Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[silentstriker]

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.

But that's the thing though: I don't believe anyone can come up even a single arbitrary criteria that makes sense. Shouldn't that fact alone tell you something?

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.

No one is disputing that.

Given that Bangladesh are a test team, then Murali's figures HAVE to include the wickets he got vs B'desh.

I don't like the word legit, but it cheapens the whole sport if there is one team who you can consistently count on to pad your stats up, in both bowling and batting. Of course the stats will stay, but that doesn't mean we (as the cricket loving public) have to count them when we decide on the merits of a particular player. Nor should we.

 

[Richard]

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?

"Now" is a fairly ambiguous term.

It should be fairly obvious to most people, IMO, that Bangladesh have never and currently still don't deserve Test status.

 

[Richard]

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!!!

Well... nah, actually.

 

[Richard]

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.

If it was down to me said games would be stripped of said status, that's the point. Along with another fair revamp, in fact, but that'd probably the most notable part of all.

 

[Swervy]

"Now" is a fairly ambiguous term.

It should be fairly obvious to most people, IMO, that Bangladesh have never and currently still don't deserve Test status.

you have avoided answering the questions!

 

[Swervy]

If it was down to me said games would be stripped of said status, that's the point. Along with another fair revamp, in fact, but that'd probably the most notable part of all.

and so the question still has to be asked, given West Indies complete collapse in the test arena, how do you justify including them in any statistical reckoning?

What would B'desh need to do in order for you to start including them?

 

[Richard]

you have avoided answering the questions!

OK... the question...

Yes, since the First Test at Edgbaston in 2000, West Indies have been awful. Their away record barely even merits mention, their home record has got gradually worse. Last time they won more than 1 Test a series was 2002; last time they won a series was 2003; last time they won a real Test was 2005...

Nonetheless, it'd take an imbecile, frankly, to compare them to Bangladesh. As I've said a million times on this issue, it's not just about results, it's about any number of things - calibre of players playing for you for instance (to suggest a side with Brian Lara mostly in it is not Test standard is borderline ludicrous in itself, same as Zimbabwe were with Flower in there - those two, however, were not the only high-calibre players in their sides); actual competetiveness in the games another. Compare, if you will, West Indies in England in 2007 to Bangladesh in 2005. Yeah, sure, England had some better players then, but nonetheless, all the England bowlers bar Simon Jones bowled dreadfully that series. Yes, even Hoggard for the most part, who took wickets at 14 or something.

England flattened Bangladesh. Only once did a similar thing happen with West Indies. Though two of the victories were comfortable and the draw they were never in danger of defeat, nonetheless they were never walkovers. West Indies always gave the impression that they had the right to be playing the game (except at Headingley, where they were for the most part a total shambles). And the England example is merely the most obvious one: to take a more recent example. When West Indies last played Sri Lanka (without 10 or so top players missing because of the contracts row) they were whitewashed easily, but they weren't hammered by an innings with no semblence of a serious contest, not at all.

Now take the high-calibre players issue. In their entire history, Bangladesh have had perhaps 4 serious cricketers: Mohammad Rafique, Mashrafe bin Mortaza, Habibul Bashar and, in the last couple of years, Shahriar Nafees Ahmed. Plus quite a few very average ones and many, many utterly abysmal ones. Even the 4 serious cricketers they've had are, to date (Mortaza and Nafees still have plenty of career ahead of them), nothing remotely special. West Indies in the past 7 years have had Lara, Chanderpaul, Gayle, Sarwan, Wavell Hinds, Collymore, Collins. Heck, three fringe batsmen, Daren Ganga, Devon Smith and Ryan Hinds, are quite clearly far better batsmen than all but the very, very best Bangladeshis. Then who are Bangladesh's average seamers: Shahadat Hossain and I won't even go into anyone else because there hasn't even been any undue hype there. Who are West Indies'? Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson (to pick three examples). All of whom have had plenty of moments in Test cricket and are quite clearly genuine prospects, and indeed have been for years.

This is the difference between the worst-of-the-best and the best-of-the-rest.

 

[Richard]

What would B'desh need to do in order for you to start including them?

Start not being flattened in all bar a tiny handful of games, and get a few more than 1 or 2 players who could actually be taken seriously as Test cricketers.

 

[Swervy]

OK... the question...

Yes, since the First Test at Edgbaston in 2000, West Indies have been awful. Their away record barely even merits mention, their home record has got gradually worse. Last time they won more than 1 Test a series was 2002; last time they won a series was 2003; last time they won a real Test was 2005...

Nonetheless, it'd take an imbecile, frankly, to compare them to Bangladesh. As I've said a million times on this issue, it's not just about results, it's about any number of things - calibre of players playing for you for instance (to suggest a side with Brian Lara mostly in it is not Test standard is borderline ludicrous in itself, same as Zimbabwe were with Flower in there - those two, however, were not the only high-calibre players in their sides); actual competetiveness in the games another. Compare, if you will, West Indies in England in 2007 to Bangladesh in 2005. Yeah, sure, England had some better players then, but nonetheless, all the England bowlers bar Simon Jones bowled dreadfully that series. Yes, even Hoggard for the most part, who took wickets at 14 or something.

England flattened Bangladesh. Only once did a similar thing happen with West Indies. Though two of the victories were comfortable and the draw they were never in danger of defeat, nonetheless they were never walkovers. West Indies always gave the impression that they had the right to be playing the game (except at Headingley, where they were for the most part a total shambles). And the England example is merely the most obvious one: to take a more recent example. When West Indies last played Sri Lanka (without 10 or so top players missing because of the contracts row) they were whitewashed easily, but they weren't hammered by an innings with no semblence of a serious contest, not at all.

Now take the high-calibre players issue. In their entire history, Bangladesh have had perhaps 4 serious cricketers: Mohammad Rafique, Mashrafe bin Mortaza, Habibul Bashar and, in the last couple of years, Shahriar Nafees Ahmed. Plus quite a few very average ones and many, many utterly abysmal ones. Even the 4 serious cricketers they've had are, to date (Mortaza and Nafees still have plenty of career ahead of them), nothing remotely special. West Indies in the past 7 years have had Lara, Chanderpaul, Gayle, Sarwan, Wavell Hinds, Collymore, Collins. Heck, three fringe batsmen, Daren Ganga, Devon Smith and Ryan Hinds, are quite clearly far better batsmen than all but the very, very best Bangladeshis. Then who are Bangladesh's average seamers: Shahadat Hossain and I won't even go into anyone else because there hasn't even been any undue hype there. Who are West Indies'? Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson (to pick three examples). All of whom have had plenty of moments in Test cricket and are quite clearly genuine prospects, and indeed have been for years.

This is the difference between the worst-of-the-best and the best-of-the-rest.

but its all pretty hazy still isn't it. What it boils down to is opinion, and yeah, most people with any knowledge of the game will know WI>>B'desh. But if you havent got a real factual grasp on where 'the line' is, you can't really have the line there.

Now B'desh have shown that they can compete (although vs Sri Lanka, they were way way out of their depth, but then again, England were last time out there), but yeah, they arent yet at what we would traditionally call test standard, whatever that might be.

But the question still has to be asked, how much improvement does B'desh need to show, or for that matter, how much more of a decline does WIs need to show before you start including stats of one, or exclude the stats of another.

Do you start questioning the validity of an England team that is without Flintoff and Jones, or a team that isnt playing anyone with more than 20 tests experience? Or because you might not agree with a particular team selection and that team loses, do you exclude those stats.

I don't really have a problem with excluding some stats vs a country as long as its aknowledged that test figures are test figures, no matter who you play against. To say that Murali has 605 test wickets is just taking it to far, and just pisses on the acheivements of the fella.

 

[Swervy]

Start not being flattened in all bar a tiny handful of games, and get a few more than 1 or 2 players who could actually be taken seriously as Test cricketers.

So how does one measure 'getting flattened', and how does one measure 'being taken seriously'. Is the number of times that I view the WIs getting flattened the same as your view? What is getting flattened?

Its a bit wishywashy to me

 

[Richard]

but its all pretty hazy still isn't it. What it boils down to is opinion, and yeah, most people with any knowledge of the game will know WI>>B'desh. But if you havent got a real factual grasp on where 'the line' is, you can't really have the line there.

Now B'desh have shown that they can compete (although vs Sri Lanka, they were way way out of their depth, but then again, England were last time out there), but yeah, they arent yet at what we would traditionally call test standard, whatever that might be.

But the question still has to be asked, how much improvement does B'desh need to show, or for that matter, how much more of a decline does WIs need to show before you start including stats of one, or exclude the stats of another.

Do you start questioning the validity of an England team that is without Flintoff and Jones, or a team that isnt playing anyone with more than 20 tests experience? Or because you might not agree with a particular team selection and that team loses, do you exclude those stats.

I don't really have a problem with excluding some stats vs a country as long as its aknowledged that test figures are test figures, no matter who you play against. To say that Murali has 605 test wickets is just taking it to far, and just pisses on the acheivements of the fella.

No, it doesn't. Murali's a brilliant bowler regardless of Bangladesh. A decision, purely and simply, is made about whether a side is Test class. For a side to be demoted from Test-class to not-Test-class takes something pretty serious. Only ever once, in the case of Zimbabwe, has it ever happened, and it don't exactly take Einstein to realise that what's happened in Zimbabwe the last decade or so has indeed been pretty serious. The only other times a side has not been Test-class (NZ in the 1930s and 50s, Ban now) has been because of erroneous promotion. No Bangladesh game has EVER deserved Test status, because the side has NEVER been good enough to merit it. As I say, not many dispute that other than optimistic Bangladeshis and one or two other strange people.

Purely and simply, if you exclude a team because of not being Test standard, you exclude it from EVERYTHING. No picking and choosing. Bangladesh games aren't Tests; nor are Zimbabwe ones from 2003 onwards. Simple as. (This, obviously, is not a decision recognised by I$C$C, it's simply the definitions I make for myself)

 

[Richard]

So how does one measure 'getting flattened', and how does one measure 'being taken seriously'. Is the number of times that I view the WIs getting flattened the same as your view? What is getting flattened?

Its a bit wishywashy to me

You'd say, yes, that West Indies were flattened just once in the recently-completed series, yes?

You'd say, yes, that Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Chris Gayle, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Corey Collymore and one or two others are serious Test cricketers, yes?

 

[Swervy]

No, it doesn't. Murali's a brilliant bowler regardless of Bangladesh. A decision, purely and simply, is made about whether a side is Test class. For a side to be demoted from Test-class to not-Test-class takes something pretty serious. Only ever once, in the case of Zimbabwe, has it ever happened, and it don't exactly take Einstein to realise that what's happened in Zimbabwe the last decade or so has indeed been pretty serious. The only other times a side has not been Test-class (NZ in the 1930s and 50s, Ban now) has been because of erroneous promotion. No Bangladesh game has EVER deserved Test status, because the side has NEVER been good enough to merit it. As I say, not many dispute that other than optimistic Bangladeshis and one or two other strange people.

Purely and simply, if you exclude a team because of not being Test standard, you exclude it from EVERYTHING. No picking and choosing. Bangladesh games aren't Tests; nor are Zimbabwe ones from 2003 onwards. Simple as. (This, obviously, is not a decision recognised by I$C$C, it's simply the definitions I make for myself)

So when do B'desh attain the status in RichardWorld of being worthy of playing Tests? Is this something that will be measurable, or is it when it suits you? Do the rules changes as and when?

Can you actually answer the questions this time?

 

[Richard]

So when do B'desh attain the status in RichardWorld of being worthy of playing Tests? Is this something that will be measurable, or is it when it suits you? Do the rules changes as and when?

Can you actually answer the questions this time?

It's not something for which exact stats of any kind can be given, no. I said that, didn't I?

I presume they'll continue to be pitched into the World in which they do not belong and you never know, someday they might start doing reasonably. That day may, possibly, have arrived very recently in the other form of the game. We wait and see.

It's not possible to give exact statements of what that involves, though.

 

[Swervy]

You'd say, yes, that West Indies were flattened just once in the recently-completed series, yes?

You'd say, yes, that Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Chris Gayle, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Corey Collymore and one or two others are serious Test cricketers, yes?

answer the questions I asked first. I am trying to figure out how serious I can take you on this issue, or whether you are just making it up as you go along!

as the moment, I think you are making it up as you go along, but I want you to prove otherwise, so I am offering you questions for you to answer. But you won't answer then straight.

 

[Richard]

answer the questions I asked first. I am trying to figure out how serious I can take you on this issue, or whether you are just making it up as you go along!

as the moment, I think you are making it up as you go along, but I want you to prove otherwise, so I am offering you questions for you to answer. But you won't answer then straight.

I tried to answer them by giving examples.

 

[Swervy]

It's not something for which exact stats of any kind can be given, no. I said that, didn't I?

I presume they'll continue to be pitched into the World in which they do not belong and you never know, someday they might start doing reasonably. That day may, possibly, have arrived very recently in the other form of the game. We wait and see.

It's not possible to give exact statements of what that involves, though.

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.

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?

 

[Swervy]

I tried to answer them by giving examples.

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?

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?

 

[pasag]

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.

 

[sohummisra]

Another thing to consider is that Bangladesh would never have made such gigantic strides in ODI cricket if they hadn't been inducted into test cricket. Their induction into test cricket means that they regularly have to play cricket at the highest level which in turn spurs the cricketing interest in their country and etc.

I think we have a chance of having a competitive Bangladesh test cricket team in the next decade--something that would not have happened had they not been engaging in high quality cricket action. We've seen Kenya reach a decent stage and then fall away because of lack of a quality infrastructure. BD was given test status because there was a pure cricketing passion there and a decent infrastructure (which I presume was helped by ICC funding).

And I think Bangladesh are showing signs of improvement but it's not exactly their fault that all the other sides are improving as well. Sri Lanka are absolute tigers at home and only the best in the world really threaten them there. By contrast, one saw that Bangladesh did trouble the likes of India for fair periods of time when we visited, and one can classify India as one of the mid-range test teams in international cricket.

I conclude, hence, that test status has allowed Bangladesh to get exposure to quality opposition and improve. Sure, they still cannot challenge the top-tier of teams but that's because those teams aren't exactly sitting stagnant, are they? Whether Bangladesh is improving faster than the top teams, however, is a very dangerous question to attempt to answer confidently. And finally, if test status wasn't given to BD, all these matches would not have happened and they would have been at a significantly lower level than they are now. The ICC may have jumped the gun a bit, but I think the development of cricket in BD actually takes a far higher precedence than the calculation of statistics.

EDIT: Why is clas**** starred out?