***Official*** Sri Lanka in Australia

[Johnners]

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.

Whatever, here's a theory for you, Bangladesh games are Test Status i.e. they include test runs & wickets!!!!

Ask the batsmen from England (39), Pakistan (23), South Africa (18), West Indies (55) what they think about Stuart MacGill as a bowler, and I'm almost certain they'll tell you "he's much better than decidedly average, which is more than you can say for Richards ability to judge spinners"

 

[Richard]

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.

I know they have, and I don't care about that, any more than I care about players who've failed for NSW against WA, or against Qld.

I make a clear distinction between Test-match and First-Class-match, and I make it on the quality of the teams involved and what sort of area they're drawn from. Bangladesh do indeed deserve the latter status but not the former.

Only 8 teams deserve Test status to me, and only things that happen in games between these 8 do I count as Tests. Likewise with ODIs. Not that nothing outside these games is of any note, certainly not - but when we're considering achievements in Tests, only this can be considered. If we consider Bangladesh as well, it's only right that we also consider Qld and WA too. And SA, Vic and Tas too FTM.

 

[Athlai]

If West Indies toured Bangladesh its likely Bangladesh could get a victory out of it.

 

[Richard]

Whatever, here's a theory for you, Bangladesh games are Test Status i.e. they include test runs & wickets!!!!

And here's another one: people are not bound by the crap that I$C$C come forth with and can use their own intelligence to deduce what is and isn't worthy of Test-status.

Ask the batsmen from England (39), Pakistan (23), South Africa (18), West Indies (55) what they think about Stuart MacGill as a bowler, and I'm almost certain they'll tell you "he's much better than decidedly average, which is more than you can say for Richards ability to judge spinners"

I'd imagine most of them probably think he's pretty average by the standards of Test spinners. Which isn't exactly a crime, of course - there aren't that many spinners who can perform genuinely well in Test-cricket.

If they don't, yes, I do indeed back my own judgement over theirs, because not all players are exceptional judges of other players. Also, very rare is the player who's rude enough to say disparaging things about even the most abysmal of his opponents.

 

[Richard]

If West Indies toured Bangladesh its likely Bangladesh could get a victory out of it.

It's possible, but it's also possible WI could annhailate them. WI are of times so awful that it's hard to imagine them being anything but so, but they were also awful in 2002, and still about 20 times over good enough for Bangladesh.

We honestly wouldn't know unless it happened.

 

[Athlai]

It's possible, but it's also possible WI could annhailate them. WI are of times so awful that it's hard to imagine them being anything but so, but they were also awful in 2002, and still about 20 times over good enough for Bangladesh.

We honestly wouldn't know unless it happened.

Oh I agree on that but I think for every 3 tours the current WI team would make, Bangladesh would get a victory. Wouldn't be surprised to see them beat NZ either to be honest.

 

[Johnners]

And here's another one: people are not bound by the crap that I$C$C come forth with and can use their own intelligence to deduce what is and isn't worthy of Test-status.

I'd imagine most of them probably think he's pretty average by the standards of Test spinners. Which isn't exactly a crime, of course - there aren't that many spinners who can perform genuinely well in Test-cricket.

If they don't, yes, I do indeed back my own judgement over theirs, because not all players are exceptional judges of other players. Also, very rare is the player who's rude enough to say disparaging things about even the most abysmal of his opponents.

Out-performing Shane Warne isn't bowling genuinely well? Well i'll be damned...

 

[Athlai]

Out-performing Shane Warne isn't bowling genuinely well? Well i'll be damned...

 

[Richard]

Out-performing Shane Warne isn't bowling genuinely well? Well i'll be damned...

Which has happened why? Because Warne's usually bowled poorly when in tandem with MacGill.

 

[Mister Wright]

It always ****s me when people don't give credit to players who make big runs or take a lot of wickets against teams that are inferior. Especially when players they rate more highly have been unable to do it. For instance when Hayden scored 380 against Zimbabwe, hey Langer, Ponting and Steve Waugh played in that game and didn't get 380 and most people, especially on this forum rate these batsmen higher than Hayden. Also works when bowlers take wickets. What are they supposed to do? Not take wickets? Just shows how stupid the argument is.

 

[lionheart]

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..

I never argued against your assertion that Maharoof's record in Tests was unimpressive. I did take issue with your apparent lack of humour (see. ‘donkey bowler’), but even that I didn’t make explicit. I can't be bothered digging up the stats, but he's done serviceable jobs against England, South Africa and New Zealand in the recent past. Yes, he is still yet to establish himself in world Cricket, but then the same goes for Fernando, but I don’t see you arguing his selection. I'd pick Maharoof ahead of the other batting options because of the type of bowler he is, his physical attributes, recent form, because it’s Brisbane, and because like Vandort and Silva, he is a young bloke who deserves the opportunity.

Regardless of how the selection of a ‘specialist’ batsmen (remember we are talking about Tharanga, P. Jayawardene, Samaraweera and Mubarak here) will categorically yield glory, please enlighten me as to how SL can beat Australia without bowling them out - twice?

 

[howardj]

This will be Binga's first Test match against Sri Lanka.

I'm tipping a huge series from him.

I also think Jaques will go big in this Series.

Got a feeling the first Test match could be badly affected by the weather though.

 

[Richard]

It always ****s me when people don't give credit to players who make big runs or take a lot of wickets against teams that are inferior. Especially when players they rate more highly have been unable to do it. For instance when Hayden scored 380 against Zimbabwe, hey Langer, Ponting and Steve Waugh played in that game and didn't get 380 and most people, especially on this forum rate these batsmen higher than Hayden. Also works when bowlers take wickets. What are they supposed to do? Not take wickets? Just shows how stupid the argument is.

Hayden didn't score 380 in the next game either.

No-one once has said bowlers shouldn't take wickets or batsmen should throw theirs away. In fact, it annoys the **** out of me when people make like those of my ilk are criticising players for performing, when we're doing nothing of the sort. We're simply stating that the match in which the performance happened was not worthy of the classification it was given.

Would you make a fuss and say Hanif Mohammed's 499 game should be classed a Test just because he deserves credit for deciding he wanted to make runs that day, and others weren't able to do it? I somehow doubt it.

 

[Richard]

This will be Binga's first Test match against Sri Lanka.

I'm tipping a huge series from him.

Knowing the contradictory nature of the man (SL are the only team who've conquered him in ODIs) I'd not bet against it TBH.

 

[JASON]

I never argued against your assertion that Maharoof's record in Tests was unimpressive. I did take issue with your apparent lack of humour (see. ‘donkey bowler’), but even that I didn’t make explicit. I can't be bothered digging up the stats, but he's done serviceable jobs against England, South Africa and New Zealand in the recent past. Yes, he is still yet to establish himself in world Cricket, but then the same goes for Fernando, but I don’t see you arguing his selection. I'd pick Maharoof ahead of the other batting options because of the type of bowler he is, his physical attributes, recent form, because it’s Brisbane, and because like Vandort and Silva, he is a young bloke who deserves the opportunity.

Regardless of how the selection of a ‘specialist’ batsmen (remember we are talking about Tharanga, P. Jayawardene, Samaraweera and Mubarak here) will categorically yield glory, please enlighten me as to how SL can beat Australia without bowling them out - twice?

Maharoof in tests against SA , England and NZ may have take 1 or 2 wickets a Test, that's hardly a statistic worth quoting or bothering with ...and even those were mostly rubbish wickets.

Fernando has done well in Tests
26 Tests 77 wickets Average 30.36, Strike rate 50.5, 4wickets 3 times, 5 wickets 3 times

5/98 v SA in Durban SA 2000/01, 4/49 V SA at Centurion as SA were chasing 121 to win November 2002, 4/77 v Pakistan in Faisalabad to win the Test 2004/5 (Dilhara taking numbers 1-4 Yasir Hamid,Imran Farhat,Inzamam Ul Haq,Asim Kamal.
4/48 v SA in Colombo 2006, 5/42 v India at Galle 2001.

Maharoof
18 Tests 24 wickets - Average 52.87 , Strike rate 95.2 Only solitary 4 wicket haul in tests.
Only 4 wicket haul v Pakistan at home in SL 2006

You have to be thick skulled, If you can't see the damn difference between the Stats !!

 

[JASON]

Regardless of how the selection of a ‘specialist’ batsmen (remember we are talking about Tharanga, P. Jayawardene, Samaraweera and Mubarak here) will categorically yield glory, please enlighten me as to how SL can beat Australia without bowling them out - twice?

If Malinga, Vaas, Dilhara, with one of the Worlds best spinners in combination cannot take 20 wickets...I really struggle to see how another 'half wit' bowler who averages 1.5 wickets a test against all opposition (including Bangers) and with Strike rate of 95 will make a difference... Pray you have to enlighten us here ...or do the opposite...

 

[Richard]

Even if Fernando and Maharoof had identical records, I'd still not hesitate to pick Fernando at present. He's always had the obvious advantage of being tall, and incredibly...

Until very recently I'd have said I want neither anywhere near SL's first-team, they were both plain awful. But both have got far better in recent months and both were hugely impressive against England. But as I say - Fernando in both his height and that slower-ball has more going for him than Maharoof, and now both seem to have solved the no-ball problems (let's touch wood there) and somehow - not before time - managed to improve their control. So I just wonder whether Fernando mightn't be able to do some damage in Australia.

 

[JASON]

and because like Vandort and Silva, he is a young bloke who deserves the opportunity.

Maharoof 23 years 49 days
Dilhara 28 years 99 days.

So a difference of 5 years makes him old now and he has to be given the boot seems to be your logic there .....

Where does that logic come from ...

 

[Nate]

It always ****s me when people don't give credit to players who make big runs or take a lot of wickets against teams that are inferior. Especially when players they rate more highly have been unable to do it. For instance when Hayden scored 380 against Zimbabwe, hey Langer, Ponting and Steve Waugh played in that game and didn't get 380 and most people, especially on this forum rate these batsmen higher than Hayden. Also works when bowlers take wickets. What are they supposed to do? Not take wickets? Just shows how stupid the argument is.

Very well said. It may give a small indicator to how good the player really is, but you can't just remove the damn runs/wickets.

 

[Richard]

Can you remove the damn runs\wickets against WA?