• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia's streak, some (very basic) stats

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Proves how Immense Hussey & Ponting have been tbh. Especially Ponting, he's had 4 rather low scoring matches by his standards, and he still tops the runs. Lees stats also show just how much he has improved as a red ball bowler as well.

Richard, people are going to bring up the Bangladesh thing as long as you keep harping on about. It might be easier for you to stop instigating it because if nothing else it's clear that your argument is full of holes.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's not full of holes, though. And I asked Gelman for a few stats; he can either provide them or he can not provide them. I'm well aware of how certain Australian posters feel about the Bangladesh situation, they're well aware how I feel about it (or, at least, they should be) and the best thing that can be done is not to keep picking-up on something you've picked-up on in the same person 30 times before.
 

pup11

International Coach
It's the team in the long-term, not the one-off of the match, which counts to whether the game should be a Test or not.

No, it wasn't, the closest they came was the 1-wicket defeat of South Africa.
But... still officially those games are test matches and part of the streak, but games against such weak opponents leave a team in thankless position if you do well its taken for granted and if you don't then all hell breaks lose (nobody even cares to have a look at the external factors), before the Fatullah test against Bangladesh, Australians admitted how tired they were with all the cricket they played before that and it showed in their game and they way they performed on the first two day's of that test they had a serious possibility of losing that test.
A superb knock from Gilly and then Ponting was all that let them, win the game by a whisker in the end.
 
Last edited:

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
It's not full of holes, though. And I asked Gelman for a few stats; he can either provide them or he can not provide them. I'm well aware of how certain Australian posters feel about the Bangladesh situation, they're well aware how I feel about it (or, at least, they should be) and the best thing that can be done is not to keep picking-up on something you've picked-up on in the same person 30 times before.
Why bring it up at all? You could've looked up the stats yourself.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
They've had to be at the best of their ability and even lost to sides who're patently not Test-class any more.

Look, I'm not doing this wretched Bangladesh thing again and again. Bangladesh are not Test-class, I'd be interested in seeing some stats involving the last 14 Tests against teams that are Test-class which Australia have played. Gelman can either give me them, or he can not give me them. Really, nothing besides this is important.
Jesus Christ you're precious sometimes. If you don't want people having a go at you about your theories, how about you don't bring them up? For instance, you could say, "what about stats for the matches excluding Bangladesh?", rather than bringing out the test class teams garbage.

Do you honestly think you can play the victim when you've quite clearly instigated the discussion? You can have whatever views about Bangladesh you want, but if you don't want to discuss them you don't have to bring them up, simple as that.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Haha. One of those non test class games Australia had to really fight hard to win, and if it wasn't for a Ponting century just may have lost that match, therefore at least one of those two matches should count.
Try a Gilchrist century, that was what really turned the tables.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They've had to be at the best of their ability and even lost to sides who're patently not Test-class any more.

Look, I'm not doing this wretched Bangladesh thing again and again. Bangladesh are not Test-class, I'd be interested in seeing some stats involving the last 14 Tests against teams that are Test-class which Australia have played. Gelman can either give me them, or he can not give me them. Really, nothing besides this is important.
It's not full of holes, though. And I asked Gelman for a few stats; he can either provide them or he can not provide them. I'm well aware of how certain Australian posters feel about the Bangladesh situation, they're well aware how I feel about it (or, at least, they should be) and the best thing that can be done is not to keep picking-up on something you've picked-up on in the same person 30 times before.
Who is Gelman?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jesus Christ you're precious sometimes. If you don't want people having a go at you about your theories, how about you don't bring them up? For instance, you could say, "what about stats for the matches excluding Bangladesh?", rather than bringing out the test class teams garbage.

Do you honestly think you can play the victim when you've quite clearly instigated the discussion? You can have whatever views about Bangladesh you want, but if you don't want to discuss them you don't have to bring them up, simple as that.
You know perfectly well that the reaction would be exactly the same if I'd phrased it as you suggest - when I mention figures excluding Bangladesh, the automatic implication is that they're not Test-class, everyone knows it and they'd react accordingly.

I'm not "playing the victim" BTW, I just don't want to discuss the Test-class-or-not-Test-class issue over and over and over and over and over again.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But he was still ready to go in and have a bat if required, he was surely a tough cookie and team-man to the core.
1, he'd have been mad if he did (we honestly won't ever know whether the team doctor would have refused to allow him out of the door, it can only be guesswork).

2, he'd presumably not have been able to hit straight if he couldn't think straight. So all it'd likely have taken was a straight ball.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
You know perfectly well that the reaction would be exactly the same if I'd phrased it as you suggest - when I mention figures excluding Bangladesh, the automatic implication is that they're not Test-class, everyone knows it and they'd react accordingly.

I'm not "playing the victim" BTW, I just don't want to discuss the Test-class-or-not-Test-class issue over and over and over and over and over again.
No, I think it is different. Bangladesh are obviously the weakest test team currently. Excluding them from stats is no different than calling into question the record of Waugh's team against Zimbabwe or the West Indies. It's rather different to pretend they aren't test matches.

Surely you can see the difference between saying "I'd be more interested if you showed statistics from the 14 matches against test-class opposition" and excluding the Bangladesh matches without the implication that they aren't tests at all. After all, there are some statistical anomalies there, like Gillespie's record.

Anyway, the main differences to those stats would be the batsmen having slightly higher batting averages, Lee a better bowling average, and Gillespie and Cullen wouldn't be there. MacGill's average is much higher without that tour. The only Australian batsman who cashed in above their regular average to any significant degree was Gilchrist, who averaged 78 in Bangladesh. Lee's average drops down to 24.52 without that tour. I don't think you can suggest that it actually significantly improved anyone's figures, aside from Stuart MacGill.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I think it is different. Bangladesh are obviously the weakest test team currently. Excluding them from stats is no different than calling into question the record of Waugh's team against Zimbabwe or the West Indies. It's rather different to pretend they aren't test matches.

Surely you can see the difference between saying "I'd be more interested if you showed statistics from the 14 matches against test-class opposition" and excluding the Bangladesh matches without the implication that they aren't tests at all. After all, there are some statistical anomalies there, like Gillespie's record.
Bangladesh are clearly, and always have been clearly, well below the standard of the weakest Test-class sides. Anyone who cannot see that is either not paying attention or is a Banglaphile optimist, there's no other way about it. They have had the very occasional match where they've completely unexpectedly put-up a fight and caused a Test-class team some serious problems. But that's always been followed by a swift and dramatic return to the norm, a pattern which is yet to be bucked.

Even these unusual one-off games are still no more worthy of being classed Tests than a match would be if Australia toured Namibia and were unexpectedly pushed by a side under the aegis of the national board. A team is either Test-class or it isn't. There's no picking and choosing. Once a team is Test-class (like West Indies currently or Zimbabwe in 1999 FOR INSTANCE) even the matches where they're completely outclassed are still worthy of being classified Tests. Equally, until a team is Test-class (ie, puts up a fight in more than the occasional one-off game) their matches don't deserve to be classified Tests, including even these one-off games.
Anyway, the main differences to those stats would be the batsmen having slightly higher batting averages, Lee a better bowling average, and Gillespie and Cullen wouldn't be there. MacGill's average is much higher without that tour. The only Australian batsman who cashed in above their regular average to any significant degree was Gilchrist, who averaged 78 in Bangladesh. Lee's average drops down to 24.52 without that tour. I don't think you can suggest that it actually significantly improved anyone's figures, aside from Stuart MacGill.
MacGill's case was the one that made me ask the question, actually. But Gilchrist and Lee were very much the other two who came to mind.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
I'm not "playing the victim" BTW, I just don't want to discuss the Test-class-or-not-Test-class issue over and over and over and over and over again.
Bangladesh are clearly, and always have been clearly, well below the standard of the weakest Test-class sides. Anyone who cannot see that is either not paying attention or is a Banglaphile optimist, there's no other way about it. They have had the very occasional match where they've completely unexpectedly put-up a fight and caused a Test-class team some serious problems. But that's always been followed by a swift and dramatic return to the norm, a pattern which is yet to be bucked.

Even these unusual one-off games are still no more worthy of being classed Tests than a match would be if Australia toured Namibia and were unexpectedly pushed by a side under the aegis of the national board. A team is either Test-class or it isn't. There's no picking and choosing. Once a team is Test-class (like West Indies currently or Zimbabwe in 1999 FOR INSTANCE) even the matches where they're completely outclassed are still worthy of being classified Tests. Equally, until a team is Test-class (ie, puts up a fight in more than the occasional one-off game) their matches don't deserve to be classified Tests, including even these one-off games.

MacGill's case was the one that made me ask the question, actually. But Gilchrist and Lee were very much the other two who came to mind.
Wow. Three hours can really change a man.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If people (read Fuller) will insist.

I was considering saying "I said I'm not discussing Bangaldesh again" but had written that paragraph before I knew it and there's no point wasting it.
 

Top