Battle #654684. Michael Atherton v Nasser Hussain

[Jamee999]

So if a really good player played for Bangladesh and piled up the runs against a top-eight country, you wouldn't consider those Test runs?

 

[Goughy]

what would you rather watch?

a) a 20/20 game between England and Bangladesh

or

b) a Test match between England and Bangladesh

Intersting question. Without a doubt the T20. Would be over with quicker and the stats are not as sacred.

BTW, its not often but I see Richards point here. Currently you have 8 nations where 30 is a bad batting average and 1 where it is a good average.

There is such a difference in the producion in the players from these teams that including them in discussions on the merits of top 8 nation players weights the whole thing downwards.

I see what he means, if a Bangladeshi player played 100 Tests and averaged 24, it has no relevance to what Atherton did as you are comparing apples and oranges.

If Bangladesh became a side of comparable standard then maybe such things will go away. But at the moment I understand that they often need to be in a seperate conversation.

 

[Richard]

So if a really good player played for Bangladesh and piled up the runs against a top-eight country, you wouldn't consider those Test runs?

If his presence helped Bangladesh become a Test-standard team, yes.

If not, no.

 

[Richard]

what would you rather watch?

a) a 20/20 game between England and Bangladesh

or

b) a Test match between England and Bangladesh

If "neither" is not an option, probably a Twenty20. Neither would be of remote interest (for different reasons - the former related to the format, the latter to the standard) and the Twenty20 would be over sooner.

 

[Jamee999]

Even though it's against the same bowling attack that (for example) Tendulkar, Chanderpaul, Pietersen and Ponting score Test runs against?

 

[Richard]

Both teams, not just one, have to be Test-standard for me to consider the match worthy of Test-status.

 

[Swervy]

If "neither" is not an option, probably a Twenty20. Neither would be of remote interest (for different reasons - the former related to the format, the latter to the standard) and the Twenty20 would be over sooner.

haha, so a bit of 2020 loving going on there

 

[Swervy]

Even though it's against the same bowling attack that (for example) Tendulkar, Chanderpaul, Pietersen and Ponting score Test runs against?

this was the point I was trying to get at a few posts back

 

[Swervy]

Both teams, not just one, have to be Test-standard for me to consider the match worthy of Test-status.

but on an individual player basis, the contest the B'desh batsman is playing is off test match standard

 

[Richard]

Whether a match merits Test status is not about individual players, it's about whether the team is of the requistite standard.

Though, obviously, the strength of the players is what determines whether the team is of the requistite standard.

 

[Richard]

haha, so a bit of 2020 loving going on there

Nah. "Lesser of two evils" is not "lovin'".

 

[Swervy]

Whether a match merits Test status is not about individual players, it's about whether the team is of the requistite standard.

Though, obviously, the strength of the players is what determines whether the team is of the requistite standard.

But you can see that the battle between a Bangladesh batsman and his opposition, from the point of view of the batsman will be of test standard???

 

[Richard]

Obviously, as it will for the Hampshire batsman when Hampshire face Australia including McGrath, Fleming, Gillespie and Warne.

Doesn't mean the match should be a Test though.