Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Swervy]

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

Here is a FACT for you Richard: Bangladesh are a test team.

Here is another FACT: Murali has 700 test wickets, not 605.

 

[Sanz]

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

What a compelling argument.

 

[Richard]

Here is a FACT for you Richard: Bangladesh are a test team.

Here is another FACT: Murali has 700 test wickets, not 605.

Facts only according to I$C$C official bull****.

Let's not get into this "fact" again shall we? If it's not fact that the sky's blue, it's certainly not fact that Bangladesh are a Test team.

 

[Sanz]

700.

 

[Swervy]

Facts only according to I$C$C official bull****.

Let's not get into this "fact" again shall we? If it's not fact that the sky's blue, it's certainly not fact that Bangladesh are a Test team.

hahaha..this is incredible

No Richard it is absolute FACT that Bangladesh are a test team. They play Test matches against other test playing nations around the world. Whatever blinkered BS you come out with cannot get away from that fact.

 

[Neil Pickup]

 

[silentstriker]

Richard, there seems to be a problem in communication.

It is an indisputable fact that Bangladesh are a Test team. They are a Test team because the organization that decide these things have deemed it so.

It is arguable whether Bangladesh play cricket that is inferior to what widely considered as Test Standard. I do not believe they are Test standard, thus I discount wickets/runs against them. It is not up for dispute that Murali has 700 Test wickets. What is up for dispute is whether all of those wickets should be counted when we compare players or look at performances. Big difference.

 

[Richard]

hahaha..this is incredible

No Richard it is absolute FACT that Bangladesh are a test team. They play Test matches against other test playing nations around the world. Whatever blinkered BS you come out with cannot get away from that fact.

I can, and I do.

Anyway, this is ridiculous beyond belief, so this is my last word on the matter. I shall consider what I wish to worthy of Test-match status. And each and every person is free to do the same.

 

[Sanz]

This is what I was talking about. It was obvious from the first post itself that this thread wasn't going to be a congratulatory thread.

If you are going to start a tribute thread, do that with all sincereity. This thread has become a joke and instead of congratulating Murali we are discussing whether or not Bangladesh are a cricket nation. It's not Murali's fault that Bangladesh were given test status too soon. He can only play and it's not his fault that he is so successful against them.

 

[Richard]

I broke my rule, but then, so what?

Richard, there seems to be a problem in communication.

It is an indisputable fact that Bangladesh are a Test team. They are a Test team because the organization that decide these things have deemed it so.

It is arguable whether Bangladesh play cricket that is inferior to what widely considered as Test Standard. I do not believe they are Test standard, thus I discount wickets/runs against them. It is not up for dispute that Murali has 700 Test wickets. What is up for dispute is whether all of those wickets should be counted when we compare players or look at performances. Big difference.

Correct. If, however, I had my way, Bangladesh games would be stripped of Test status. Therefore, when I am considering Test achievements of any sort, I discount everything of those games.

 

[Richard]

This is what I was talking about. It was obvious from the first post itself that this thread wasn't going to be a congratulatory thread.

If you are going to start a tribute thread, do that with all sincereity. This thread has become a joke and instead of congratulating Murali we are discussing whether or not Bangladesh are a cricket nation. It's not Murali's fault that Bangladesh were given test status too soon. He can only play and it's not his fault that he is so successful against them.

No. And as I've said multiple times, Bangladesh really don't matter in the slightest to Murali, he's a magnificent bowler whether he'd never bowled a single ball at them.

 

[Swervy]

I broke my rule, but then, so what?

Correct. If, however, I had my way, Bangladesh games would be stripped of Test status. Therefore, when I am considering Test achievements of any sort, I discount everything of those games.

so you won't be starting a congratulatory thread when Murali actually does pass Warne for test wickets?

 

[Richard]

I don't really care about that, TBH, that record's changed hands loads of times already.

As I've said - Warne-vs-Murali doesn't interest me, in any way shape or form.

 

[Swervy]

I don't really care about that, TBH, that record's changed hands loads of times already.

As I've said - Warne-vs-Murali doesn't interest me, in any way shape or form.

well its not changed hands that many times.

And it isnt about Warne vs Murali, its just about Murali acheiving something which is undeniably great

 

[Richard]

For me, they've both achieved something undeniably great, and I don't really care who has more wickets.

 

[Swervy]

For me, they've both achieved something undeniably great, and I don't really care who has more wickets.

but its still an acheivement worthy of comment surely

 

[Dasa]

No. And as I've said multiple times, Bangladesh really don't matter in the slightest to Murali, he's a magnificent bowler whether he'd never bowled a single ball at them.

...but you brought your personal prejudice (about their status as a Test team) into a tribute thread which isn't on imo. Just about everyone on this forum other than yourself will accept that Murali has 700 Test wickets, I don't think a tribute thread is the place for you to argue that. I'd prefer if a new thread was opened to congratulate Murali, it's upto you if you want to do that or you'd like someone else to.

 

[1-9-7-7]

Murali kicks ass.

 

[sohummisra]

Murali kicks ass.

That was very concise.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.