In the heat of the moment - and Chittagong moments come hotter than most - it may seem as if everything depends on the first hour or so of the final day of this wonderfully absorbing Test.And its true that with Bangladesh chasing an historic win there is plenty at stake. Sabbir Rahman, the calmest man on the pitch in the last hour, is already well on his way to joining fellow debutant Mehedi Hasan Miraz as a legend and England are in danger of making a losing start to their Asian tour. Six more Tests in these conditions before Christmas is starting to look like a mountainous challenge.The last day matters. And thats just the way it should be.But there is a bigger picture. There is a picture that sees the longest form of the game struggling to remain relevant across the world and a picture in which Bangladesh are fighting to prove its suitability as a host for international teams.And, in that grander scheme of things, this first Test has already been a resounding success. Contested by two fine but flawed sides, it has seen the initiative swing by the hour. It has seen new heroes introduced to the big stage and established stars produce memorable performances. It has been, in short, wonderfully, endlessly entertaining and unpredictable. Neither Mehedi Hasan nor Ben Stokes deserve to be on the losing side.Test cricket has proved, once again, that given a half-decent pitch, it remains great entertainment. Let us not be sidetracked here with a debate on whether it is more enjoyable than T20. It is perfectly reasonable to enjoy both in different ways. They can coexist.Whatever happens on the final day, Bangladesh can take great encouragement from this match. This is, after all, a team that has lost all eight of their previous Tests against England. It is a team that has not played Test cricket for more than a year, that is arguably without its three best seam bowlers, and that has, in its entire 94 Test history, only taken 20 wickets eight times previously. Zimbabwe and the under-strength West Indies side, captained by Floyd Reifer, were the opposition on the other occasions. Win or lose, Bangladesh have impressed in Chittagong, and anyone who loves Test cricket - even the most partisan England supporter - will celebrate their development.England deserve some credit, too. It would have been easy not to come on this tour. It would have been easy to cite the terrorist threats as a reason and to arrange some warm-up games in India ahead of that series. Instead they have understood the need to retain Bangladesh as a host nation in international cricket and taken the courageous decision to tour. Maybe, behind the scenes, the motivation has been political: a hope to win support in ICC meetings or similar. But at the players and coaches level, they have reflected on their options and chosen to embrace every aspect of this trip.If that sounds like a pretty insignificant decision, consider for a moment what might have happened to Bangladesh cricket in the longer term had England declined to tour. Consider, too, what it is like when you wake in the morning and see armed guards outside your window. When your commute to work is accompanied by several hundred armed men and when you know you cannot leave your hotel or dressing room for the duration of the tour.What England have done here is not insignificant. It is brave and admirable and good for the future of international cricket. The ECB has been involved in several greedy, selfish decisions in recent years. This time, at least, its intentions are good.It would be no disgrace to lose to this Bangladesh side either. Some portions of the media would portray it that way, but that would undervalue both sides. The truth is that whoever wins in these conditions, there is little to choose between the teams. That doesnt mean England are rubbish; it means they are far from perfect and that Bangladesh are improving. It disrespects Bangladesh to denigrate England.To their immense credit, the protagonists on both sides have appreciated that bigger picture here. Stuart Broad is a man sometimes loathed by opponents for his edge in the heat of battle. A man whose passion sometimes manifests itself in ways that irk. A man who gives everything every time he takes the field. A man who had just bowled a nine-over spell and is desperate to win and will do everything he can (within the Laws) to ensure England do just that. But even he understood he was part of something more important here.All the players have really enjoyed being here, Broad said. Its lovely being on the boundary. Some of the Bangladeshi fans have been chanting for England and I think they have really appreciated the fact that weve come. It was a big decision and Im glad the Test has been this exciting.I dont think any of us will sleep well tonight. With two wickets or 33 runs required, how could we? But everyone is drawn to Test cricket when it is tight and exciting. Ive been fortunate to play 99 Tests matches and this would certainly be in my top five of nerve-wracking finishes. I dont think anyone likes games where it is 600 v 600.Its been hard today, but thats part of the challenge of Test cricket. Its a test of character. Its about testing yourself in very different conditions. And this situation shows how far Bangladesh cricket has come. They have some high-quality players and were in a big battle tomorrow. Theres going to be 11 very disappointed and 11 delighted guys. We need to come out on top. None of this means that the result doesnt matter. In the fullness of time, England must reflect on the fact that, on a fourth-day pitch that turned from the first ball of day one, their captain was unable to trust any of his three spinners sufficiently to bowl when the match was coming to the boil. Gareth Batty offers control but lacks pace; Moeen Ali offers the bite but not the control, and Adil Rashid lacks both the pace and the control.They must reflect, too, on that fact that, for the 28th time since April 1, 2015, England were three wickets down before they reached 75 and consider whether Gary Ballance should be retained and whether Ben Duckett should be in the middle order rather than opening the batting.They need to think about the balance of their side - do they need another spinner, or would that represent mediocrity in depth? - and decide whether three spinners and three seamers is the way to go in India.Most teams would open with two spinners on day five. But England? Broad suggested it would be one spinner and one seamer. It may well prove to be Broad and Stokes searching for some reverse. Moeen looks the most likely wicket-taker of the spinners, but also looks liable to concede ten in an over.The ICC might also need to reflect on the quality of umpiring in this match. We know the job is tough and we know that we all endure poor days at work. But we have seen 24 reviews here and ten decisions overturned. That cant be right.But these things can wait. Anyone who thinks cricket is just about winning and losing doesnt understand the game at all. This has been an inspirational few days where all of us who value the game have won.Cricket has shown, as it has in Afghanistan and Ireland and Kenya and inner-cities and rural areas across the world, that it can unite and heal in a way politicians cannot. These things matter a great deal more than results. This has been a great game and the result wont change that. Luc Robitaille Jersey . He said Tuesday thats a big reason why he is now the new coach of the Tennessee Titans. Whisenhunt said he hit it off quickly with Ruston Webster when interviewing for the job Friday night. Custom Los Angeles Kings Jerseys . Jordan Lynch, the all-purpose Heisman Trophy finalist from Northern Illinois, failed to make it into that exclusive club. http://www.kingsauthentic.com/authentic-trevor-lewis-kings-jersey/ . Q: Team Canada announces their Olympic roster three weeks from today. Who is general manager Steve Yzerman watching? LeBrun: Over the last 48 hours, hes taken in the home-and-home between the Dallas Stars and Colorado Avalanche with Jamie Benn and Matt Duchene being the obvious targets. Adrian Kempe Jersey .com) - The Edmonton Oilers and Vancouver Canucks both take aim at their first wins of the season on Saturday, as the Canucks open their home slate at Rogers Arena. Rob Blake Jersey .B. -- The Baie-Comeau Drakkar took over sole possession of first place atop the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League on Thursday with their sixth straight win. It is probably not news to most that the red zone is important. Ill spare you the clichés about it being the most valuable real estate in football and instead point out that we never hear about an organization adding an athletic receiver to serve as a midfield specialist. You dont tune into the Field Position channel on Sundays. Teams dont succeed or fail solely upon what they do inside the 20-yard line, but it sure doesnt hurt when they dominate in the shadows of the end zone.As much as we know that the red zone matters, we dont necessarily have a great idea of who matters more often than not in that zone. There are vague archetypes -- big, athletic tight ends are good to have around -- but do you know which offense was best in the red zone last year? Or which defense did the best job limiting damage inside its own 20? Probably not.Lets change that and take a big-picture look at the red zone. Are there teams that?consistently perform well with the end zone in sight? Is that a reliable, meaningful skill? Can teams bend without breaking? What does history tell us about how teams will perform inside -- and outside -- the red zone in 2016?Offenses in the red zoneFor the purposes of our analysis here, Football Outsiders does a great job of tracking how an offense performs in the red zone as part of their Drive Stats, which are compiled by Jim Armstrong. After stripping out the possessions which amount to Hail Mary attempts or kneel downs before a half, Armstrong calculates performance on a per-possession basis in a number of categories. One of those is the average number of points a team scores per trip to the red zone. Last season, the leagues best red zone offense will be of little surprise: Carolina, which had a dominant power-rushing attack led by league MVP Cam Newton, averaged 5.54 points per red zone trip. The 32nd-ranked Browns, meanwhile, averaged 4.15 points per possession inside the 20.The Panthers were also an effective offense outside of the red zone, though, and the Browns were a mess in about every context imaginable, so those numbers arent particularly surprising. That brings up an interesting question: are there offenses that?consistently raise their game in the red zone and play better than their overall performance would suggest? Likewise, are there useful offenses which consistently bog down inside the 20 and settle for field goals?I used the Drive Stats to check this out. They go back to 1997, leaving 19 seasons of history to examine teams ranging from the 2003 Colts (who averaged a league-high 6.06 points per red zone trip) to the 2000 Cardinals (who somehow only managed to pick up 3.11 points per possession). For those offenses, I wanted to try and answer three questions:Is red zone performance consistent from year-to-year?Do teams that?play better or worse in the red zone than we might expect in a given year keep that up the following year?If not, what happens to teams with a big gap between their overall performance and their red zone numbers?Red zone performance plays a huge role in overall offensive performance. The correlation coefficient of the relationship between rank in points scored per red zone possession and rank in points scored per offensive possession is 0.65, suggesting that 42.8 percent of the variance between teams offensive performance is defined by their respective performances in the red zone. Thats not necessarily a surprise, but its worth pointing out in light of the numbers to come.Football is a notoriously noisy sport, so its no surprise that teams are inconsistent from year to year. The correlation coefficient in terms of rank in points scored per possession by teams from year to year is 0.46, which implies that 21 percent of a teams points scored in a given year can be explained by how they performed the previous year.Red zone performance is far more fickle. The correlation coefficient between a teams rank in points scored per red zone possession one year to the same stat the following year is just 0.24, meaning that just 6 percent of the difference from year to year is explainable by the previous seasons performance. In other words, great overall offenses are far more likely to repeat success the following year than offenses which are strictly great in the red zone.The?best red zone offenses in 2014 were unable to keep up the feat in 2015. That starts with one of the more bizarre outliers in league history: In 2014, the Raiders were 31st in points scored per possession, but on their infrequent trips into the red zone, they led the league in average points scored per trip inside the 20. While they still outperformed their overall rank last season, they were 20th in points per possession and 10th in points per red zone trip. The Broncos fell from second in points per red zone possession to 22nd. The injury-scarred Cowboys dropped from third to 27th. The Chargers and Eagles arrested the fall some, but even they were no higher than 16th. Meanwhile, after posting the leagues worst red zone offense in 2014, the Jets improved to fourth this past year. This just isnt a consistent skill.You also wont be surprised to hear that teams cant reliably outperform their level of play, either. The Raiders are an extreme example, as they had a 30-gap difference between their rank in points scored per possession (31st) and points scored per red zone trip (first). The flip side of that would be the Giants, who were eighth in the league in points scored per possession and 31st in points per red zone trip. The Raiders were 30 spots better in the red zone in 2014; the Giants were 23 spots worse last season.Those gaps almost always disappear the following year. The correlation coefficient for that difference in rankings from year to year is just 0.14, accounting for 1.9 percent of the difference. There were three teams that?underperformed in the red zone by a difference of 10?ranking spots or more last season?-- the Giants, Bears, and Bills. Those teams historically have come in line the following year; the difference between their points scored per possession rank and points scored per red zone possession rank the subsequent year is just 1.6 spots.?I suspected that these teams would improve their overall offensive performance the following year; if you figure that they were perhaps unlucky in the red zone, you might suspect that they would improve in that small sample sliver of the field and it would drive scoring up across the board. Instead, strangely, that isnt the case. These teams actually score less the following year, as their average rank in points scored per possession drops by 5.4 spots.Meanwhile, the teams that?are better in the red zone than they were elsewhere improved by an average of 3.3 spots in the points scored-per-possession rankings the following year. Four teams fit that bill in 2015: the Raiders, Lions, Chargers, and Titans, with the Raiders and Lions (13th to 3rd) narrowly making it over the bar. Even if these teams arent significantly better in the red zone again -- and history suggests that they wont be -- they seem to raise their broader offensive game and improve the following year. The only reliable way to be great in the red zone is to be great everywhere else, too. The data suggests red zone success often predicts greater overall success in the following season.Defenses in the red zoneThe same is true foor defenses, which appear to be even more random from year to year than offenses -- correlations across the board are lower.dddddddddddd Just 30.8 percent of a teams points allowed rank can be explained by its rank in points allowed per red zone trip. And 7.4 percent of a teams points allowed rank is explained by its rank last year. The red zone year-on-year comparison accounts for just 2.4 percent of performance. Its almost entirely random.The poster boy for all of this would be the Legion of Boom in Seattle. The Seahawks have retained many of their stars on defense, but their red zone performance has oscillated wildly. In 2013, the Seahawks allowed the leagues fewest points per possession and kept up their historic dominance inside the 20, allowing the fewest points per red zone trip. In 2014, they were second in points allowed per possession ... but fell all the way to 30th in points allowed per red zone trip, maintaining their high ranking in overall performance by keeping teams from reaching the red zone. And then last year, the Seahawks were consistent as can be, finishing fourth in both points allowed per possession and points allowed per red zone trip.There were three teams to underperform by a comfortable margin in the red zone last year. They were pretty successful without being dominant red zone forces, though. The Broncos had the leagues best defense by points allowed per possession but were just 15th on red zone trips for a 14-rank gap, a difference they shared with the Chiefs. The only other team with a gap of 10 spots or more was in New England -- Bill Belichicks defense has often been described in the past as a bend-but-dont-break unit. The numbers here suggest that the idea of a consistent bend-but-dont-break defense is a myth, and indeed, previous research suggests that they?werent really that sort of defense in the past, either. The Pats were ninth in overall points per possession allowed and 20th on red zone trips.Those teams do typically get worse the following year; they decline by an average of 5.6 spots in terms of points allowed per possession. Teams that?excel in the red zone, meanwhile, see an improvement. Four teams had a positive gap of 10 spots or more between their ranking in points allowed per red zone trip and their ranking in overall defensive scoring allowed per possession. Those teams improve their points per possession ranking by an average of 5.3 spots the following year.Strangely, the team atop that list on defense is the Giants, who were the polar opposites of their offense. Eli Manning and company were good around the field and terrible in the red zone. Steve Spagnuolos defense was pretty bad in most spots and much better defending the goal line. It ranked 29th in points allowed per possession and 13th in points allowed per red zone trip. The Chargers also fit in this group, as do the teams which ranked second (Vikings) and third (Steelers) in red zone performance. They are defenses likely to improve some in 2016.QuarterbacksGoing back to the beginning of the QBR era in 2006, a look at red zone numbers reveals video game statistics for many of the games top quarterbacks. The typical qualified quarterback -- one who has thrown 300 passes or more in the red zone over that time span -- has thrown more than 10?touchdowns in the red zone for every pick.The best quarterback in the red zone over that timeframe? Depends on what youre looking for. If you want to just give your team a chance to score without making mistakes, look for Aaron Rodgers, who has thrown 164 touchdowns against just eight red zone interceptions on his 601 pass attempts, good for a touchdown-to-interception ratio of 20.5. The passer who completes the most passes, moving the ball forward in a dangerous space, is Drew Brees, who hits on 62.1 percent of his attempts. Brees has also thrown the most touchdown passes, with 226 touchdowns against just 19 picks. Tom Brady seemingly ranks second or third in just about every category.Above all, though, theres Peyton Manning. Over that 10-season timeframe, nobody posted a higher Total QBR (82.7) or passer rating (103.3) in the red zone than him. In addition to crazy traditional numbers -- Mannings thrown 203 touchdowns against just 10 picks -- he was more efficient than any other passer in the tight spaces of the red zone. Teams couldnt sack him, with Manning going down on a league-low 1.8 percent of dropbacks in that area of the field. Ben Roethlisberger, for comparison, takes sacks on 7.4 percent of his red zone dropbacks. With Manning getting so many passes off, 27.5 percent of his pass attempts resulted in touchdowns. That, too, led the league. Brees, Rodgers or Brady inherit the throne with Mannings retirement, but the two-time Super Bowl champion was an absolute monster in the red zone.Pass-catchersLets finish up by seeing which receivers dominate the most in the red zone, again going back through 2006. Theres a variety of ways to gauge receiver impact, but one simple, understandable way is to track how frequently receivers turned their routes into touchdowns. ESPN Stats &?Information tracks route frequencies, so we can see how often players were targeted and what they were able to do with those targets.Cutting down the list to players who have 200 or more red zone targets in that span or more, we get a lineup that would jibe with our perceptions of who might succeed and fail in the red zone. The guys at the bottom of the list are mostly undersized, speed-first wideouts: guys such as Devery Henderson, Harry Douglas, Devin Hester and DeSean Jackson, who has to be one of the best wide receivers in league history to never post a season with 10 or more receiving touchdowns.At the top of the list? Ill give you one guess.Thats a group mostly consisting of big, physical receivers capable of winning at the line of scrimmage and creating separation to bring in tight throws. Marshall might have better numbers, of course, if he had better quarterbacks. And Owens numbers are deflated by his propensity for drops -- T.O. dropped nearly 10 percent of the passes thrown in his direction. Compare that to Greg Olsen, meanwhile: the former Bears and current Panthers tight end hasnt dropped a single one of the 131 passes thrown to him in the red zone as a pro. Jason Witten, too, has a (positive) 0-fer?on 157 tries.You probably came into this thinking Rob Gronkowski was the best red zone receiver in football, and a couple thousand words later, you have it confirmed. Ill throw something else out there as a nugget to close things up, as there might be a contender to Gronks throne. Last year, Gronkowski only managed to turn 10.1 percent of his routes into touchdowns, which was ninth in the league. The Jets combo of Brandon Marshall (12.0 percent, fourth) and Eric Decker (15.6 percent, second) both came in ahead of Gronk.No. 1, though? That would be Washingtons Jordan Reed, who produced touchdowns on a staggering 18.2 percent of the routes he ran in the red zone last year. He cant keep that up, but can he be the closest thing to Gronk the NFC has seen since Jimmy Graham? Thats one of the many stories worth monitoring when the regular season -- and the red zone -- finally opens for business in September. ' ' '