third umpire, robbed them of a famous victory.

For Australians, however, it remains another example of their team’s resilience, another chapter in their legacy of survival against all odds. Two nations, one decision, and a Test match that refuses to be forgotten.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Day 3: Sri Lanka Dominate on a Chittagong Featherbed

 It was a day of toil and tedium for Bangladesh as Sri Lanka, led by a masterclass from Kusal Mendis (196) and a fluent 173 from Dhananjaya de Silva, ended Day 3 of the first Test in Chittagong at a commanding 504 for 3. Roshen Silva added an unbeaten 87 to the mix, further deepening Bangladesh's woes on a pitch that has turned into a veritable batting paradise. Sri Lanka now trail Bangladesh’s first innings total of 513 by just nine runs, with seven wickets still in hand.

While the scoreboard painted a picture of dominance, the story of the day was the Chittagong surface, which has effectively neutralized the contest. The track, offering little to no assistance for bowlers, has already yielded over a thousand runs in just three days. Even a member of the Bangladesh team’s support staff was caught napping during the monotony of the day’s play—a telling image of the grind that unfolded.

The Revival of Mendis and de Silva

Six months ago, both Kusal Mendis and Dhananjaya de Silva were grappling with form issues. However, the benign conditions in Chittagong seemed tailor-made for their resurgence. The duo batted with elegance and authority, scoring at a brisk rate of 3.5 runs per over. Mendis’ innings, in particular, was a study in balance, as he drove, cut, and flicked with precision to anchor Sri Lanka’s reply.

De Silva, meanwhile, was in imperious touch, mixing caution with aggression. His innings not only showcased his technical prowess but also his ability to accelerate when required. Together, they made Bangladesh’s bowling attack look toothless, milking runs with ease.

Bangladesh’s Spinners: Toil Without Reward

The three-pronged spin attack of Taijul Islam, Mehidy Hasan Miraz, and Sunzamul Islam bore the brunt of Sri Lanka’s dominance, sending down a combined 117 overs for 379 runs. Mehidy, in particular, struggled to find the rhythm, conceding runs at an alarming economy rate of 5.10. While there were occasional attempts to vary pace and trajectory, the lack of bite and pace on the deliveries rendered these efforts largely ineffective.

In the early part of the day, Bangladesh’s spinners bowled at speeds hovering around 75 to 80 km/h, far too slow to trouble batsmen on this placid surface. By the final session, they marginally increased their speeds to 80-87 km/h, but the damage had already been done. The spinners’ inability to adapt quickly to the conditions underscored the limitations of a one-dimensional attack.

Mustafizur Rahman: A Lone Warrior

On a day when bowlers were consigned to the role of spectators, Mustafizur Rahman stood out with his skill and intent. With the first new ball, he consistently probed the good and full-length areas, generating movement off the seam and beating the bat on several occasions. His ability to bowl with precision from both over and around the wicket added variety to his attack.

Mustafiz’s second spell with the new ball was even more impressive. Recognizing the futility of defensive bowling on such a lifeless pitch, he opted for an aggressive approach, mixing short-pitched deliveries with off-cutters, away swingers, and in-cutters. This attacking mindset accounted for the wicket of Dhananjaya de Silva, who fell to a well-directed short ball while attempting to accelerate. De Silva’s dismissal marked a brief period of control for Bangladesh, as Sri Lanka’s scoring rate dipped to 2.7 runs per over in the final session.

What set Mustafiz apart was his unrelenting pursuit of wickets. He attacked the top of off-stump with precision and wasn’t afraid to pitch the ball on middle and leg to induce movement back into the right-handers. Even when these tactics carried the risk of being punished, Mustafiz’s courage and commitment to his craft were evident.

A Missed Opportunity for Bangladesh’s Think Tank

In hindsight, Bangladesh’s decision to field three spinners and only two pacers appears shortsighted. On a track that offered no assistance to spin, an additional pacer could have provided Mustafizur with much-needed support and added a cutting edge to the attack. The absence of a second seamer capable of exploiting reverse swing or maintaining pressure with pace was glaring.

The lack of balance in the bowling attack has left Bangladesh reliant on individual brilliance rather than a cohesive unit. Mustafizur’s efforts deserve commendation, but Test cricket is seldom won by lone warriors. A more proactive approach in team selection and strategy will be crucial if Bangladesh hopes to compete on unforgiving surfaces.

Looking Ahead

With two days still to play, Sri Lanka will look to bat Bangladesh out of the game, piling on a lead that could put the hosts under pressure in the fourth innings. For Bangladesh, the focus will be on damage control and salvaging pride. However, unless the pitch undergoes a dramatic transformation, the prospect of a result in this Test seems as remote as any assistance for the bowlers on this Chittagong deck.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar   

Mahmudullah Riyad: The Unsung Hero of Bangladesh Cricket

In the annals of Bangladesh cricket, certain moments stand out as defining—the kind that light up a nation’s collective memory. Yet, lurking in the shadows of these celebrated episodes is a man who has quietly held the team together time and again: Mahmudullah Riyad. His story is not one of glamour or flamboyance but of resilience, composure, and an understated brilliance that often goes unnoticed.

Gazi’s Breakthrough, Mahmudullah’s Resolve

The year was 2012, and the cricketing world was abuzz with Sohag Gazi’s debut against the West Indies. Opening the bowling alongside Shahadat Hossain, Gazi’s dismissal of Chris Gayle turned him into an overnight sensation. As the West Indies declared after amassing a formidable total, Bangladesh’s reply was spearheaded by Nasir Hossain’s audacious counterattack. In the midst of this, Mahmudullah—batting at number seven—played a vital yet largely overlooked role, guiding Bangladesh to a 29-run lead. When the team faltered against Tino Best’s fiery spell on a spin-friendly track, it was Mahmudullah’s steely resolve that kept the dream alive. Yet, his efforts went unheralded as Bangladesh’s hopes were dashed with his dismissal.

Khulna 2012: Abul’s Euphoria Overshadows the Anchor

The second Test in Khulna saw Bangladesh reeling at 193 for 8 on the first day. It seemed another collapse was imminent until Mahmudullah found an unlikely ally in Abul Hasan. The pair stitched together a record-breaking 184-run partnership for the ninth wicket, with Abul’s flamboyant century capturing the nation’s imagination. While the spotlight firmly rested on Abul, few paused to acknowledge Mahmudullah’s role as the sheet anchor, providing stability and assurance in a precarious situation. His innings was a masterclass in tempering aggression with composure, yet it was drowned in the cacophony of Abul mania.

Chittagong 2015: Composure Amid the Fizz Mania

By 2015, Mustafizur Rahman had become the poster boy of Bangladesh cricket, his exploits in limited-overs cricket spilling over into the Test arena. On a sluggish Chittagong pitch against South Africa, Mustafiz’s incisive bowling dominated headlines. Amid the frenzy, Mahmudullah once again emerged as the quiet savior. Coming in at number four, he weathered the storm with a gritty 67 off 192 balls, laying the foundation for a strong Bangladesh response. Unfortunately, the Test was abandoned due to rain, and Mahmudullah’s efforts were eclipsed by the “Fizz” phenomenon.

Mirpur 2018: Holding Firm Against Sri Lanka

In the first Test against Sri Lanka at Mirpur, Bangladesh’s middle order seemed intent on squandering a flat batting track. Yet, Mahmudullah stood firm, marshalling the lower order to push the team past 500 runs. His innings was a testament to his ability to adapt and persevere, but as soon as the innings ended, the focus shifted to Mominul Haque and others. Once again, Mahmudullah’s quiet heroics faded into the background.

The Culture of Forgotten Heroes

Bangladesh cricket has long celebrated its flamboyant stars—those who dazzle with aggression or stir emotions with patriotic fervor. Tamim Iqbal’s stroke play, Shakib Al Hasan’s all-round brilliance, and Mustafiz’s youthful exuberance have made them household names. In contrast, Mahmudullah’s calm demeanor and workmanlike approach often fail to capture the public imagination. Yet, his contributions have been no less critical. He has been the glue holding the team together in moments of crisis, his innings often the difference between defeat and survival.

A Hero in the Shadows

Christopher Reeve once said, “A hero is an ordinary person who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.” By this definition, Mahmudullah is a true hero of Bangladesh cricket. He does not seek the limelight, nor does he crave adulation. Instead, he lets his bat do the talking, crafting innings of quiet significance that anchor the team in turbulent waters.

The Need for Recognition

As fans and pundits, we must learn to value substance over spectacle. Mahmudullah’s contributions may lack the fireworks of a Tamim six or the drama of a Mustafiz spell, but they are no less vital. His ability to bat with the lower order, his calm under pressure, and his unyielding determination make him an indispensable part of Bangladesh cricket.

Let us not forget Mahmudullah Riyad. He may not fit the mold of a conventional superstar, but in his quiet, steadfast way, he embodies the spirit of the game. It is high time we celebrate the unsung hero who has so often lit the way when the Tigers have lost their path.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar