***Official*** Sri Lanka in Australia

[chaminda_00]

I can see Silva having more chance of changing the course of match then Atapattu or Jaysuriya. Really he is our 3rd best batsmen in Test these days.

 

[JASON]

In my profound ignorance, I noted Maharoof's pretty poor Test performances and hence concluded he is as worthy as gifting the Aussies a Team of only 10 players against them.

If any one wants to show justifiable reason to counter my ignorance with something concrete ie Stats , success against Australia etc... I will be interested not just Rhetorical rubbish about extra batsman is no use when 6 others have failed etc..

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, definitely wouldn't be batting Maharoof at 7. I actually this his bowling could surprise a couple of people in Australian conditions but he's not a #7's backside and Sri Lanka's main problems exist with the batting. Someone like Samaraweera or Jayasuriya could act as the fifth bowler quite easily really; I'd rather have that situation than Maharoof at 7 amidst an unsettled and potentially disastrous Sri Lankan batting lineup.

If I had to play Maharoof, I'd play instead of Fernando, and the way Fernando has been bowling lately, that'd be lunacy as well, so I really can't find a spot for him at all.

 

[NUFAN]

Samaraweera - what a dire player..

Fernando does OK but hasn't got a chance against Australia's powerful batsmen. I also think Maharoof should play.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, definitely wouldn't be batting Maharoof at 7. I actually this his bowling could surprise a couple of people in Australian conditions but he's not a #7's backside and Sri Lanka's main problems exist with the batting. Someone like Samaraweera or Jayasuriya could act as the fifth bowler quite easily really; I'd rather have that situation than Maharoof at 7 amidst an unsettled and potentially disastrous Sri Lankan batting lineup.

If I had to play Maharoof, I'd play instead of Fernando, and the way Fernando has been bowling lately, that'd be lunacy as well, so I really can't find a spot for him at all.

Agree with all of that, Fernando deserves the spot more and it's the only feasible one Maharoof could be given.

 

[Prince EWS]

Samaraweera - what a dire player..

Errr... on what basis? Tremendously under-rated batsman IMO.

 

[Richard]

Samaraweera - what a dire player..

On the basis of being unobtrusive?

 

[Richard]

Haha. Gotta love Johnson and Tait not being "decent". I suppose Johnson bowls above 130 kph, so you'll think he's overrated by default unless he takes 300 test wickets @ 20. Well, even then it'll probably be luck.

Are you unhappy if a day in your life goes by without laying some form of attack on some form of perceived (and pretty well invariably totally incorrectly so) stereotype on my part? There's at least three in that two-line post.

Johnson and Tait to date have had careers of no notable length at either Test or ODI level. I've barely even commented on their prowess at the domestic level. Where did you concoct that one then? Same stupid sort of chain you concocted the notion that I rate Craig White > McGrath?

 

[Richard]

Clark is better than Vaas atm and the second best bowler between the two sides, imo.

TBH I think the better way of putting it would be that Clark appears to be more reliable than Vaas. Vaas when "on" (which there's about a 50\50 chance of) is every bit as good as Clark - but Clark has rarely been "off" in his Test-career to date. And Vaas when "off" simply offers no threat whatsoever.

 

[Johnners]

I'm obviously talking proper Tests, so he's only really got 154 in those terms. At more than 30 each.

I also think he'd have been out much quicker had Warne not been around, because he'd have had the chance to get belted more often than he did. Not that any other spinner would likely have done any better, but plenty would probably have been tried. I reckon MacGill's average would be late-30s or so had Warne not been around.

Nah, you aren't obviously talking in proper tests because in proper tests he has taken more than 154 wickets. Need to learn how to read, or find some updated material imo.

 

[Richard]

In proper Tests - ie, against teams most sensible people recognise as Test-class sides - he's taken 154 wickets.

Only someone trying desperately to make a player seem better than he was could find an excuse to include Bangladesh and "World XIs" in the scheme of things.

 

[Johnners]

In proper Tests - ie, against teams most sensible people recognise as Test-class sides - he's taken 154 wickets.

Only someone trying desperately to make a player seem better than he was could find an excuse to include Bangladesh and "World XIs" in the scheme of things.

Nah, you're wrong buddy, he's taken 198 wickets. Linky

 

[Richard]

In I$C$C-official-bull**** terms he has, of course.

This isn't how I form judgement of a player, however. I judge on games deserving of Test-status, not just those given it by I$C$C.

 

[Johnners]

Well, on that note, you'd better take McGrath's 6-fer that he took at the Gabba in the first test of the Ashes last november, because really, that game was not a contest at all, and undeserving of test status.

ICC Official BS > Richard Unofficial, weightless, pointless BS

 

[Richard]

The game is not the matter of relevance - it's the team.

Bangladesh are not worthy of Test-status; nor are Rest-Of XIs.

I$C$C bull**** < pretty much anything TBH.

 

[Athlai]

The quality of the batsman should determine the value of the wicket, if it's above 20 its fair game, and as Bangers and Zim have several players averaging above 20 then obviously they can hit a ball. Remove all tail end (5 down for Bang Zim Eng) wickets from your stats if your going along the lines of the quality of the batsman.

 

[Johnners]

In I$C$C-official-bull**** terms he has, of course.

This isn't how I form judgement of a player, however. I judge on games deserving of Test-status, not just those given it by I$C$C.

The game is not the matter of relevance - it's the team.

Bangladesh are not worthy of Test-status; nor are Rest-Of XIs.

I$C$C bull**** < pretty much anything TBH.

Make up your mind, and Bangladesh play test match cricket, so whatever fancy little theories you have, are pretty much irrelevant, no, actually they are irrelevant.

Either way, Macgill is a fantastic bowler, & 198 wickets @ 27 agrees with me.

 

[Richard]

Make up your mind, and Bangladesh play test match cricket, so whatever fancy little theories you have, are pretty much irrelevant, no, actually they are irrelevant.

Either way, Macgill is a fantastic bowler, & 198 wickets @ 27 agrees with me.

I judge players on games deserving of Test status; I judge whether a match deserves Test-status or not on the team. Try again with the manufacturing of contradictions.

The theory that Bangladesh means nothing to Test cricket is far from one of mine, it's a fairly commonly accepted one. Likewise that that Aus vs World XI game shouldn't have been a Test.

154 wickets at over 30 agree that MacGill is a decidedly average bowler.

 

[Richard]

The quality of the batsman should determine the value of the wicket, if it's above 20 its fair game, and as Bangers and Zim have several players averaging above 20 then obviously they can hit a ball. Remove all tail end (5 down for Bang Zim Eng) wickets from your stats if your going along the lines of the quality of the batsman.

Obviously top-order vs tail also has a part to play, but it's of less importance than what's Test-worthy or not. If you're going to include Bangladesh in this you should certainly include Queensland and WA too.

 

[Athlai]

Obviously top-order vs tail also has a part to play, but it's of less importance than what's Test-worthy or not. If you're going to include Bangladesh in this you should certainly include Queensland and WA too.

As Queensland and WA don't often play against other countries I can't see how I can include them, yet it's probably clear that some of these teams could be given 'test' status if your only taking quality into account.

If I see someone has taken the wicket of a good Bangladeshi batsman, I can't see how that wicket is worth any less than a decent player from another 'test' squad, all those entire filtering out of these squads is irritating, more than a few players have actually failed against these teams, filtering them out improves their stats. Bangladesh is also a team that plays spin surprisingly well.