The thing is, for all that New Zealand were actually granted their Test status retrospectively. Neither the 1932/33 series against England nor the 1946 one-off match against Australia were played under the guise of a Test match. It wasn't until 1948 that these matches were granted Test status and statistical records were adjusted accordingly. Indeed, NZ got away with draws in both of the matches against England purely because they weren't Tests - they were played as 3-day matches and the tourists ran out of time to wrap up the game on both occasions despite dominating. It seems therefore strange that they were then considered Test matches some 15 years later.
Thats not very likely to happen. For one, the FC sides would have very little incentive to tour Bangladesh, seeing as its not a Test nation, and the domestic sides there would hardly be any competition.
Of course there would be an incentive. FC players would certainly be willing to tour to gain international exposure and prove themselves to selectors. Bangladesh, while not a Test side, would still be known as someone who is approaching that status, doing well against them would definitely look good on FC player's resume.
Actually you're right Richard. Don't ever let stupidity be an excuse for not manipulating stats. The less you know about it the better.
Well, that I would disagree with. Stats, for me, enhance the appreciation of the game. But I never think about them while the game in going on, as I am absorbed in the action. They provide enjoyment, but only in between games when I have nothing better to do than to measure and compare.
Sigh.
AWTA
agreed...and a lot of meaningless matches will be eliminated...but it won't happen, the icc are too spineless...
Statistics are very important in cricket though, and do play a huge part.
Not when I watch cricket. it plays a part only on forums like this. I trust my eyes and history books more than the stats.
Agreed, and I think Swervy's comment in your sig sums it up brilliantly.
LOL you mean your history books filled with stats?
haha, this is like talking to one of the students in my English classes...what I'm saying and what you apparently think I'm saying are two different things.
I ****ing hear you!
If you'd have divided all that by the number of pubic hairs each batsman has and then multiplied it by seagulls I'd agree with you.