That's not the same. What you're saying is a result of those people no longer considering Bangladesh minnows at home.
I'm talking about people who are appalled when they hear that the million wickets Murali picked up against the Bangladesh of the 2000s are mostly pretty worthless. Or that the 20000 runs Sachin and Sanga bashed against them don't mean much. Their stats are inflated by getting to play them so much when others didnt. Plain and simple.
No no, I'm saying the same thing you are. There are good reason to consider stats against minnows like 2000s BD and Zimbabwe and ODIs against Ireland and Netherlands as being as important as stats against the big boys. There are good reasons to consider performances at home or in friendly conditions to be of equal importance.
1) There is an inherent inconsistency in saying "Performances against minnows dont count because they're easy" and then never holding it against a player who fails against the minnows. It's as though doing easy things is of no value - when the reality is, if you don't score runs or take wickets when it's easy your team will lose. If you hand an XI full of guys who could only score runs against the best team in the world but average 10 against 2000s BD, well then you're going to lose to the 2000s BD a lot. All performances matter, and you never see someone hold it against a player for sucking against a minnow. You just see people discrediting those who succeed.
2) Playing a minnow isn't always easier. There have been many times when minnows have played above their reputation, and extra weight is never added to performances against them then. There have been many times when big names have played terribly, and those are never discounted. There is never this subtlety to analysing stats, just a wide sweeping generalization that every run scored or wicket taken against X nations is valuable and Y nation isn't, which is just not fair. If your intent is to remove the 'easy' opponents from a players record, then you have to go through every single game in order to be accurate. The example of Walsh and Ambrose in early 2000s being well past their primes that we had earlier was a good one - runs against those two at that point in their career still carry weight just because of name value, and not because of some superior quality of their bowling. India in England where they lost 4-0 were far less of a challenge than West Indies, SL or BD during that time. Indian, English and Australian players have all had some big performances against big name players at home just because those guys couldn't adapt to the conditions quickly enough, and it was arguably tougher for them to play lesser known players or minnows away from home - think Australia's first Test against BD in 2006. That feeds to the third point:
3) Players who dominate in home conditions are immensely valuable, because all sides play basically 50% of their games at home. A guy like Sehwag who can dominate at home and in similar conditions is so valuable, even if he can't kick on away from home, because he's still scoring in the majority of conditions he plays in. Obviously a player who dominates in a wider range of conditions is better, but if the choice is between someone who is a Home Track Bully vs someone who is Just Average but average everywhere, or someone who is mediocre at home but exceptional away, then the choice isn't all that clear cut. But what is clear is that all teams need Home Track Bullies. It's essential.
4) Downhill skiing is a valuable skill. If players in your team cannot downhill ski, then you're basically going to be throwing away all your good starts. You need batsmen who can take a 200/3 situation and kick on to take it past 500, and you need bowlers who can wipe out the tail cheap. These guys serve a role and this shouldn't be discredited either.
5) Finally, it's kinda dumb to compare stats as a serious means of analysis anyways - no two players ever face the exact same set of situations ever. There are always going to be differences, and as such any statistical comparisons only go so far. By adding in all these these extra conditions (
"Oh all runs against BD before this arbitrary date are worth less, and all runs against Australia mean more during this arbitrary date range but less during this other range, and if you score runs in England in early summer it's harder than in late summer") you just dilute these stats and they become increasingly meaningless as a form of analysis, let alone comparison.
So yea. All stats matter IMO. That's my unpopular opinion.
