Worst Player to Play 200 tests?

[Burgey]

Thoughts?

 

[cnerd123]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/testing-forum/61118-rejected-parody-thread-ideas-20.html

 

[TheJediBrah]

Genuinely thought about making this thread yesterday but dismissed the idea almost immediately given that it's not really funny

 

[Burgey]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/testing-forum/61118-rejected-parody-thread-ideas-20.html

Your face is a rejected parody thread idea.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar? He had a few matches for ICC World XI which are not tests where I am concerned. So no one.

 

[Pratters]

Which begs the question, should the matches for World XI be removed from the stats? It is a no brainer that they should regardless of the uproar it would cause to Indian fans.

 

[jimmy101]

I wonder who the worst player to play exactly 156 Tests was.

Probably someone largely forgotten

 

[OverratedSanity]

Which begs the question, should the matches for World XI be removed from the stats? It is a no brainer that they should regardless of the uproar it would cause to Indian fans.

They should imo. I treat them as exhibitions.

 

[Pratters]

The weirdest part is that the World XI matches in the 70s and 80s were not added to the tests. However, some one suddenly decided in the 90s that they are tests, god knows why. I remember most statisticians at the time being against it too.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar didn't play in the World XI matches, looks like.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which begs the question, should the matches for World XI be removed from the stats? It is a no brainer that they should regardless of the uproar it would cause to Indian fans.

They should imo. I treat them as exhibitions.

This baffles me. Why should it not be counted as a Test? Just because World XI isn't a country?

 

[Pratters]

This baffles me. Why should it not be counted as a Test? Just because World XI isn't a country?

Yes. Why should it count as a test? Because of the quality involved? So then why should not all of Yorkshire v Australia during Yorkshire's heyday be counted as tests?

Tests are between member nations of ICC which have been granted test status, nothing else.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes. Why should it count as a test? Because of the quality involved? So then why should not all of Yorkshire v Australia during Yorkshire's heyday be counted as tests?

Tests are between member nations of ICC which have been granted test status, nothing else.

The game was granted Test status months before when it was scheduled. I don't think just because World XI isn't a member nation is a good enough reason to not want it to have Test status.

Performances in that game, whether against the World XI (and it was a genuine full-strength World XI, not just a random selection of whoever was available like most "world XI" games have been) or the ATG Australians deserve to count.

 

[stephen]

Yeah. In fact we should add in all the "Supertests" that were played in the Packer era to the test record as well. Ridiculous that they're still not considered tests.

 

[Pratters]

The game was granted Test status months before when it was scheduled. I don't think just because World XI isn't a member nation is a good enough reason to not want it to have Test status.

Performances in that game, whether against the World XI (and it was a genuine full-strength World XI, not just a random selection of whoever was available like most "world XI" games have been) or the ATG Australians deserve to count.

You haven't answered my question..

Why should Yorkshire v Australia be granted test status? At best, it can should given first class status not test status. Tests are between ICC member countries who have been granted test status, I repeat.
`

 

[srbhkshk]

You haven't answered my question..

Why should Yorkshire v Australia be granted test status? At best, it can should given first class status not test status. Tests are between ICC member countries who have been granted test status, I repeat.
`

Well in theory, Yorkshire vs Australia would be below the standard of what you would expect from England vs Australia. That's not the case for World XI vs Australia which in theory should actually be better than Any one nation Vs Australia.

 

[Pratters]

Well in theory, Yorkshire vs Australia would be below the standard of what you would expect from England vs Australia. That's not the case for World XI vs Australia which in theory should actually be better than Any one nation Vs Australia.

Are you aware of the strong Yorkshire sides at all? Lets talk practical instead of theory..

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well in theory, Yorkshire vs Australia would be below the standard of what you would expect from England vs Australia. That's not the case for World XI vs Australia which in theory should actually be better than Any one nation Vs Australia.

Yorkshire have historically been very strong.

And it's not really a question of standard. Test matches are between the member nations... to make an exception for one test just seemed bizarre to me especially considering the RoW tours were stripped of test status. Keep FC status, that's fine but it should not be recognized as an actual test match.

 

[trundler]

Count them too. WSC as well.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think they should be counted. Rugby counts World XV as tests and they are included amongst the test sides the All Blacks have been defeated by in the last 125 odd years (World XV, British and Irish Lions, Australia, South Africa, England, France, Wales and now Ireland).

I expect Argentina will beat us sometime in the next 10 years and Scotland might as well