Why....

[Richard]

Ok, so if I have this right, you're not arguing about stats...you're arguing about stats. And we shouldn't remove the stats from the players records when we look at their stats, we should just take them out.

I'm talking about the effect of not counting Bangladesh and Zim etc in the stats and what you might have to do if you were going to take them out. I started by agreeing with someone who suggested keeping them in and using a weighted average or something similar.

Isn't suggesting they shouldn't be there because they boost a player's stats arguing the point using statistical values as a reference? Why not just leave them in there and have a look at what a player did and who they did it against? What if a player who's scored lots of runs against supposedly better teams has a horror run against the minnows...his average will go up when you take out their games. Is that a fair indication of what he achieved, and indeed what the minnows did against him?

So the fact that Warne's done horribly when playing for St.Kilda, or Victoria, against whoever should count against him?

Not when we're assessing his Test achievements it shouldn't.

We assess each level of the game on its own merits. Bangladesh do not belong at the Test level and including them in top-level assessments is woefully misleading.

 

[Johnners]

Runs and wickets for Exeter Third XI and Exeter Sunday XI are legitimate runs and wickets too - should they be included?

Way to miss a point

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Runs and wickets for Exeter Third XI and Exeter Sunday XI are legitimate runs and wickets too - should they be included?

Only if sometime in the future the ICC decide to give matches involving those teams retrospective Test status.

 

[Richard]

Way to miss a point

I think it is you that's done that. I$C$C classifications should mean nothing to the intelligent cricket fan - they should be able to work-out for themselves what deserves Test-status and what doesn't, and that Bangladesh fall into the latter category.

Once a game of cricket is a game of cricket, that's it. If you argue that there should be no difference between Bangladesh vs New Zealand and Sri Lanka vs Pakistan then you cannot argue that there should be any difference between any game of cricket, ever.

You either have proper status feudal systems or you don't have any at all. The current blurred thing we have does unspeakable harm.

 

[Richard]

Only if sometime in the future the ICC decide to give matches involving those teams retrospective Test status.

What I$C$C do isn't really that important:

I$C$C classifications should mean nothing to the intelligent cricket fan - they should be able to work-out for themselves what deserves Test-status and what doesn't

 

[Lillian Thomson]

On the basis of the theory in this thread someone will have to go back and remove all runs scored off Derek Pringle from the Test Match stats.

 

[Johnners]

I think it is you that's done that. I$C$C classifications should mean nothing to the intelligent cricket fan - they should be able to work-out for themselves what deserves Test-status and what doesn't, and that Bangladesh fall into the latter category.

Once a game of cricket is a game of cricket, that's it. If you argue that there should be no difference between Bangladesh vs New Zealand and Sri Lanka vs Pakistan then you cannot argue that there should be any difference between any game of cricket, ever.

You either have proper status feudal systems or you don't have any at all. The current blurred thing we have does unspeakable harm.

I must say, on certain issues, this being one of them, arguing with you is about as useful as banging your head on a brick wall.

 

[Malleeboy]

Clapo,

Gillie's century against Bangers is the best argument for them not being Test standard IMHO. Australia went to play a test match without any warm up games and no time to adjust to the conditions. they literally landed in the subcontinent and played the next day, with jetlag, lack of prep, it wouldn't even surpirse if they all went out on the grog the night before the match.They simply wouldn't have done that to any serious Test team, it almost backfired but that a tail ender Gillespie knocked up a 200 no says to me that the games were not test standard.

The fact it took a Gillie century to unsure Australia's positions just highlights the total lack of preparation and even care factor that they had for this match and consequently the opposition.

 

[Perm]

I must say, on certain issues, this being one of them, arguing with you is about as useful as banging your head on a brick wall.

Indeed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Way to miss a point

Now, now, Richard doesn't miss points! You must be deliberately making it appear as if he is to make him look foolish!

 

[Son Of Coco]

So the fact that Warne's done horribly when playing for St.Kilda, or Victoria, against whoever should count against him?

Not when we're assessing his Test achievements it shouldn't.

We assess each level of the game on its own merits. Bangladesh do not belong at the Test level and including them in top-level assessments is woefully misleading.

They're not classified as test matches. Games against Bangladesh are. To assume everyone is stupid enough to be mislead by statistics is going a little overboard I think.

 

[Johnners]

Clapo,

Gillie's century against Bangers is the best argument for them not being Test standard IMHO. Australia went to play a test match without any warm up games and no time to adjust to the conditions. they literally landed in the subcontinent and played the next day, with jetlag, lack of prep, it wouldn't even surpirse if they all went out on the grog the night before the match.They simply wouldn't have done that to any serious Test team, it almost backfired but that a tail ender Gillespie knocked up a 200 no says to me that the games were not test standard.

The fact it took a Gillie century to unsure Australia's positions just highlights the total lack of preparation and even care factor that they had for this match and consequently the opposition.

I know perfectly well what Richard, and now yourself, are saying, it seems though, he doesn't comprehend what SOC and yours truly (i do beleive we are coming from similar angles) are trying to say.

 

[Richard]

They're not classified as test matches. Games against Bangladesh are.

And this classification is wrong.

To assume everyone is stupid enough to be mislead by statistics is going a little overboard I think.

If they just accept what I$C$C say and don't use their intelligence to make-up their own minds, they are indeed.

 

[Richard]

On the basis of the theory in this thread someone will have to go back and remove all runs scored off Derek Pringle from the Test Match stats.

Nope, there's nothing whatsoever about single players within Test-standard teams. It's about the team and nothing else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I know perfectly well what Richard, and now yourself, are saying, it seems though, he doesn't comprehend what SOC and yours truly (i do beleive we are coming from similar angles) are trying to say.

I agree, there's confusion there.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And this classification is wrong.

If they just accept what I$C$C say and don't use their intelligence to make-up their own minds, they are indeed.

So...adjust it if you want, but do it properly. Don't just take them out.

Your opinion isn't fact, it isn't the truth...you won't fix a half-arsed problem with a half-arsed solution.

 

[Richard]

So...adjust it if you want, but do it properly. Don't just take them out.

I happily do adjust it - there are 8 teams worthy of Test, and ODI, status. No games outside these are those which I'd recognise as worthy of being a Test or ODI.

And no, the top-level isn't the only thing that matters. But I'd need The ACSAS to help me out with sorting the next levels.

Your opinion isn't fact, it isn't the truth...you won't fix a half-arsed problem with a half-arsed solution.

It's not merely my opinion that Bangladesh aren't Test-class.

 

[Richard]

I must say, on certain issues, this being one of them, arguing with you is about as useful as banging your head on a brick wall.

As is arguing with people who pointificate that Bangladesh deserve Test-status.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why do stats against minnows get removed to prove a point, like those runs shouldn't count because the oppo is poor but when a player fails against said poor opposition little is made of it.

I've seen this question raised before and it's a valid question. Fine if you want to say a ton against Bangladesh or Holland shouldn't count that much because of their quality, but then the players that don't perform shouldn't it be counted as double failure? Seems like we only see one side of the story here.

Thoughts?

Over 14 pages later and no one has impacted on the original question, just filled the thread with gobbledigook.........Pasag should be a proud man.

 

[chaminda_00]

Best part of this thread considering it was designed for other to say their views not just Richard's:

Richard  55 
Son Of Coco  28 
Perm  11 
silentstriker  9 
pasag  9