Giles in PWC top Ten!

[tooextracool]

Yes, they are - they've just had Tests suspended for the rest of the year. No "any more" about it.

yes but i was talking about the WI batting amongst current test teams.

The best thing would be to strip both of Test-status but there is no provision in the Laws for that.

ideally i would say kenya deserved an opportunity at the test arena....

 

[tooextracool]

Yep, because I've pointed-out why there is little inconsistency there.
The fact that you continue to say there is is irrelevant.

is there? does your first chance averages also take into account poor umpiring decisions? and what constitutes a chance.....anything that strikes the fingers?if so then if someone totally misjudges a catch and eventually fails to get his fingers on it it shouldnt be considered a chance ? or if the ball happens to go in between the slips should the batsmen be fortunate enough that neither of the slip fielders dived for the ball?

 

[Richard]

yes but i was talking about the WI batting amongst current test teams.

And Zimbabwe will be a current Test team again, sadly, before too long.

ideally i would say kenya deserved an opportunity at the test arena....

No lessons learned from Bangladesh here, I see...
That is the very last thing we need right now.
Kenya are clearly an improving side, but nowhere near Test-standard yet and to bring them in would simply make low standards an even more regular occurance, and mean more "Test-matches" had to be excluded from the reckoning to make statistics accurate.
It would also set Kenyan cricket back, which would be a crying shame.

 

[Richard]

is there? does your first chance averages also take into account poor umpiring decisions? and what constitutes a chance.....anything that strikes the fingers?if so then if someone totally misjudges a catch and eventually fails to get his fingers on it it shouldnt be considered a chance ? or if the ball happens to go in between the slips should the batsmen be fortunate enough that neither of the slip fielders dived for the ball?

Yes, anyone who was reading properly would see that poor Umpiring decisions, both for and against, come into chance-scores.
Anything which should clearly be caught (ie not something which skims the fingers travelling at 80 mph over the slips) will rarely have disagreement if the conasseurs actually think about it.
For instance, Gayle in the second-innings of The First Test quite clearly should have been out despite the fact that he wasn't actually dropped by either Jones or Trescothick. Any fool could see that.

 

[tooextracool]

And Zimbabwe will be a current Test team again, sadly, before too long.

but they arent a current test team at the moment, whether they will be again doesnt matter because im looking at the current WI team not the WI team one year later.

No lessons learned from Bangladesh here, I see...
That is the very last thing we need right now.
Kenya are clearly an improving side, but nowhere near Test-standard yet and to bring them in would simply make low standards an even more regular occurance, and mean more "Test-matches" had to be excluded from the reckoning to make statistics accurate.

the only way they will get to be test standard is if they play test cricket! you think that if they play USA,canada etc they will end up becoming test standard? IMO they are closer to being test standard than both zimbabwe and bangladesh, the latter of which never deserved to be given test status because they only really won 1 ODI. kenya have accomplished a lot more than that.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, anyone who was reading properly would see that poor Umpiring decisions, both for and against, come into chance-scores.

and decisions that have been too hard to tell go which way then? there have been several occasions where its been extremely hard even with the replays to see whether someone is given out.

Anything which should clearly be caught (ie not something which skims the fingers travelling at 80 mph over the slips) will rarely have disagreement if the conasseurs actually think about it.
For instance, Gayle in the second-innings of The First Test quite clearly should have been out despite the fact that he wasn't actually dropped by either Jones or Trescothick. Any fool could see that.

no there have been several occasions on the field where it has been extremely hard to decide what constituted a chance or not. a fielder that doesnt dive to catch the ball(how often have we seen this at the boundary) coming towards him in the attempt of saving the boundary rather than taking the catch.....would that count as a chance, when you wouldnt know whether or not the fielder would have gotten to the ball in the first place?

 

[Richard]

but they arent a current test team at the moment, whether they will be again doesnt matter because im looking at the current WI team not the WI team one year later.

Their Test status has only been suspended, hence they are still a Test-playing country.
And it's 5 months, not a year, later.

the only way they will get to be test standard is if they play test cricket! you think that if they play USA,canada etc they will end up becoming test standard? IMO they are closer to being test standard than both zimbabwe and bangladesh, the latter of which never deserved to be given test status because they only really won 1 ODI. kenya have accomplished a lot more than that.

Yes, they have - but a good World Cup (not without fortune - the food-poisoning, the forefeit and the rain at Benoni) doesn't mean you should immidiately be given Test-status.
And the only way they'll get to Test-standard is if they play - what a ridiculous comment! No-one improves by playing - you improve by practising, any fool knows that. The only way they'll get to Test standard is if they have capital invested in them: players become full-time pros, coaching is of a high standard, and practice-facilities match the coaching.
To call USA and Canada as good as Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe, meanwhile, is ludicrous. Canada might have fluked a win over Bangladesh at WC2003 (yet another farcical element of that tournament), but there is, I believe, one cricket stadium in the country. USA, meanwhile, have shown about as much interest in cricket as they've ever shown in other international team-sports.

 

[Richard]

and decisions that have been too hard to tell go which way then? there have been several occasions where its been extremely hard even with the replays to see whether someone is given out.

No, there is a very occasional occasion where it's not really possible to tell. In these instances, normal circumstances apply - BOD to batsman.

no there have been several occasions on the field where it has been extremely hard to decide what constituted a chance or not. a fielder that doesnt dive to catch the ball(how often have we seen this at the boundary) coming towards him in the attempt of saving the boundary rather than taking the catch.....would that count as a chance, when you wouldnt know whether or not the fielder would have gotten to the ball in the first place?

And how often do you see that? Consider how much cricket is played.
You'll get the picture that it's very, very occasionally.

 

[tooextracool]

Their Test status has only been suspended, hence they are still a Test-playing country.
And it's 5 months, not a year, later.

how are they a current test playing country if they arent playing any test cricket? im comparing the WI team amongs the other active test teams in the world and zimbabwe isnt one of them

Yes, they have - but a good World Cup (not without fortune - the food-poisoning, the forefeit and the rain at Benoni) doesn't mean you should immidiately be given Test-status.

yes they were fortunate but they also played well, they beat SL whatever way you look at it and they beat zimbabwe. they've also beaten india twice so i think they deserve test status ahead of zimbabwe and bangladesh,both of whom really are appalling.

And the only way they'll get to Test-standard is if they play - what a ridiculous comment! No-one improves by playing - you improve by practising, any fool knows that.

rubbish, no team will suddenly become test standard by practising and playing against teams like canada and the USA, everyone knows that. teams can get better by practicing yes,but its only to an extent that will make them better than the other teams in the 2nd league.it wont make them anywhere near the top 8 teams, and the only way you can get them close to those 8 would be by giving them test status!

To call USA and Canada as good as Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe, meanwhile, is ludicrous. Canada might have fluked a win over Bangladesh at WC2003 (yet another farcical element of that tournament), but there is, I believe, one cricket stadium in the country. USA, meanwhile, have shown about as much interest in cricket as they've ever shown in other international team-sports.

if you could in fact read i said that kenya are better than zimbabwe and b'desh, not canada or USA.

 

[Richard]

how are they a current test playing country if they arent playing any test cricket? im comparing the WI team amongs the other active test teams in the world and zimbabwe isnt one of them

Yes, but the fact that they will be before too long (5 months) means they can still be included. Because even West Indies aren't going to change that much in 5 months.

yes they were fortunate but they also played well, they beat SL whatever way you look at it and they beat zimbabwe. they've also beaten india twice so i think they deserve test status ahead of zimbabwe and bangladesh,both of whom really are appalling.

Oh, they played well, no doubting that, but they didn't play extraordinarily well, nor have they ever played as consistently well as they did in that Cup in any other tournament.
Undoubtedly they are better than Bangladesh and Zimbabaw IMO, but that doesn't mean they're Test-class. And to make them a Test-nation would set them back if you ask me.

rubbish, no team will suddenly become test standard by practising and playing against teams like canada and the USA, everyone knows that. teams can get better by practicing yes,but its only to an extent that will make them better than the other teams in the 2nd league.it wont make them anywhere near the top 8 teams, and the only way you can get them close to those 8 would be by giving them test status!

How will playing these top teams and getting thrashed make them any better?

if you could in fact read i said that kenya are better than zimbabwe and b'desh, not canada or USA.

And what has Kenya's ability relative to Canada and USA got to do with anything? Nothing. So hence you didn't mention it. You said you thought those 2 were better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which IMO is total rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but the fact that they will be before too long (5 months) means they can still be included. Because even West Indies aren't going to change that much in 5 months.

the fact is they arent a current test team, whether they were a test team and will be a test team is irrelevant because they arent playing test cricket at the moment.

Oh, they played well, no doubting that, but they didn't play extraordinarily well, nor have they ever played as consistently well as they did in that Cup in any other tournament.
Undoubtedly they are better than Bangladesh and Zimbabaw IMO, but that doesn't mean they're Test-class. And to make them a Test-nation would set them back if you ask me.

there will never be a team from the 2nd league that will be test class immediately IMO, you can only pick whats the best of them and i dont think theres much doubt that kenya is. the only way they will become test class is by playing the top 8 teams, just like SL did.

How will playing these top teams and getting thrashed make them any better?

its obvious that you tend to learn a lot more when you play better teams than when you play worse teams. if the kenyan batsmen got to play better quality bowlers then surely they would only get better?

And what has Kenya's ability relative to Canada and USA got to do with anything? Nothing. So hence you didn't mention it. You said you thought those 2 were better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which IMO is total rubbish.

if you could read i have clearly stated that KENYA IS BETTER THAN BANGLADESH AND ZIMBABWE. and the use of canada and the USA had purely to prove that kenya would not improve(perhaps get worse) playing against teams like canada and the USA.

 

[Richard]

the fact is they arent a current test team, whether they were a test team and will be a test team is irrelevant because they arent playing test cricket at the moment.

And the period before they will again is so short that they can still be considered amongst the Test-teams.

there will never be a team from the 2nd league that will be test class immediately IMO, you can only pick whats the best of them and i dont think theres much doubt that kenya is. the only way they will become test class is by playing the top 8 teams, just like SL did.

And in the meantime 10 years they will degrade Test-cricket still further, meaning more "Test-matches" have to be removed from a player's record to make it more accurate.

its obvious that you tend to learn a lot more when you play better teams than when you play worse teams. if the kenyan batsmen got to play better quality bowlers then surely they would only get better?

No, they'd just keep getting-out cheaply and wouldn't learn anything.
They would, however, learn by facing them in the nets, where one dismissal doesn't mean your practice ends.
You learn more by practising against (and with) good players than against (and with) less good ones. Playing doesn't really make much difference.

if you could read i have clearly stated that KENYA IS BETTER THAN BANGLADESH AND ZIMBABWE. and the use of canada and the USA had purely to prove that kenya would not improve(perhaps get worse) playing against teams like canada and the USA.

If you had made that a little clearer there would not have been a problem.
Reading the relevant post again it can perfectly possibly be interpreted as such.
It could also be interpreted as "USA and Canada are clearly better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe".

 

[tooextracool]

And the period before they will again is so short that they can still be considered amongst the Test-teams.

the length of the period doesnt matter....the fact is that they arent an active test team ATM and therefore cannot be classified as such.

And in the meantime 10 years they will degrade Test-cricket still further, meaning more "Test-matches" have to be removed from a player's record to make it more accurate.

so you would rather have just 8 test teams for the rest of the century?

No, they'd just keep getting-out cheaply and wouldn't learn anything..

much the same way SL did you might say?or even zimbabwe pre 2000?

They would, however, learn by facing them in the nets, where one dismissal doesn't mean your practice ends.
You learn more by practising against (and with) good players than against (and with) less good ones. Playing doesn't really make much difference.

oh yes i can imagine good bowlers like mcgrath going halfway around the world to kenya just to bowl to ravindu shah in the nets!
and how many times have players said that everything has looked perfect for them in the nets, yet they come out and struggle on the field. the best way to improve is to play in different match situations, with different field placings, different strategies, sledging, different pitches and against quality bowlers.

If you had made that a little clearer there would not have been a problem.
Reading the relevant post again it can perfectly possibly be interpreted as such.
It could also be interpreted as "USA and Canada are clearly better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe".

it was obvious which team i was talking about, regardless only a fool would compare canada and USA to b'desh and zimbabwe.

 

[Richard]

the length of the period doesnt matter....the fact is that they arent an active test team ATM and therefore cannot be classified as such.

They can and often are.

so you would rather have just 8 test teams for the rest of the century?

If Test-cricket is maintained in it's standard, yes.

much the same way SL did you might say?or even zimbabwe pre 2000?

How many Test-matches did it take Lanka to come close to the standard? Zimbabwe might have been bottom of the tree for most of their Test-career but virtually from their time of elevation to the post-WC2003 fallout they've almost always been competetive.

oh yes i can imagine good bowlers like mcgrath going halfway around the world to kenya just to bowl to ravindu shah in the nets!

And any fool could see that I wasn't suggesting that.

and how many times have players said that everything has looked perfect for them in the nets, yet they come out and struggle on the field. the best way to improve is to play in different match situations, with different field placings, different strategies, sledging, different pitches and against quality bowlers.

And how many times have playes looked a million dollars for a few shots then got-out cheaply... time and again? Lots, and lots, and lots. There are plenty of Kenyan batsmen who do as such.
The only way to learn is to play in the nets and at the next level down.
Bangladesh should have played in the Ranji Trophy for at least 5 years before being given Test-status, and Kenya should be playing in the SuperSport Series and Standard Bank Cup for the next 5 years.
Then when they start to dominate those competitions they should start being considered for Test-status.
But you'd expect any international-standard team to play in a domestic competition and dominate it. Hence, to see whether someone can do so is the best way to indicate their international prowess. It's ludicrous to expect somoene to go from playing an occasional ODI amongst their day-jobs to playing regular international cricket in both forms.

it was obvious which team i was talking about, regardless only a fool would compare canada and USA to b'desh and zimbabwe.

Exactly - that's why I thought there might be a comparison in that post.