X-Factor ... who would you pick.

[Goughy]

I might remind you that Bangladesh damn near beat Australia in a "Test", too...

Does not come close to equating to winning though.

Ill remind you of the old expression, 'An inch is as good as a mile'.

Nearly winning = 0

 

[Richard]

They won the first 3 days pretty convincingly in my book.

I was simply pointing-out that you don't neccessarily need luck to outplay a team which on 99% of the occasions is vastly superior.

 

[Goughy]

They won the first 3 days pretty convincingly in my book.

I was simply pointing-out that you don't neccessarily need luck to outplay a team which on 99% of the occasions is vastly superior.

Winning 3 days = 0

Coming close means nothing unless you are in the business of looking for silver linings

 

[Richard]

Which Bangladesh fans, it seems, are...

Winning 3 days, incidentally, doesn't = 0, it's still a notable achievement - just like winning a ODI.

 

[Goughy]

Winning 3 days, incidentally, doesn't = 0, it's still a notable achievement - just like winning a ODI.

*ahem* No. How can losing the game be anything other than losing the game or equaling an ODI win? Makes no sense.

Losing is losing. Sure you can take positives out of it but it is still a loss. A test match isnt counted by the number of sessions or days 'won' but on the actual result. Its like leading a race over 1 mile only to be passed on the final lap. The earlier laps (days) lead upto the conclusion but carry no worth when combined with the result.

You are putting value on something that carries no value.

 

[Richard]

I'm not, I'm just pointing-out that being a better team (for however long - be it less than a game or the whole of a game) does not neccessarily require good fortune.

 

[Goughy]

I'm not, I'm just pointing-out that being a better team (for however long - be it less than a game or the whole of a game) does not neccessarily require good fortune.

Right, but Im saying that being the better team for periods is unimportant and irrelevant if you lose the game.

Basically you are saying (with this example) you dont need luck to lose a game. We already know that

If the example you used was a Bangla win then it makes sense, but citing a loss makes the argument meh. Basically, if you win sessions and lose the game you are not the better team and have not been over the course of the game.

Winning a session and losing a game carries zero importance and should never be refered to as a plus, unless desperate for positive vibes. Otherwise it is unimportant.

 

[Richard]

The basic crux of the issue is that you need more than luck to win a ODI, or anything in any game of cricket, really, be it a session of a Test-match or a whole game.

 

[Goughy]

The basic crux of the issue is that you need more than luck to win a ODI, or anything in any game of cricket, really, be it a session of a Test-match or a whole game.

Im not going to go round in circles all night, but a session is irrelevant. Of course luck can play a part in 2 hrs. It can even itself out over 5 days though. Generally, in all types of cricket the better team wins. What happens in sessions and days of a test are all part of the ingredients that produce the meal.

Taking a session, a day or even 2 days out of the context of the game and the result is a futile, pointless and misleading exercise.

 

[Richard]

And I wasn't trying to do it - I was trying to point-out one thing, and one thing only - that winning something - anything - in cricket usually requires more than luck.

OK?

 

[Goughy]

And I wasn't trying to do it - I was trying to point-out one thing, and one thing only - that winning something - anything - in cricket usually requires more than luck.

OK?

No, because 'winning' a session or a day = winning nothing. It means nothing and carries no weight.

And so the circle is complete.

 

[DCC_legend]

Has to bePollock/Boucher/Gibbs

 

[Johnners]

The SA Trio imo. Pollock & Boucher have often saved SA with lower order stands in both Tests & ODIs. ATM Gibbs isn't batting near as well as he is capable of imo, but at his best, his batting & fielding are capable of turning the tide of a match. Also, whilst Pollock isn't the greatest Test form, he is still a quality bowler, and is still capable of producing critical spells of bowling.

 

[Fiery]

Have we decided who is best yet?

 

[adharcric]

Pollock > Oram. Boucher > McCullum. Gibbs > Vincent. How did this thread make it to page 3?

 

[Jono]

I'm still on page 1

40 posts a page

 

[Johnners]

40 posts a page > all others imo

 

[pasag]

15 per page ftw.

 

[adharcric]

Indeed.

 

[marc71178]

Have we decided who is best yet?

After the use of cloning it has been decided that it's Watson, Watson and Watson.

The middle Watson will keep.