Why....

[Richard]

Ah, but one is awful in your opinion, and one is great in your opinion.

You come up with a good idea but implement it poorly. It's ok, not a lot of people are going to be bothered to tweak the stats and still have them remain significant unless they're getting paid for it.

It's really not a remotely difficult thing to do; heck, there should be an online engine that does it. If I get my way, Stats Spider will do eventually.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's really not a remotely difficult thing to do; heck, there should be an online engine that does it. If I get my way, Stats Spider will do eventually.

You don't do it though. There is a stats program called 'SPSS', but you still have to organise the data etc. It would be nice if there was something that did everything for you.

 

[Richard]

Working-out whether or not a team is Test-class isn't really that difficult.

 

[NUFAN]

Working-out whether or not a team is Test-class isn't really that difficult.

So what happens if a team that isn't Test Class starts winning without really changing there players?

Do you just suddenly say scores against Bangladesh before Oct 25 2007 do not count, but because Syed Rasel has starting take match figures of 13/146 and Mohammed Ashraful is averaging 60 with the bat they are now suddently test class so stats against them can now be included..

 

[Perm]

So what happens if a team that isn't Test Class starts winning without really changing there players?

Do you just suddenly say scores against Bangladesh before Oct 25 2007 do not count, but because Syed Rasel has starting take match figures of 13/146 and Mohammed Ashraful is averaging 60 with the bat they are now suddently test class so stats against them can now be included..

Well, a similar situation happened with Zimbabwe but unfortunately it was due to a change in personnel. Up until 2002 or 2003 Zimbabwe were considered Test and ODI class, but then due to political reasons a lot of their players became unavailable for selection and they lost that ranking in people's minds.

Bad players and bad teams can play well on occasion, it's bound to happen if they get enough chances.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Working-out whether or not a team is Test-class isn't really that difficult.

......and we go back to the beginning.

 

[Richard]

So what happens if a team that isn't Test Class starts winning without really changing there players?

Do you just suddenly say scores against Bangladesh before Oct 25 2007 do not count, but because Syed Rasel has starting take match figures of 13/146 and Mohammed Ashraful is averaging 60 with the bat they are now suddently test class so stats against them can now be included..

At any time such things (though it'd have to be more than 2 players) happen, we can indeed recognise as such.

However, what's best is if you don't give a team Test-status until such a time.

 

[Richard]

......and we go back to the beginning.

It's not the beginning, it's the only thing that matters. If a team is Test-class, worthy of Test-status, then their matches should be considered Tests. If not, they shouldn't, and it wouldn't matter if I$C$C suddenly decided to grant Test-status to Exeter Second XI, or even Exeter Sunday XI, you'd have to lack sense to count these games as worthy Tests.

You can't say Bangladesh vs Australia is worthy of Test-status just because it's got it, and therefore that game has to be considered of more worth than Victoria vs Essex.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's not the beginning, it's the only thing that matters. If a team is Test-class, worthy of Test-status, then their matches should be considered Tests. If not, they shouldn't, and it wouldn't matter if I$C$C suddenly decided to grant Test-status to Exeter Second XI, or even Exeter Sunday XI, you'd have to lack sense to count these games as worthy Tests.

You can't say Bangladesh vs Australia is worthy of Test-status just because it's got it, and therefore that game has to be considered of more worth than Victoria vs Essex.

It's the beginning of the argument Richard, which renders everything said before it a complete waste of time. But that's ok, you can continue to go off half-****ed.

 

[Richard]

Or better cooked than those who claim Bangladesh vs Pakistan is the equal of Sri Lanka vs New Zealand.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Or better cooked than those who claim Bangladesh vs Pakistan is the equal of Sri Lanka vs New Zealand.

Yes mate, and you're the stats genius that can make what you think meaningful...I know, I know, you don't have to be. You just remove things and hope for the best, and it's always the best because you did it.

It's half-****ed, not cooked, by the way. But maybe cooked is more appropriate

 

[Richard]

Yes mate, and you're the stats genius that can make what you think meaningful...I know, I know, you don't have to be. You just remove things and hope for the best, and it's always the best because you did it.

I don't hope for the best - I know beyond a doubt that Test stats are better with Bangladesh games not included than with them included, as I know that they are better without Exeter Second XI games included than they would be with them included.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't hope for the best - I know beyond a doubt that Test stats are better with Bangladesh games not included than with them included, as I know that they are better without Exeter Second XI games included than they would be with them included.

My point exactly...

 

[Dan]

If you disregard scores for "Test class" players (1-8 in world rankings) against "Minnows", shouldnt it work in reverse as well, only count scores for "Minnows" against other "Minnows"?

ie. only count Bangladeshi scores vs Zimbabwe or Ireland.etc because they are of the same standard?

 

[Richard]

Absolutely.

Less people are bothered about such games than about Tests, though, so naturally the matter will generate less discussion.

 

[Perm]

So you would discount Shahriar Nafees' Test century against Australia but include his ODI feats against Zimbabwe?

Poor way to judge the players from minnow teams IMO.

 

[Richard]

If one was to make-up sets of stats, the games against Australia would have to be placed differently to those against Zimbabwe.

Obviously, assessing players from non-Test-standard teams isn't as simple as black-and-white. Like in many cases, certain First-Class (or even non-First-Class) games are worth more than others.

 

[shortpitched713]

At any time such things (though it'd have to be more than 2 players) happen, we can indeed recognise as such.

However, what's best is if you don't give a team Test-status until such a time.

How the hell does such a situation occur if a team isn't playing Test matches. Most of us don't seem to place much stock in Intercontinental Cup performances, so I daresay we'd never know when the time is right to give a team Test status according to your criteria.

In any case, even if it was obvious that a team was a class above the rest from their Intercontinental Cup performances, they would still probably struggle for years after being given Test status simply due to the gulf in the overall standard of competition between Test and Associate level. A team like Bangladesh right now would probably rape everyone in the Intercontinental Cup, but you wouldn't give them a chance at Test level.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't give them Test-status, but
1) there's no reason they can't play the Test teams (though that's clearly been doing them no good the last 7 years as they weren't close to Test-class then and they're not close to Test-class now)
2) Test and Intercontinental Cup aren't the only cricket competitions that exist.

 

[shortpitched713]

I wouldn't give them Test-status, but
1) there's no reason they can't play the Test teams (though that's clearly been doing them no good the last 7 years as they weren't close to Test-class then and they're not close to Test-class now)
2) Test and Intercontinental Cup aren't the only cricket competitions that exist.

Then pray tell, which cricket competitions would you use to make the definitive assessment that a team has made that magical transformation from not "Test class" to "Test class"?