'Cos you've made the considered decision that matches involving them should not be classed as Tests.
I don't do it for that reason, actually. I do it because it proves little - in many cases, it proves even less than doing well in first class cricket in domestic competitions. People say "you still have to score the runs" - but most players selected as batsmen in top-7 test teams at the moment will face better attacks than Mortaza-Rasel-Rafique-Razzaq in domestic cricket anyway, and they've been picked because they've scored runs at that level in the first place. It's just as true with bowlers. Whether they should be test matches is irrelevant to whether the stats should be included when rating a player's ability, IMO - simply the quality of the opposition should be considered.
Definitely, it took a lot of guts imo after the harsh treatment he received when he was first axed.
And the quality of the opposition is entirely what decides, to me, what should and should not be a Test.
Tasmania and NSW > West Indies at the moment, though. Was the Pura Cup final a test in your eyes? There are several other factors to consider in what should and should not be a test, IMO. There's also the contradictory fact that you don't believe the Australia v ROW series should be classed as tests and yet the standard of the teams was quite high.And the quality of the opposition is entirely what decides, to me, what should and should not be a Test.
Spot the link?
Pretty much. Bangladesh are a test side but stats against them don't have much value for me.
Indeed. See India A's destruction of Kenya and Zimbabwe to show just how poor the latter two are.
No, because standard isn't the only issue at stake, and I've always said that too. However, to say that Bangladesh games should be classed as Tests, IMO, is ridiculous. They meet some of the criteria required, but not all. EDIT: just seen I said "the quality of the opposition is entirely what decides" in my previous post, dono what on Earth I was thinking there TBH, because it's certainly not. Perhaps I meant "once you get below a certain standard, it's entirely out-of-the-question to be a Test side"...
Tasmania are better than what the West Indies selectors consider to be their best side at the moment.Richard said:
