I'm not sure if you're dense, or a troll. Really unsure tbh.
Oh dear.
I dont think my point, or the point Jedi is making could be clearer.
Jedi has already agreed with my point. I thought that would be the end of this.
This thread is talking about all-rounders who didn't get sufficient opportunity at the top level.
Accurately it was top quality all-rounders not given a fair go at international level.
Someone mentioned Shakib.
That was me.
Someone mentioned he missed a SA tour
That was me.
where he would have got a chance to play against a top team.
I agree that SA are a top team.
You mentioned Chappell and Lillee, and it was pointed out that for them there was more at stake (financially and health wise) to do certain tours at the time, in that era.
But there are finances and health at stake in this era too unless you don't think exhaustion is within the realm of being a health issue. I am not a doctor, but I am pretty sure it will be in their books.
]Any player can miss any tour, it's up to him. But the obvious consensus here is that a guy of Shakib's talent would surely want to be available for every test he can.
Why not every talented player? How is Chappel's and Lillee's talents differing to Shakibs? What is your point here?
] No one's gonna judge him if there's a reason he can't play, but speculating on that isn't gonna help. Fact is, he missed a tour he probably should've gone on.
He asked for time off to recover from exhaustion. That isn't specualtion.
Even if Shakib had played all games in 2017/18 - he has still been denied the opportunity to chase down the records.
I don't want to get offside with half the forum just because I think Shakib has missed out on some records and soon Ben Stokes will overtake his tallies despite only becomming a fixture on the cricket landscape since 2015 with inferior overall results, at least by way of averages.
But I am hardly being dense, and if I were going to troll, wouldn't I choose a more contentious topic than Shakib being Bangladeshi means he got less opportunties to play more tests and chase down more records and thus stand higher with the game's ATG's? Plenty of ATG level cricketers have missed tours for health, money or whatever reasons. So lets be consistent here. They don't instantly lose all credit to their career arguments, whatever they may be, as a result, And let's be honest, if I had wanted to be a real prick in this argument, I would have brought up the 2 whole seasons that Lillee and Chappell missed playing WSC for money instead of tests. But I didn't. I didn't need to. I just stuck to missed tours while current test players. And despite these two years, these guys from the 1970's and 80's had more available tests to play to chase records than Shakib does in the modern day era. Lillee in about 13 years worth, 11 after WSC discount - had enough time to be the world's leading wicket taker. Shakib is still nearly 20 tests behind him still after the 11 year give or take time period (SA tour and 2107/18 missed or not) - and Lillee missed more tests through actual injury, even if Shakib missed some of 2017/18. And I don't believe that we, as a majority of fans, don't look at the longevity in matches played as a factor in assessing a player's career performance, let alone more matches means more chances at records. I love what WSC meant for odi cricket and all cricketers increased pay packets, but at the same time I think we may be too swift to condemn as guilty and villify today's t20 supposed "mercenaries" and their international legqacy/claims as disregarding international cricket altogether. A difference for me is that Shakib unlike AbdV has not ever stated that he does not care about records, while even if he doesn't, he has still been unarguably been denied the opportunity to get close to them to either increase his level of care let alone surpass them. People miss tours - especially after when 30 married with kids, that does not instantly change their career legacy. Does my post invite comments about inequality of pay between non Big 3 nations let alone test availabiltiy for them. Sure it does. I freely admit this. These are sub issues. But geographical accident of birth effects a player's choices. Is it dense or trolling? No. So is it a fair go that cricketer born in Bangladesh will have a vastly different career to the same cricketer born elsewhere in a big 3 nation paid much much more for internationals than t20 leagues? This is actually the crucial the question to discuss. What is a fair go? Is player meritocracy limited to where the cervix is located that you popped out of - everything else is in due respect is merely red herring to try and desperately distinguish the argument on intuition as how repulsive of the non Big 3 nation t20 players of today may seem to you personally as against that of GChappel and Lillee missing tours for personal- money or whatever reasons. Sure t20 is less of a factor for Big 3 members when international cricket for them pays more than t20 leagues. How can it not? On any reasoning - financial or national pride. But even when SA cricketers are the best in the world, they're the fourth at best paid which is still often less than English county cricketers - are they getting a fair go from the international cricket market? If so - why are are Mornel Morkel and Kyle Abbott joining county at the expense of international cricket? And despite this, unlike Shakib, at least they get more games available to play at international level (becuase more of the SA team are good and in form). So is a talent like Shakib given a fair go? Or should we simply disregard any non-Big 3 team players and those with weaker team mates than SA as deserving of more opportunity instantly? These are the wider issues that are actually relevant, unlike Greg Chappel's actual business interests outside cricket. Money is money. Games available for records are games available. The rest is all a smoke screen that seems intuitively different but in effect is the same debates that many players have struggled with for decades: health in its many forms coupled with money.
Red Hill, you seem like a good bloke. Please put a fork in it. This one is done as far as I am concerned. I am frankly exhausted about talking about Shakib right now. As the rest of us are probably tired of reading about him. There are sensitive nuances to this arguement, but I'm not trolling in my belief, and I can tell you trying to differentiate Chappell and Lillee is a red herring. The ultimate question regardless of your feelings, is whether the current international cricketer situation is a fair go for players of nations including those outside the big 3? That is where you should be focussing to attack the strength of my analogy, not on Chappell and Lillee. I chose them deliberately. Now you could say that outside the big 3 - all cricketers have less opportunties, all you then have to explain is why that is a fair go. If you don't like that argument, surprise me. But trying to distinguish Lillee and Chappell both is a loser in this argument that I deliberately chose to make my point, no matter how intuitively different you feel them to be from Shakib, not to troll or be dense.
