Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Richard]

lol. But I still blame Richard. That way, I feel like a part of the CW family.

 

[Beleg]

tests against bangladesh are every bit as valid as against australia

 

[Beleg]

oh and AFAIC murali's the greatest cricketer evah

 

[Richard]

tests against bangladesh are every bit as valid as against australia

As what? Cricket matches? Yes.

As the pinnacle of the game, known best as "Tests"? No, IMO.

 

[Swervy]

As what? Cricket matches? Yes.

As the pinnacle of the game, known best as "Tests"? No, IMO.

Who has ever defined the test match as being the pinnacle though?

If that was the case, we would have never had any test matches, because only one team can be the best, and therefore, the best team could only play an inferior team etc etc

 

[Richard]

Who has ever defined the test match as being the pinnacle though?

If that was the case, we would have never had any test matches, because only one team can be the best, and therefore, the best team could only play an inferior team etc etc

It's just generally accepted practice, that there's a line which has to be crossed to be a Test, with no specification on numbers of teams that can be across. Otherwise, as in football, where Andorra vs The Cook Islands is the same as Spain vs Argentina, we'd have a situation where a 5-day, 2-innings game between anyone defined as a ICC member (even Affiliates) would be a Test.

Would you want that? I certainly wouldn't, and I doubt many others would either. Elitism is much treasured in cricket the way it isn't in other sports.

 

[Dissector]

Interestingly enough before the BD series Murali took an amazing 60 wickets in 6 tests against England, SA and NZ; four of those tests were away. In terms of wickets per test this is higher than the 26 he took against BD in 3 tests.

 

[Beleg]

As the pinnacle of the game, known best as "Tests"? No, IMO.

there's no pinnacle of this or that - all of this is just grandiose buruhaha

bangladesh is a competent enough, professional team - wickets against them, or runs against them, statisically speaking, should have equal merit. now, the circumstances in which the runs were scored is a totally different thing (are ashraful/rajin saleh worse batsman than the australian lower half? is brett lee as dangerous as rafique on a turner?) and there are so many variable involved in it that at the end the best thing possible is to just look at the mean of the whole, rather than cherrypicking stats to suit one's inclination

 

[Richard]

there's no pinnacle of this or that - all of this is just grandiose buruhaha

It's elitist (rather than grandiose), yes, but it's the way things have always been.

bangladesh is a competent enough, professional team - wickets against them, or runs against them, statisically speaking, should have equal merit. now, the circumstances in which the runs were scored is a totally different thing (are ashraful/rajin saleh worse batsman than the australian lower half? is brett lee as dangerous as rafique on a turner?) and there are so many variable involved in it that at the end the best thing possible is to just look at the mean of the whole, rather than cherrypicking stats to suit one's inclination

Stats, by nature, are cherrypicked, though. If you want to include Bangladesh, do you also include Hailybridge and Jagmohan Dalmiya's Parish XI?

There has always been somewhere the line's drawn.

 

[Beleg]

no richard, stats can be complete. cherrypicking is usually done when one is trying to prove a point.

and of course a line needs to be drawn. it seems like it is drawn by seperating teams in test/non-test, odi/non-odi.

and bd have test status

 

[silentstriker]

But Test cricket implies a certain level of competition. Bangladesh have never achieved that level, so even though the games are officially Tests, they certainly do not test the players ability like games against other nations would.

 

[Swervy]

But Test cricket implies a certain level of competition. Bangladesh have never achieved that level, so even though the games are officially Tests, they certainly do not test the players ability like games against other nations would.

so where does one draw the line? How does one determine whether a particular team is worthy. Are the West Indies worthy enough? Or what if a team is so injury ridden that they have to field a badly weakened team (a la WI when Sarwan and Chanderpaul were injured)

 

[Richard]

It's a totally different matter if a team's weakened for a game or two, or even 3 or 5 years. If a team has never been competetive bar the odd session and occasionally the odd game (a la Bangladesh) they don't deserve it, and if they're a hopeless case like Zimbabwe have been (in every way) since 2003, they don't deserve it.

It's very obvious that West Indies deserve the status.

 

[Richard]

no richard, stats can be complete.

How? By including every single game of cricket someone's ever played? Do you then include those where there was no scorers and Umpires? Those where there were 18 players a side?

It's a no-chance. Stats are always selective. It's a case of being sensible about what you select.

 

[silentstriker]

so where does one draw the line? How does one determine whether a particular team is worthy. Are the West Indies worthy enough? Or what if a team is so injury ridden that they have to field a badly weakened team (a la WI when Sarwan and Chanderpaul were injured)

This isn't a game taken in isolation, and the line can be blurred sometimes but whatever arbitrary line you wish to draw about certain level of competition, Bangladesh are well below it.

Hell, how many non-rain affected Tests have they managed to take it to the 5th day? How many times have they been able to bat for the better part of two days? How many times have they dismissed a side cheaply? All those, by themselves are arbitrary but taken together they point to just crap cricket being played.

West Indies are bad, but even they manage to draw games at home, and even win from time to time.

 

[Swervy]

It's a totally different matter if a team's weakened for a game or two, or even 3 or 5 years. If a team has never been competetive bar the odd session and occasionally the odd game (a la Bangladesh) they don't deserve it, and if they're a hopeless case like Zimbabwe have been (in every way) since 2003, they don't deserve it.

It's very obvious that West Indies deserve the status.

Just bear in mind I am playing Devils Advocate here (of course I think WI should be a test staus team!!!).

Why should history play a part in whether a team NOW should deserve Test status. If Murali plays a weakened WI team for example, and takes a shed load of wickets at 8 per wicket, is that ok to include in your stats Richard? If yes, is that because pre-2000 they were a decent outfit. In the last 39 tests WI , they have won 2 tests and one of those was vs B'desh (they other test vs B'desh they played, B'desh were on top, so things pretty even there).

So why is it 'obvious' West Indies should be allowed that status, and therefore included in your Murali stats, but not B'desh?

 

[Swervy]

This isn't a game taken in isolation, and the line can be blurred sometimes but whatever arbitrary line you wish to draw about certain level of competition, Bangladesh are well below it.

Hell, how many non-rain affected Tests have they managed to take it to the 5th day? How many times have they been able to bat for the better part of two days? How many times have they dismissed a side cheaply? All those, by themselves are arbitrary but taken together they point to just crap cricket being played.

West Indies are bad, but even they manage to draw games at home, and even win from time to time.

I would like to point out that Bangldesh actually pushed Australia pretty close not too long ago in a test, something the West Indies have not done for a long while (especially if you take away a bit of Lara magic in the last series Aus and WI played)

So what if the arbitrary line is drwan in that way...how well you play against the best in the world. B'desh deserve test status over WI in that case!

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Well, that's what I'd clock it as, anyway - I have a different definition of Test to some.

Sadly, I$C$C recognise that nonsense of a Aus-vs-WorldXI game as a Test, plus Bangladesh, plus that abomination of a team put out by Zimbabwe in 2004. So, in their books, he now has 700.

Let the tributes begin.

OK, so by your thinking, we should also disqualify the records of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath etc because they are obscured by not playing against Australia? I mean, if Warne and McGrath had to play against the Australian batting line-up there averages would be in the 30s!!!

 

[silentstriker]

I would like to point out that Bangldesh actually pushed Australia pretty close not too long ago in a test, something the West Indies have not done for a long while (especially if you take away a bit of Lara magic in the last series Aus and WI played)

So what if the arbitrary line is drwan in that way...how well you play against the best in the world. B'desh deserve test status over WI in that case!

No, they don't. They pushed Australia in one Test, the rest of the time, they didn't even get close.

Here are the results of the last two series vs. Australia (they've only played Australia four times):

lost inn & 132r
lost inn & 98r
lost 3 wickets
lost inn & 80r

Last two series for West Indies:
won 3 wickets
lost 379 runs
lost 9 wickets
lost 7 wickets


West Indies clearly do better than Bangladesh, even then. By any reasonable (if arbitrary) criteria, Bangladesh fall well short of anyone and everyone else.

 

[Swervy]

No, they don't. They pushed Australia in one Test, the rest of the time, they didn't even get close.

Here are the results of the last two series vs. Australia (they've only played Australia four times):

lost inn & 132r
lost inn & 98r
lost 3 wickets
lost inn & 80r

Last two series for West Indies:
won 3 wickets
lost 379 runs
lost 9 wickets
lost 7 wickets


West Indies clearly do better than Bangladesh, even then. By any reasonable (if arbitrary) criteria, Bangladesh fall well short of anyone and everyone else.

I don't really want to get into the detail because its irrelevent to be honest, but it was you who said it was arbitrary, I am drawing the line in a different place than you are. If there are no rules on what the rules are, then who is to say who is right or wrong.

Now given that, the only way we can judge is by going with the official ruling on the matter, and that is, whether you like it or not, Bangladesh are a test playing team, in the same way are the West Indies are.

Given that Bangladesh are a test team, then Murali's figures HAVE to include the wickets he got vs B'desh. Its pointless Richard saying Murali have got to 605 legit test wickets, because he has got to 700, that is the fact of the matter. Opinion doesn't actually come into play. Bangladesh are a test playing team.