Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Swervy]

.... but I think the development of cricket in BD actually takes a far higher precedence than the calculation of statistics.

quite right

 

[Richard]

Yeah I don't mind the selective stats that much when used on discussions and debates here on CW as long as they are qualified and done consistently (and taken with a grain of salt). But to say they aren't Test wickets is really pushing it Richard. Murali has 700 Test wickets end of story, whether you like it or not. It is something you're going to have to accept and come to terms with.

I've explained my stance on the issue. For me, you can't class something Test in part and not in other part. I'm perfectly obviously accepting that I$C$C official terms class Bangladesh games as Tests, but I don't have to do it myself.

 

[Richard]

So it is really when it suits you isn't it?

I would suspect if they start doing well, you would say they need to do it over a longer period of time etc.

There's no way of putting it exactly, as I say. Sometime, it might need to be longer, eventually (presumably) the time will have come. "Suit" is a poor way to describe it, ideally Bangladesh would had been Test-class the moment they were promoted, that'd suit everyone best. I just want to see this nonsense continue for as short a time as possible, whether that be through demotion or them becoming Test-class.

What if they do well for 2 series, and then go crap again? Do you only consider the good series'?

Its a problem isn't it?

No, if it comes to a point where they're having 2 good series then 1 bad one, time after time, they're Test class, IMO.

 

[Richard]

You didn't give me examples, you asked me what my opinions on certain players were, and what my opinion was on how many games England 'flattened' WIs recently.

How do you measure 'getting flattened'? What does it mean? Were England 'flattened' in Adelaide last winter? Depends on how you look at it doesn't it?

No, of course it doesn't. England weren't flattened - the only time last winter they were flattened was in the opening Test. They competed, if mostly (outside Adelaide) only briefly in the other 4.

So how can you set goals in your head of when it is acceptable for a team to be considered test-status ,or for that matter, when a team to become not good enough for test-status, when you cannot even quantify it yourself!!!

How can anyone take what you say seriously regarding B'deshs status, when you actually don't have a clue what being worthy of test status is?

I do have a clue, I just don't have exact terms, because exact terms are not something it's possible to give.

 

[Swervy]

I do have a clue, I just don't have exact terms, because exact terms are not something it's possible to give.

so you don't really know do you?

Sounds like you won't say what the terms of B'deshs acceptance into RichardWorld Test arena just in case they perform in accordance to those rules and then you can't change your mind!!!

 

[Richard]

That'd make precisely 0 sense whatsoever. That'd mean I wanted Bangladesh not to be Test-class. How unutterably stupid would that be? I want Bangladesh to be Test-class, I hate having to bury around removing this and that to get the real picture of a player\team's performance.

However, I can't say exactly what it is that'll make them so. If and when it happens, you'll know if you're still posting on here.

 

[Swervy]

That'd make precisely 0 sense whatsoever. That'd mean I wanted Bangladesh not to be Test-class. How unutterably stupid would that be? I want Bangladesh to be Test-class, I hate having to bury around removing this and that to get the real picture of a player\team's performance.

However, I can't say exactly what it is that'll make them so. If and when it happens, you'll know if you're still posting on here.

Richard, I think you would love for B'desh to have their Test status withdrawn, because it would vindicate everything you have said about them in the past.

As I say, you will say when you think they are Test class when it suits you, I think.

 

[adharcric]

I've explained my stance on the issue. For me, you can't class something Test in part and not in other part. I'm perfectly obviously accepting that I$C$C official terms class Bangladesh games as Tests, but I don't have to do it myself.

Test status is assigned by the ICC, not by you or me. You can disregard matches against Bangladesh for statistical comparison but Murali still has 700 test wickets. Deal with it.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I think you would love for B'desh to have their Test status withdrawn, because it would vindicate everything you have said about them in the past.

As I say, you will say when you think they are Test class when it suits you, I think.

Everything I've said about them (and do to the current day) is already vindicated, they're not Test-class to date and no amount of anything will change that. I'd prefer them to become so right now, but having Test status taken by I$C$C (unlikely to implausible) would be a healthy alternative.

 

[Richard]

Test status is assigned by the ICC, not by you or me. You can disregard matches against Bangladesh for statistical comparison but Murali still has 700 test wickets. Deal with it.

How does it make sense to disregard things for certain things but not for others? It doesn't. I'm well aware of who assigns official Test status, but do we have to accept every I$C$C decision? No.

 

[open365]

Ok, the Bangladesh top order are more capable batsman than most other countries 9,10,11.

I think that is generaly agreed.

So, if you're discounting completely the Bangladeshi wickets, surely it is only fair if you take all the 9,10,11 wickets he's taken out of his tally aswell.

 

[Richard]

That'd be a different comparison - taking top-order wickets only.

That's for a different thing.

As I say - it's simply a case of Test... not-Test. IMO, if you include Bangladesh you might just as well include Sussex and Nondescripts CC.

 

[Sanz]

No its not. Sussex are not a test cricket nation or not even a country, Bangladesh are. This happens in every sport, but only in cricket we chose to make a brouhaha about it.

 

[Richard]

West Indies aren't a country, and Bangladesh shouldn't be a Test team.

 

[Swervy]

West Indies aren't a country, and Bangladesh shouldn't be a Test team.

what a compelling arguement that is!!!

 

[Richard]

It's no more or less than the truth of both matters, and it counteracts perfectly what Sanz said.

 

[Swervy]

It's no more or less than the truth of both matters, and it counteracts perfectly what Sanz said.

re; B'desh, its not the truth as in absolute fact, its your opinion

 

[Sanz]

West Indies aren't a country, and Bangladesh shouldn't be a Test team.

They are as far as CRICKET and ICC is concerned, Sussex aren't.

Whether or not Bangladesh should be a test team doesn'e change the fact that They are a TEST team.It's not Murali's fault that Bangladesh play test.

 

[Richard]

They are as far as CRICKET and ICC is concerned, Sussex aren't.

I'm not I$C$C and I don't have to swallow everything they tell me.

 

[Sanz]

It's no more or less than the truth of both matters, and it counteracts perfectly what Sanz said.

It doesn't. Bangladesh are a test nation and that's a fact.