British - losers?

[steds]

how about genius?

 

[tooextracool]

Not to mention the genuises who massively overdid the short stuff.

well yes, but it isnt something new though, we saw it occasionally during the series in the WI. for flintoff and all the massive strides he had made this summer this was plain embarassing.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, they didn't indeed - the first time Bangladesh have ever won a live ODI against a better team.
A level of how low India's ODI form has fallen of late.

was the game against pakistan in the world cup 99 not live?
its really their inconsistency that worries me, sometimes they play like the best team in the world and then they play like the worst. i believe they are the only team to have lost to kenya twice too?

 

[Richard]

how about genius?

A singular is no use, because there were 3 at fault.

 

[Richard]

was the game against pakistan in the world cup 99 not live?

No, Pakistan were already through - Bangladesh were already out. Last game of the group-phrase.
And we all know what happens when Pakistan play dead matches. They are almost never up for them (and sometimes there used to be the added suspicion of fixing).
I sometimes wonder how much Pakistan cost World cricket by not being up for that game - but for it, I really do wonder if Bangladesh would have been given regular ODIs or Test-status.

its really their inconsistency that worries me, sometimes they play like the best team in the world and then they play like the worst. i believe they are the only team to have lost to kenya twice too?

Possibly, but there's still not as much shame in losing to Kenya as losing to Bangladesh (or Canada, for that matter).

 

[tooextracool]

No, Pakistan were already through - Bangladesh were already out. Last game of the group-phrase.
And we all know what happens when Pakistan play dead matches. They are almost never up for them (and sometimes there used to be the added suspicion of fixing).
I sometimes wonder how much Pakistan cost World cricket by not being up for that game - but for it, I really do wonder if Bangladesh would have been given regular ODIs or Test-status.

i find it almost impossible for that game to not have been fixed. its simply impossible to bowl 28 wides and then also have wasim akram come out after the game with a smile on his face as though his team had just won the tournament. let alone the team that was undoubtedly the best team of the tournament until then.

Possibly, but there's still not as much shame in losing to Kenya as losing to Bangladesh (or Canada, for that matter).

once is fine, twice is really unacceptable.

 

[Richard]

i find it almost impossible for that game to not have been fixed. its simply impossible to bowl 28 wides and then also have wasim akram come out after the game with a smile on his face as though his team had just won the tournament. let alone the team that was undoubtedly the best team of the tournament until then.

I'd reckon a fix was far more likely than not, personally (more based on Wasim after the game than the happenings within), but nonetheless Pakistan are so terrible at raising themselves for dead games that it's not inconceivable that it was just another of these.

once is fine, twice is really unacceptable.

Was almost certain to be three times, too.
The WC2003 game was at Kenya's mercy, then Ganguly and Yuvraj produced an astonishing turnaround.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, but for some people it has more of an influence.
Eg for the good players it's simply a chance to make a small improvement - which is why I never mind good players doing well against Bangladesh or the non-Test-sides.
For the bad ones it can make a poor record look less poor - eg MacGill.
In some cases it can add more to something that, frankly, needs no addition to.

It can, but it's still dependant on how each player plays against them at the time. If a good player doesn't capitalise on an opportunity to play against weaker teams it's their own fault. Everyone has that chance to enhance their record.

 

[Richard]

And if no-one had the chance it wouldn't matter about a few who missed the chance and the many whom, after a couple more series, have the fact that these stats include Bangladesh games forgotten.

 

[Camel56]

No, Pakistan were already through - Bangladesh were already out. Last game of the group-phrase.QUOTE]


wrong richo. Seeing as points earned in the group stage of the tournament were carried through to the super 6 phase, the game was very much live as far as the pakistanis were concerned. More wins in the group stage = a better chance of getting to the semi's.

 

[Richard Rash]

No, Pakistan were already through - Bangladesh were already out. Last game of the group-phrase.QUOTE]


wrong richo. Seeing as points earned in the group stage of the tournament were carried through to the super 6 phase, the game was very much live as far as the pakistanis were concerned. More wins in the group stage = a better chance of getting to the semi's.

Good to see you back Camel..Richo has been talking out his **** like never before in your absence

 

[Son Of Coco]

And if no-one had the chance it wouldn't matter about a few who missed the chance and the many whom, after a couple more series, have the fact that these stats include Bangladesh games forgotten.

Won't the fact that very good players should succeed against a majority of teams whereas average players only succeed against the lesser teams allow this to even itself out? Let's face it you're not going to see Nigel Nobody scoring 100 against Bangladesh and then 10, 5, 2, 0, 0, 0 against better teams averaging more than Tendulkar, Martyn, Strauss etc. It's not worth getting worked up about Richard.

 

[Richard]

wrong richo. Seeing as points earned in the group stage of the tournament were carried through to the super 6 phase, the game was very much live as far as the pakistanis were concerned. More wins in the group stage = a better chance of getting to the semi's.

No, you're wrong.
Points gained only against fellow qualifiers were carried through in WC99 - the other matches were totally written-off.
Only in WC2003 was this strange system of carrying-through points from games that weren't part of the resultant table added.
Good try - but try again, eh? And try and get your facts right, otherwise you'll look as stupid as you've looked every time you've tried to nitpick with something I've said.

 

[Richard]

Won't the fact that very good players should succeed against a majority of teams whereas average players only succeed against the lesser teams allow this to even itself out? Let's face it you're not going to see Nigel Nobody scoring 100 against Bangladesh and then 10, 5, 2, 0, 0, 0 against better teams averaging more than Tendulkar, Martyn, Strauss etc. It's not worth getting worked up about Richard.

Stuart MacGill's case perfectly illustrates that this is not true:
With Bangladesh
Without Bangladesh
Bangladesh games drop his average by 5 - a massive difference over 3 years.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Stuart MacGill's case perfectly illustrates that this is not true:

Bangladesh games drop his average by 5 - a massive difference over 3 years.

It doesn't illustrate this is not true at all because when you compare his averages to players considered to be at the top of the craft (like Warne) there's still a big difference between the two players. As I said, one player is not really receiving a greater benefit than any other in the long run by playing Bangladesh because they all get a chance. You won't get a case where one player is considered to be a champion based simply on his results against them. You can't average 50+ with the bat, or less than 25 with the ball simply by being effective against Bangladesh to the exclusion of all others - not in the long term anyway.

My original comparison was Nigel Nobody to Tendulkar - I think you may have missed the point. An average player does not become a brilliant one simply by playing Bangladesh........

As usual mate, your stats are pretty selective. Take Bangladesh out of everyone's stats and see if they're not equally advantaged over a decent length of time. You can't just go 'well, MacGill averages 5 more when not including the Bangers' and hold that up as proof........how does he fair in comparison to everyone else?

 

[Adamc]

A singular is no use, because there were 3 at fault.

D'oh, Richard still doesn't get it. Steds was pointing out that the correct spelling is genius, not genuis.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't illustrate this is not true at all because when you compare his averages to players considered to be at the top of the craft (like Warne) there's still a big difference between the two players. As I said, one player is not really receiving a greater benefit than any other in the long run by playing Bangladesh because they all get a chance. You won't get a case where one player is considered to be a champion based simply on his results against them. You can't average 50+ with the bat, or less than 25 with the ball simply by being effective against Bangladesh to the exclusion of all others - not in the long term anyway.

My original comparison was Nigel Nobody to Tendulkar - I think you may have missed the point. An average player does not become a brilliant one simply by playing Bangladesh........

As usual mate, your stats are pretty selective. Take Bangladesh out of everyone's stats and see if they're not equally advantaged over a decent length of time. You can't just go 'well, MacGill averages 5 more when not including the Bangers' and hold that up as proof........how does he fair in comparison to everyone else?

Yousuf Youhana's entire career average is, unbelievably, inflated by a whole 6 by games against Bangladesh.
Inzamam-Ul-Haq's, meanwhile, changes by less than 1 IIRR.
There are those for whom Bangladesh make a big, undeserved, misleading impact, those for whom they're simply a luxury that they deserve.

 

[Richard]

D'oh, Richard still doesn't get it. Steds was pointing out that the correct spelling is genius, not genuis.

Geniuei?
I think not.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Genii, however.

 

[Adamc]

Geniuei?
I think not.

Bah you are missing the point completely. Steds was just saying that you had the 'iu' part of geniuses the wrong way 'round - i.e. it should have been spelt geniuses, not genuises as you had written in your original post. No-one other than you was debating the correctness of your plural form, just the spelling. Got it?