Congratulations Murali

[Sanz]

Just out of curiosity, am I one of them?

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Don't see how domestic wickets come in.

They don't. A Test Match is between two Countries and "class" has nothing to do with it. In reality there's no such thing as "Test class" whether it be an individual or a team, it's just a mythical unquantifiable standard.

 

[Richard]

As much as everything is mythical and unquantifiable.

Canada vs Indonesia would be an international game too; NSW v WA might well be a better quality match than WI v Pak. To be taken seriously as a Test-match, a game must be between international sides (not neccessarily nations, but international sides) and of a requistite standard, which is not quantifiable but something any fool who knows much about cricket, really, can decipher (whether they choose to is a different point altogether).

Being of one or being of the other and not being of the other or not being of one is no use.

 

[archie mac]

As much as everything is mythical and unquantifiable.

Canada vs Indonesia would be an international game too; NSW v WA might well be a better quality match than WI v Pak. To be taken seriously as a Test-match, a game must be between international sides (not neccessarily nations, but international sides) and of a requistite standard, which is not quantifiable but something any fool who knows much about cricket, really, can decipher (whether they choose to is a different point altogether).

Being of one or being of the other and not being of the other or not being of one is no use.

I have not followed this argument 100%, but I agree with Richard get rid of The Bangas they are not Test standard, but they should keep their ODI status

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I agree with Richard

If I used quotes in my sig, that would be straight in there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Being of one or being of the other and not being of the other or not being of one is no use.

I studied logic at Uni and I saw less verbose sentences in exams!

 

[Flem274*]

Bloody hell I come in here to congradulate Murali and I walk into the third world war?

Anyway, congratulations to Murali. Chucker or no chucker, its quite an achievement to get 700 odd wickets.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I studied logic at Uni and I saw less verbose sentences in exams!

I wouldn't worry about it (as if: )Someone (Sanz I think) made the totally irrefutable point that not all the Bangladesh players are below "Test standard" as batsman and not all wickets taken in any Test Match are those of "Test standard" batsman. Instead of just accepting it was a good point Richard decided that if you went into it that deeply you'd have to include wickets taken in domestic cricket if they were batsman of Test class.
Total nonsense of course, so I presume the pointless one line at the end was a deliberate attempt to detract from the aforementioned nonsense.

 

[benchmark01]

Murphy will never beat me at anything ITBT.

DWTA.

 

[roseboy64]

I wouldn't worry about it (as if: )Someone (Sanz I think) made the totally irrefutable point that not all the Bangladesh players are below "Test standard" as batsman and not all wickets taken in any Test Match are those of "Test standard" batsman. Instead of just accepting it was a good point Richard decided that if you went into it that deeply you'd have to include wickets taken in domestic cricket if they were batsman of Test class.
Total nonsense of course, so I presume the pointless one line at the end was a deliberate attempt to detract from the aforementioned nonsense.

Probably as I have no idea what he meant there.

 

[Turbinator]

Hope that answers your question.

Come here you lil' goochy poochy woo.

 

[JBH001]

Hmm I had decided to stay away from this thread, but it is a good thing that I reneged on that resolve.

Anyway, my apologies to AM for the tenor and tone of my comments - I rarely lose my cool (irl or on line) and I do not enjoy getting angry, as I most certainly was when reading that thread. I wont say that I apologise for disagreeing with AM as I believe I was right to do so in this instance, but I do apologise for the manner of my making it. It was out of line, and rude and uncouth. If I was unable to make my point in a civilised manner I should simply have refrained from making it instead of descending into name-calling, undeserved insults, and gutter games. Respect you, and your knowledge of the game very much AM - and reading your posts is usually a treat.

(Also, if it means anything I dont have the view of Murali's action that you may think I have)

Finally, an apology to the other members (and guests) of the board who had to read all that. Cheers.

 

[SJS]

Hmm I had decided to stay away from this thread, but it is a good thing that I reneged on that resolve.

Anyway, my apologies to AM for the tenor and tone of my comments - I rarely lose my cool (irl or on line) and I do not enjoy getting angry, as I most certainly was when reading that thread. I wont say that I apologise for disagreeing with AM as I believe I was right to do so in this instance, but I do apologise for the manner of my making it. It was comprehensively and totally out of line, and rude and uncouth. If I was unable to make my point in a sincere and civilised manner I should simply have refrained from making it full stop instead of descending into name-calling, undeserved insults, and gutter games. Respect you, and your knowledge of the game very much AM - and reading your posts is usually a treat.

(Also, if it means anything I dont have the view of Murali's action that you may think I have)

Finally, an apology to the other members (and guests) of the board who had to read all that. Cheers.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't worry about it (as if: )Someone (Sanz I think) made the totally irrefutable point that not all the Bangladesh players are below "Test standard" as batsman and not all wickets taken in any Test Match are those of "Test standard" batsman. Instead of just accepting it was a good point Richard decided that if you went into it that deeply you'd have to include wickets taken in domestic cricket if they were batsman of Test class.
Total nonsense of course, so I presume the pointless one line at the end was a deliberate attempt to detract from the aforementioned nonsense.

Nope. Not all Bangladesh players are below Test-standard - true. Not all NSW players are below Test-standard either. Ergo, if Bangladesh are to be counted as Test-worthy, so must NSW. And many other sides besides.

Fact is, Bangladesh do not deserve Test-status - because their team is not good enough, or even close. Nor do NSW - because their team is a subsidary of a team that already plays Tests.

There are only 8 teams that deserve Test-status. Therefore, the only things that count when Test performances are assessed is what happens in matches between those 8 teams. Nothing else. No games between India and Bangladesh; no games between an England XI and NSW.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nope. Not all Bangladesh players are below Test-standard - true. Not all NSW players are below Test-standard either. Ergo, if Bangladesh are to be counted as Test-worthy, so must NSW. And many other sides besides.

There's not an emoticon in the Universe that can do justice to such garbage. It's a good thing you don't post too much on football or you'd be arguing that Chelsea should be given International status because they're a better side than Latvia, or take away the goals Alan Shearer scored for England against Moldova because they're not worthy opponents.

The ICC were heavily criticized in the mid to late 70's for not granting Sri Lanka Test Status as they were no stronger in 1981 than they were in 1975 and keeping them out potentially hindered their developement. They want the game to grow globally and if that means allowing sides who are not as good as others to compete on a level playing field then so be it. It's far more important for cricket to gain popularity than it is for a few fools to sit behind keyboards whinging that a few players have got slightly better stats than they might otherwise have had.

 

[Richard]

There's not an emoticon in the Universe that can do justice to such garbage. It's a good thing you don't post too much on football or you'd be arguing that Chelsea should be given International status because they're a better side than Latvia, or take away the goals Alan Shearer scored for England against Moldova because they're not worthy opponents.

There's not an emotiocon in the universe that can do justice to the stupidity of comparing cricket and football in the status-feudal-system stakes. Cricket holds the concept of status dearer than any other sport. Test and ODI status means something in cricket, they way certain terms don't in very many other sports. In football, all internationals are equal. In cricket, there's a substantial difference between England vs Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan vs Bulgaria. Any standpoint that says Bangladesh games must be considered Tests and games in, for instance, the Intercontinental Cup, shouldn't be is one which is 100% devoid of logic.

The ICC were heavily criticized in the mid to late 70's for not granting Sri Lanka Test Status as they were no stronger in 1981 than they were in 1975 and keeping them out potentially hindered their developement. They want the game to grow globally and if that means allowing sides who are not as good as others to compete on a level playing field then so be it. It's far more important for cricket to gain popularity than it is for a few fools to sit behind keyboards whinging that a few players have got slightly better stats than they might otherwise have had.

Giving teams Test-status who don't deserve it does far more harm to the game's prospects than good. Apathy - something created by Bangladesh being endlessly thrashed by India or New Zealand - will kill cricket. It's not remotely essential for cricket to gain popularity beyond the 8 teams who currently play it to the required standard - if more teams can join that standard, all good. It's far more important to look after the interests of the game we have than to vainly pursue the one we do not.

Either way, no-one needs to whinge about stats - we're not compelled to accept the rubbish I$C$C tell us, most intelligent cricket fans realise that to get an accurate summation of the performance of a Test-cricketer Bangladesh matches need be ignored. Those who tell us that Bangladesh must be included are usually easily identified as straw-clutchers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's not an emotiocon in the universe that can do justice to the stupidity of comparing cricket and football in the status-feudal-system stakes. Cricket holds the concept of status dearer than any other sport. Test and ODI status means something in cricket, they way certain terms don't in very many other sports. In football, all internationals are equal. In cricket, there's a substantial difference between England vs Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan vs Bulgaria. Any standpoint that says Bangladesh games must be considered Tests and games in, for instance, the Intercontinental Cup, shouldn't be is one which is 100% devoid of logic.

Giving teams Test-status who don't deserve it does far more harm to the game's prospects than good. Apathy - something created by Bangladesh being endlessly thrashed by India or New Zealand - will kill cricket. It's not remotely essential for cricket to gain popularity beyond the 8 teams who currently play it to the required standard - if more teams can join that standard, all good. It's far more important to look after the interests of the game we have than to vainly pursue the one we do not.

Either way, no-one needs to whinge about stats - we're not compelled to accept the rubbish I$C$C tell us, most intelligent cricket fans realise that to get an accurate summation of the performance of a Test-cricketer Bangladesh matches need be ignored. Those who tell us that Bangladesh must be included are usually easily identified as straw-clutchers.

I suppose there's something to be said for the fact that you didn't use your usual stunning "any fool can tell" argument.

 

[Richard]

EDITED: probably best not in view of what I recently promised the forum about not getting into slanging-matches with idiots.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

IOW, "not much that can be said there, you've got me YET AGAIN".

If you were even ever capable of "getting me" once you'd still be stupid." I've just re-joined the ever growing band who can't be bothered with your drivel. I've humoured you long enough and congratulate those who continue to do so. Like all cranks you're deluded into believing people admire you for being different when in truth your objects of ridicule.

Anyway, congratulations Murali.

 

[Richard]

Let's see what happens if we report this...