) on May 31 that "Richie Benaud has added his respected (acknowledgement withheld) voice to calls to kick Bangladesh out of top-level cricket following their first-Test thrashing in England."Kick? Is that the sort of vibes the journo got from the former Australian skipper? Has no other team ever been thrashed before? Have not the Australians been thrashed before, in cricket, too? Regrettable that after15years of Test cricket brilliance and decades as commentator this cricket elder has gotten entangled in minnows bashing.
Benaud's howl was immediately endorsed in The Times by 'Dennis the Menace' of world cricket Shane Warne. This gifted spinner was banned from international cricket for twelve months in February 2003 by the Australian Cricket Board for using an illegal drug. The truncated penalty was lenient; inappropriate too as he continued with everything in cricket except playing. Case in point: Indians Md. Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja.
Out-of-dope Warne wrote: "The worst aspect is that I cannot see any light on the horizon for Bangladesh. I have not seen anything to suggest that they might be even a moderate team in the years ahead." One wonders if Warne is taking up spinning yarns or astrology. Years ahead, huh!
All this is perhaps because since being awarded Test status in November 2000, Bangladesh have only won one of its three dozen matches. So what? So many times have we been told that winning was not important. What hypocrisy? But we achieved in little over four years what once took New Zealand 26 years (1930-1956). Did anyone call for New Zealand's axing from cricket's premier league then? Ours could have been even earlier had Inzamam-ul-Haq not stood up to save his team's grace at Multan.
Then we have yet another talented but controversial cricketer, Pakistan's Javed Miandad who has downloaded the Aussie ring tone. Nicknamed "The Street Fighter," because of his fighting talent on and off the ground this Miandad is known for both his on-field and off-field skirmishes. His suggestion that Bangladesh should stop playing Tests until they improve their performance is outrageous and illogical. However well one does in a mock, the actual exam is a different ball game.
Jumping on the BBB (Bangladesh Bashing Bandwagon) is Ian Botham, arguably England's most charismatic cricketer ever but … Caught smoking cannabis on one of his tours to the Caribbean and bowled over by a beauty queen Botham was banned briefly in 1986. A tabloid newspaper's favourite, he said England wouldn't have their best side on the field because "… teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe just haven't come up to standard" and "They would struggle, in all fairness, to beat a county side or even a minor counties side". England did field a full side in the Lord's Test and that respect we have earned.
One would have given these critics some credibility had every other Test team with decades of experience scored all their runs against us. Or had all their bowlers got ten wickets each in every match. Or had we featured as the opposition in every Test record created, or even in most of them. The records speak for themselves.
Of the three fastest 'fifty' in Tests two are against India, one as recent as in 2005, and the other against Zimbabwe.
Fastest century? Okay! The fastest in 56 balls (I don't believe it) is against Botham's England (1985-86), the second fastest against South Africa and the third in 71 balls against Benaud and Warne's Australia.
Let's consider fastest Test double centuries. Oh my God! This one too is against Botham's England (2001-02). Tch! Tch! The second and third fastest 200 are against Pakistan and South Africa.
And do you know against which Test nation is the highest individual score by a Test captain? You guessed it right. It's Botham's England. Only in 2004 Brian Lara scored an unbeaten 400. Twentieth in that list is Australian Simpson's 225 in 1965-66 and that too would you believe against England. Bangladesh does not feature anywhere in between.
There have been 79 centuries on Test debut. Only the one by South Africa's Jacques Rudolph is against Bangladesh (Chittagong 2003). To counter that we have two in Aminul Islam's 145 against India in our Inaugural Test at Dhaka 2000-01 and later in Ashraful's 114 against Sri Lanka in their backyard.
Now let's come to most 'ducks' in a Test career. Ahem! Topping the list is Courtney Walsh with 43, followed by two Australians, McGrath (31) and Warne just one less. Is anybody taking note of these facts?
The most runs in a Test series is 974 by Donald Bradman against (no prizes for guessing) England. The opposition in the next two were New Zealand and England as recent as in 1989. Checking up to 700 runs nowhere you shall find Bangladesh as the team taking the battering.
What about most runs in a Test match? The three bottom opposi-tions are India, Pakistan and England (2004) in that order. Bangladesh does not feature even at 23rd, booked by Englishman Peter May against the West Indies.
In the wicket by wicket partnership records, England and Pakistan feature twice on the receiving end, while New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Australia, Zimbabwe and South Africa share the ignominy once apiece. That makes it eleven wickets but that is because two 151 partnerships tied for the 10th wicket.
Enough seen in batting and let the focus turn to best Test bowling in an innings. Jim Laker's 10/53 was against Warne's Australia, Anil Kumble's 10/74 was against Pakistan, and George Lohmann's 9/28 was against South Africa. Bangladesh is not an opposition even once in the all-time top 20 figures.
The best bowling in a Test match is also by Laker 19/90 against Australia. Barnes' 17/159 was against South Africa and Narendra Hirwani's 16/136 was against the West Indies. No one could take as yet even 14/199 against Bangladesh, a record Australian Clarrie Grimmett accomplished against South Africa (1931-32).
Since the first hat trick in 1878-79 by Australian Fred Spofforth against England, there have been 35. Bangladesh has two against it but not before Bangladeshi Alok Kapali rocked Pakistan thrice in 2003.
Now they would have made you believe that thousands of runs were being scored against us. There is nothing far from the truth. The highest total in a Test innings is 952/6 declared by Sri Lanka against India in as recent as 1997-98. England once scored 903/7 declared against Australia. And Australia scored 701 against England. Bangladesh is nowhere near. In fact India knocked 705 declared against Australia in Sydney only a season ago in 2003-04. Actually if you can speak in English and have a microphone you can try to convince half the world your way.
Teams must have scored heavily against us in the vital fourth innings. Not really. The highest (418/7 by West Indies) is against Australia as recent as in 2002-03. Their commentators talk big. West Indies were the opposition when India scored 406/4 and England took the hiding when Australia put up 404/3.
With such a 'poor' team with no future (reference Warne) Bangla-desh must have the lowest completed Test innings. Wrong! New Zealand with 26 tops the list. In 1924 South Africa were bowled out for 30 twice. South Africa also has a 35 and a 36, and Australia also have a 36. Did anyone call then for their status to be purged?
In spite of our defeat at Lord's last week by an innings and 261 runs, do we stand at the bottom of the pit? The greatest innings win margin is an innings and 579 runs in 1938. Scores: England (903/7 declared); Australia (201 & 123). Has Bangladesh ever been subjected to that level of humiliation? That and the margins of an innings and 360 runs, innings and 336 runs, innings and 332 runs, and innings and 324 runs (top five) were not against Bangladesh.
In terms of runs the heaviest defeat ever inflicted in a Test match is again against Australia. They lost in 1928 by 675 runs. Scores: England (521 & 342/8 declared); Australia (122 & 66). 66 after 122? And they still had their Test status?
Why then all the fuss now? Any psychologist worth his sodium chloride will tell you that the underlying reason of such orchestrated outburst against our Test status by several of the world's top players is because they are scared of losing. Yes! They know only too well that one of these days the wounded tiger shall lick his blood and humble them, in cricket. They just cannot face that prospect. Sportsmanship, hmph!
Speaking for these critics in the spirit of competitiveness, should you not advocate that Bangladesh continues playing Tests for your sake? If true to your belief they are dreadful should you not try to erase your names from some of the inauspicious records?
Unless and until Bangladesh features among the top three, or even five, in all the above lists my prescription for all the status-snatchers is to hold your trap and nurture the culture of the game thrice daily. We may be the babes, but our cradle is not for the snatching.
Every Test team has its share of nightmares. When you are rotting no one calls for you to be stripped of your Test status. Ours' is simply not for the taking. We earned it and it's ours by right. Talk to the ICC and they shall respond likewise. Last March the ICC rejected bizarre proposals to strip Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe) of Test status.
In the sub-continent when a suitor is rejected once he does not propose again. So join me cricket fans all around the world and roar, "Hands-off our Test status".
(The author is former Advisory Sports Editor, The Daily Star)
