Should ICC Super Series 2005 considered for test cricket stats ?

[Krishna_j]

IMO that the ICC Super Series stats should be eliminated.

Thanks to Bill Frindell the bearded wonder for bringing up what some statisticians have done - discarded the ICC match in Melbourne from the stat reckoning.

In the early 70's eng vs Rest of the World was considered initially as part of test cricket stats before sanity prevailed and they were discarded - similarly Aus vs rest of World were never considered in 1971-72.

If the above stats stand due to some strange whim - then the ICC Bicentennary match in 1987 and the WSC Super Tests of 1977-79 should be included as well.

So in time maybe Warney's 700th wicket will get revised as it does not affect him now - but seriously these records should be updated

 

[silentstriker]

He has 700 without the super series. And it doesn't matter to me either way whether its kept or not.

 

[GIMH]

TBH if it's a Test at the time it should stay so. IMO>

 

[Prince EWS]

If Zimbabwe v Bangladesh is a test match, Australia v ROW is one too IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

If Zimbabwe v Bangladesh is a test match, Australia v ROW is one too IMO.

Its not necessarily about the quality of the opposition. Its about test cricket being between players who are representing their countries (except England, in which case representing their countries or South Africa).

 

[Prince EWS]

Its not necessarily about the quality of the opposition. Its about test cricket being between players who are representing their countries (except England, in which case representing their countries or South Africa).

Well what about the West Indies? They are a group of countries playing under one banner - much like the rest of the world side.

 

[silentstriker]

Well what about the West Indies? They are a group of countries playing under one banner - much like the rest of the world side.

Its different, there is not the same drive to succeed, nor the pride in winning, when you have a world XI.

 

[Krishna_j]

Its different, there is not the same drive to succeed, nor the pride in winning, when you have a world XI.

Agree with silentstriker - world or rest of world stats should be discarded unless these matches become an annual permanent fixture not a one-off exhibition game - apologies to Matt Hayden and the Aus side which won last year

 

[GIMH]

Its not necessarily about the quality of the opposition. Its about test cricket being between players who are representing their countries (except England, in which case representing their countries or South Africa).

Come on SS, I expect better from you. That's a worn out jibe.

Specially seems as there's a fair chance the 4th Test would still be going on now, but for a player who should be playing for England

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes. It was an official test match. I don't see why it shouldn't be included on career records.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes. It was an official test match. I don't see why it shouldn't be included on career records.

It's okay from the Australian point of view but it confuses things for the career records of the ROW team as it means that their record for the Country is not the same as the record for their overall Test career - it's an unneccessary complication and it's no wonder the Bearded Wonder hates it.

 

[Matteh]

I think precedent has been set with the earlier matches and they shouldn't be included.

 

[Mister Wright]

I think precedent has been set with the earlier matches and they shouldn't be included.

What earlier matches? The ones from the 70s? That is a differnent situation. Those rebel games or rebel tours were not sanctioned by the organising body at the time of playing, whereas the recent games were.

 

[LA ICE-E]

it shouldn't be counted but although if the icc wanted to make some money they should have done all star games with icc odi XI team 1 vs icc odi XI team 2and a test like icc test team 1 vs icc test team 2 (could give the teams nicknames) ...i would take that over any champions trophy

 

[albo97056]

What earlier matches? The ones from the 70s? That is a differnent situation. Those rebel games or rebel tours were not sanctioned by the organising body at the time of playing, whereas the recent games were.

No. theyre talkin about the row games from the 70s which were given official satus at the time and then dropped some years later!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No.

 

[albo97056]

What does no mean?
Thats what the precedent is all about... those games were given official status initially, I remember someone saying how some guy got his only england cap in the series and then it was scratched off the record some years later. The rebel tours were never sanction so its really not got anything to do with the world xi games.
edit: O rite i see i tht it was part of the debate

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No = a negative.

It's a negative response to the question. It wasn't exactly an ambiguous response.
Btw, your post makes little sense.

 

[albo97056]

I tht u were refering to the post i made before. Then i realised you were just refering to the forum title...