***Official** West Indies in England***

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Don't see how it matters really. They're considered Test class sides by their status and as such runs scored/wickets taken against them should be viewed as such. Just as runs scored against Scotland in ODs adds to a batsman's average and may help in him being selected for ODIs so should the runs he scores against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in ODIs.

They shouldn't be deducted officially (though Zimbabwe is pushing it these days) but they must be seen in context. Sadly, Richard has ignored the context in attempts to belittle Chanderpaul.

 

[Perm]

Don't see how it matters really. They're considered Test class sides by their status and as such runs scored/wickets taken against them should be viewed as such. Just as runs scored against Scotland in ODs adds to a batsman's average and may help in him being selected for ODIs so should the runs he scores against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in ODIs.

But if a batsman scores a lot of runs against Scotland and struggles against other teams then it is unlikely he will be selected, even if he has a respectable average (due to minnow bashing).

 

[Richard]

...and he averages a run more than his career average. What's your point?

I can't believe you're trying to, in any way, discredit the career record of such a hardworking, fighting cricketer as Chanderpaul. Oh wait, I actually can believe it.

Oh, FFS, I've just this second been re-reading The Pitt Affair and we have another (fortunately not so serious ) case of the same here. Totally misconstrued what I was saying - and probably almost exclusively my fault that you were able to do so. No way on Earth am I trying to discredit Chanderpaul - deducting Bangladesh and some Zimbabwe from his record doesn't change in the slightest the fact that he's a fantastic batsman.

Just saying that matches against Bangladesh and, since May 2003, Zimbabwe, are not worthy of being Tests and so runs in them IMO don't count, so Chanderpaul is not on the verge of a milestone.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Oh, FFS, I've just this second been re-reading The Pitt Affair and we have another (fortunately not so serious ) case of the same here. Totally misconstrued what I was saying - and probably almost exclusively my fault that you were able to do so. No way on Earth am I trying to discredit Chanderpaul - deducting Bangladesh and some Zimbabwe from his record doesn't change in the slightest the fact that he's a fantastic batsman.

Just saying that matches against Bangladesh and, since May 2003, Zimbabwe, are not worthy of being Tests and so runs in them IMO don't count, so Chanderpaul is not on the verge of a milestone.

As long as they're Test sides, they're Test runs. If you're going to get that picky, you might as well deduct all the runs he's scored against non-Zimbabwean Zimbabwe-standard bowlers, because I assure you that he's faced his fair share of those too.

"All runs are not scored equal." <- It's in the Bible somewhere.

 

[Perm]

Just saying that matches against Bangladesh and, since May 2003, Zimbabwe, are not worthy of being Tests and so runs in them IMO don't count, so Chanderpaul is not on the verge of a milestone.

But he is, because the ICC still classes those games as Tests

 

[Richard]

Don't see how it matters really. They're considered Test class sides by their status and as such runs scored/wickets taken against them should be viewed as such. Just as runs scored against Scotland in ODs adds to a batsman's average and may help in him being selected for ODIs so should the runs he scores against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in ODIs.

No, they shouldn't, because not many serious cricket followers actually consider them to have been Test-class when the games were played. When real Test achievements are assessed, those games must be deducted.

I cannot believe this has happened again!

 

[Richard]

As long as they're Test sides, they're Test runs. If you're going to get that picky, you might as well deduct all the runs he's scored against non-Zimbabwean Zimbabwe-standard bowlers, because I assure you that he's faced his fair share of those too.

"All runs are not scored equal." <- It's in the Bible somewhere.

Doesn't work like that. You decide whether a team is Test-standard - if they're not, their matches don't count.

And you can't pick-and-choose - you pick who's Test class and until someone demonstrates they are they don't get classed as such.

By me. I$C$C have nothing to do with it, they can class Finland vs Iceland a Test if they want - I won't.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Doesn't work like that. You decide whether a team is Test-standard - if they're not, their matches don't count.

And you can't pick-and-choose - you pick who's Test class and until someone demonstrates they are they don't get classed as such.

By me. I$C$C have nothing to do with it, they can class Finland vs Iceland a Test if they want - I won't.

Ok, so let's do it then. Let's put some proper sweat into this and eliminate all the crap bowlers Chanderpaul has scored runs against. It's really the only fair thing to do here.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not. Sometimes in Test cricket you get crap bowlers. The only thing to do is define which team plays a Test. Bangladesh have never been worthy of that (though they may become so sometime soon). Zimbabwe haven't been since May 2003. Therefore, in my book, matches involving them are not Tests.

Look - Liam - forget it, my friend. This is utterly pointless, as with The Pitt Affair I REALLY wish I hadn't said anything now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Look - Liam - forget it, my friend. This is utterly pointless, as with The Pitt Affair I REALLY wish I hadn't said anything now.

I agree it's pointless. That's what I was trying to prove.

There will always be rubbish bowlers in world cricket. Zimbabwe or not. Bangladesh or not. And batsmen still have to score runs against them. Deal with it.

 

[Richard]

But there will also always have to be a definition between Test and not Test.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

But there will also always have to be a definition between Test and not Test.

He wasn't arguing that, he was arguing that as long as they're test sides, they're test runs.

 

[Richard]

And I'm arguing that they're not Test sides.

 

[roseboy64]

This is probably just going to go round in circles TBH with Richard repeating what he's said before.

 

[Prince EWS]

And I'm arguing that they're not Test sides.

Whether or not they are test standard, they are still test sides. You can argue whether they should be, however you cannot argue whether they are.

You've really taken this to the extreme just to prove a point IMO. I'm all for taking the likes of Bangladesh out of stats when we're discussing if player X is better than player Y - but only because they distort the comparison. Milestones though... seriously - test runs are test runs and test wickets are test wickets, whether each individual game should be or not. If we're talking about how good a player he is in comparison to other test batsmen, certain series should indeed be excluded, but when we're discussing how many runs he has scored and when he crosses his milestones, I think you're stretching it a bit for no real reason other than to participate in the same argument again.

 

[Burgey]

Ok, so let's do it then. Let's put some proper sweat into this and eliminate all the crap bowlers Chanderpaul has scored runs against. It's really the only fair thing to do here.

Then eliminate Plunkett and Harmison......

 

[Richard]

Whether or not they are test standard, they are still test sides. You can argue whether they should be, however you cannot argue whether they are.

They're not when I'm the person doing the consideration. Anyone can tell they're not Test standard.

You've really taken this to the extreme just to prove a point IMO. I'm all for taking the likes of Bangladesh out of stats when we're discussing if player X is better than player Y - but only because they distort the comparison. Milestones though... seriously - test runs are test runs and test wickets are test wickets, whether each individual game should be or not. If we're talking about how good a player he is in comparison to other test batsmen, certain series should indeed be excluded, but when we're discussing how many runs he has scored and when he crosses his milestones, I think you're stretching it a bit for no real reason other than to participate in the same argument again.

I'm saying it for no reason other than that you've got to be consistent. If it were down to me I'd strip every game involving Bangladesh and, since May 2003, Zimbabwe, of Test status. Therefore, runs would not count to Test tallies.

But yes, I was saying something that didn't need to be said, really, and as with The Pitt Affair, I really, really have ended-up thinking "why... why... did I say that?"

 

[Laurrz]

im dissappointed that Collymore is dropped for the ODIs

i know he is a much better test bowler but still..

 

[Perm]

They're not when I'm the person doing the consideration. Anyone can tell they're not Test standard.

It isn't up to you though, the ICC have classed Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as Test sides, regardless of whether they are Test standard or not, they are still Test sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

It isn't up to you though, the ICC have classed Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as Test sides, regardless of whether they are Test standard or not, they are still Test sides.

Exactly. You can have your opinions on it, but at the end of the day, you have to recognise what the actual classifications are. By all means, remove dire teams from stats when comparing players, but as far as milestones and the like go - if we all just went by our own personal opinions on it, there'd be no consistency and we'd never truly know when a player did cross a milestone. Richard is not intrinsically right on which teams are test standard, even though I generally agree with him on the matter.