Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Son Of Coco]

re; B'desh, its not the truth as in absolute fact, its your opinion

 

[Sanz]

What's up SoC, Drank too much of Coke and trying to pass some air out ?

 

[Son Of Coco]

What's up SoC, Drank too much of Coke and trying to pass some air out ?

I don't drink Coke...and I have a much more entertaining way of getting rid of air

 

[Sanz]

I don't drink Coke...

Signed a Contract with Pepsi ?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Signed a Contract with Pepsi ?

No, with TAB. I'm going retro.

 

[Richard]

...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.

It was meant as a light joke, TBH. I wasn't attempting to make any point about Bangladesh's status here - as you once said, most people are pretty well aware of my feelings on that. As I say, for me Murali is a fantastic bowler, and if anything saying this only emphasises that he's brilliant Bangladesh or no Bangladesh.

 

[Sanz]

Once again..Richards post was in Jest..He just forgot to mention it. Its our fault that we cant understands his jest posts.

Just to be clear - Do you accept that Murali's total test wickets are 700 and not 605 ?

 

[Richard]

I've said my stance, purely and simply: in the tally as recognised by I$C$C - who are, according to most, qualified to make the decision - he has 700. However, I don't have to accept their classifications and am free to count whatever matches I feel worthy of Test status as worthy.

 

[Swervy]

I've said my stance, purely and simply: in the tally as recognised by I$C$C - who are, according to most, qualified to make the decision - he has 700. However, I don't have to accept their classifications and am free to count whatever matches I feel worthy of Test status as worthy.

answer his question!!!

Does Murali have 700 test wickets?

 

[Richard]

I've just said my answer to that. Re-read it and you might just spot it.

 

[Swervy]

I've just said my answer to that. Re-read it and you might just spot it.

so 700 test wickets it is!!! Took your time

 

[Richard]

In I$C$C terms, yes. Something I've never said anything otherwise to.

 

[Swervy]

In I$C$C terms, yes. Something I've never said anything otherwise to.

So 700 test wickets, no need to define test wickets in any other way. 700 wickets.


Now if you had said that in the first place, just imagine how easy it would have been

 

[Richard]

no need to define test wickets in any other way

AFAIC there is.

 

[Swervy]

AFAIC there is.

700 test wickets....wickets taken in matches defined by the ICC as tests. You dont choose what a test is, the ICC do, so by that definition Murali has 700 wickets..simple as.

End of story really

 

[Richard]

You dont choose what a test is, the ICC do, so by that definition Murali has 700 wickets..simple as.

I don't really care, TBH, I can choose what I want to look at, and others can choose what they.

If it were down to me, Bangladesh games (and several other less obvious examples) would be stripped of Test status. And I don't base anything I speak of on I$C$C definitions which I disagree with - I base them on what I think make sense.

 

[Swervy]

I don't really care, TBH, I can choose what I want to look at, and others can choose what they.

If it were down to me, Bangladesh games (and several other less obvious examples) would be stripped of Test status. And I don't base anything I speak of on I$C$C definitions which I disagree with - I base them on what I think make sense.

so 700 test wickets?

 

[Sanz]

700 test wickets....wickets taken in matches defined by the ICC as tests. You dont choose what a test is, the ICC do, so by that definition Murali has 700 wickets..simple as.

End of story really

Post #136=Post #1.

Just wanted to remind you where it all started and that what a waste of time and bandwidth this thread is.

 

[Richard]

Only because people are making something out of nothing. Hopefully, however, this is the last we'll hear of it - people now realise that as far as I'm concerned, nothing involving a substandard side, to me, merits Test status and I consider these games non-Test for all, not selective, purposes.

 

[Perm]

Only because people are making something out of nothing. Hopefully, however, this is the last we'll hear of it - people now realise that as far as I'm concerned, nothing involving a substandard side, to me, merits Test status and I consider these games non-Test for all, not selective, purposes.

Are you that ignorant? They are classed as Test matches by the ICC, therefore they have Test status, I can understand removing stats because of the substandard nature of some sides, but to say that these games aren't Test matches is folly.