British - losers?

[Richard]

Like it or not Bangladesh happened.

And like it or not beating Bangladesh means nothing - there have been 3 out of 33(?) occasions when it has not happened (2 of them mostly because of rain).

 

[marc71178]

But they are still part of the run of 18.

I still don't see where you got this number of 12 from?

 

[Richard]

Somehow managed to miss The Caribbean.
Should, of course, have been a run of 16.
Nonetheless, Bangladesh do not count as part of any meaningful run because there was never a realistic possibility of anything other than an England 2-0 victory in that series.

 

[marc71178]

Were they official Tests? YES
Did the stats count towards career records? YES
Are they part of the run? YES

 

[Richard]

Did they mean anything? NO.
BECAUSE EVERYONE BEATS BANGLADESH. THEREFORE BEATING THEM DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO A SUMMARY OF THE ABILITY TO PLAY TEST-CRICKET.

 

[marc71178]

Not everybody beats them.

They are still called Test matches.

Therefore they are part of a run of Tests.

 

[Richard]

They are a meaningless part of it and hence should be excluded for the benefits of accuracy.
It's amazing how you can point-out their irrelevance sometimes and not when it helps a case of yours were they to be worth something.

 

[marc71178]

I've never said irrelevance about them.

The games may be uncompetitive, but they are still Tests, and Bangladesh have been showing signs of improvement.

The run is therefore 1 defeat in 18 Tests.

 

[Richard]

And it's 1 defeat in 16 proper Tests.
Bangladesh have been showing the odd sign of improvement here and there, then regressing back to the point they were at before.
They're no better now than they were in their Inaugural Test.

 

[Richard]

I've never said irrelevance about them.

You've pointed-out that they don't matter with regards MacGill.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Did they mean anything? NO.
BECAUSE EVERYONE BEATS BANGLADESH. THEREFORE BEATING THEM DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO A SUMMARY OF THE ABILITY TO PLAY TEST-CRICKET.

If everybody beats them (i.e: everybody plays them) then there's no reason to leave them out as everyone gets equal opportunity to excel against a weak team.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but for some people it has more of an influence.
Eg for the good players it's simply a chance to make a small improvement - which is why I never mind good players doing well against Bangladesh or the non-Test-sides.
For the bad ones it can make a poor record look less poor - eg MacGill.
In some cases it can add more to something that, frankly, needs no addition to.

 

[tooextracool]

What'll be interesting now will be the volume of criticisms should we lose in Durban.

yes and really the only 2 people that deserve criticism are the 2 intelligent hookers- flintoff and jones.

 

[Richard]

Not to mention the genuises who massively overdid the short stuff.

 

[steds]

genuises

pardon?

 

[steds]

BECAUSE EVERYONE BEATS BANGLADESH.

India didn't on boxing day

 

[Richard]

pardon?

Geneui is not a word, y'know.

(No malice intended, as you should know by now, BTW - just clarifying)

 

[Richard]

India didn't on boxing day

Nope, they didn't indeed - the first time Bangladesh have ever won a live ODI against a better team.
A level of how low India's ODI form has fallen of late.

 

[steds]

Geneui is not a word, y'know.

(No malice intended, as you should know by now, BTW - just clarifying)

I shouldn't have said anything. I'm really confused now

 

[Richard]

Right, I'll try and get it nice and clear:
The plural of genuis is not geneui - it is genuises.
See?