Leaving out the minnows...

[Zinzan]

zinzan. am i that bagar you have in mind? calling me close minded is hurtful, dude. it is as controversial as naming trumper the greatest batsman before WW1. it is possible, i am willing to concede. but grace, stanley jackson, ranji, hill and hobbs were all there too.

one of the most important performances against bangladesh is gilchrist's century that saved australia from a humilating defeat. .

Interesting, I may be wrong, but almost get the impression you're complimenting Gilchrist & acknowledging that as an important test innings, yet you don't seem to grant Vettori any credit for the performance (with both bat & ball) that essentially saved a NZ defeat to Bang in Bangladesh last year

 

[tooextracool]

dont want to turn this into a batting vs bowling argument. i believe bangladesh cant take 20 wickets anyway. unless they win at least once for every five losses they cant be compared with WI. of course west indies can start losing more and more and come down to bangla's level. which means we will have one more minnow.

your logic is contradicted by the fact that since the start of 2008 they have been taking wickets at a better rate than WI.

As I pointed out before, the bowlers are averaging around the same as the WI bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

Interesting, I may be wrong, but almost get the impression you're complimenting Gilchrist & acknowledging that as an important test innings, yet you don't seem to grant Vettori any credit for the performance (with both bat & ball) that essentially saved a NZ defeat to Bang in Bangladesh last year

I was trying to explain why i wont give too much credit to those performances.

i am making that point to illustrate the fact that there will be individual occasions in a team's (or even a player's) history when such odd situations arise out of sheer chance. those will have to occur more frequently for us to consider the team (or a player) more seriously overall. that is why it is difficult and, in my mind, illogical to pick and choose specific performances. i am more interested in using overall figures in looking at stats. cherry picking looks dishonest to me, somehow.

 

[bagapath]

your logic is contradicted by the fact that since the start of 2008 they have been taking wickets at a better rate than WI.

As I pointed out before, the bowlers are averaging around the same as the WI bowlers.

good. let that trend continue for another season or two. then we shall see.

 

[four_or_six]

If you start taking out stats, you almost have to pick and choose matches, and that's too complicated.

For example, why would you remove this test from Vettori's figures? What would have been the impact on NZ cricket if he hadn't performed on this occasion? This was a pressure situation and when his team needed it, he delivered big-time. Likewise, why would you remove these centuries from Gilchrist and Ponting? Top, top knocks, the pair of them. Can you imagine if Australia had lost to Bangladesh? And yet these two world-class players saved the team a world of pain.

Yes, overall runs and wickets against Bangladesh come easier than against other teams. But it's not so cut and dry and just removing every performance. They just need to be taken into consideration.

 

[Zinzan]

If you start taking out stats, you almost have to pick and choose matches, and that's too complicated.

For example, why would you remove this test from Vettori's figures? What would have been the impact on NZ cricket if he hadn't performed on this occasion? This was a pressure situation and when his team needed it, he delivered big-time. Likewise, why would you remove these centuries from Gilchrist and Ponting? Top, top knocks, the pair of them. Can you imagine if Australia had lost to Bangladesh? And yet these two world-class players saved the team a world of pain.

Yes, overall runs and wickets against Bangladesh come easier than against other teams. But it's not so cut and dry and just removing every performance. They just need to be taken into consideration.

Precisely, context, my dear Watson (excuse the pun on your avatar)

 

[Top_Cat]

Similarly, it's unfair to expunge, say, Magilla's 8-fer in that match because the Banglas batted so damn well, well above their stations. Neither should the fact that Warne went for almost 6-per-over in the first dig be removed from his record. People still talk about Nafees' knock too, a gem. Rafique was immense too.

The problem is what happened in the next Test, really, where a tail-ender spanked the same attack for a double ton. Still, it all counts. Again, performances should just be weighted accordingly in assessing players.

 

[Zinzan]

Similarly, it's unfair to expunge, say, Magilla's 8-fer in that match because the Banglas batted so damn well, well above their stations. Neither should the fact that Warne went for almost 6-per-over in the first dig be removed from his record. People still talk about Nafees' knock too, a gem. Rafique was immense too.

The problem is what happened in the next Test, really, where a tail-ender spanked the same attack for a double ton. Still, it all counts. Again, performances should just be weighted accordingly in assessing players.

Correct & even though someone quite rightly made the point earlier that it would be complicated trying to formulate the calculations needed to 'weight' these performance accurately,it does need to be explored further, particularly when comparing players from different countries or era's.

 

[bagapath]

i dont know guys. this approach would be unreliable IMO. the pakistan team got bowled out for sub 60 scores in both innings in sharjah. would that make australian bowlers candy stealers in that game? any good team can have a bad day. any horrendous team (=bangladesh) can have a decent day, too. you have to ignore such strange days and move on in life. anyways, bangla lost both the matches we are talking about. just winning a couple of sessions or three in a test match cannot assure them equal respect as the regular test playing nations.

 

[Zinzan]

i dont know guys. this approach would be unreliable IMO. the pakistan team got bowled out for sub 60 scores in both innings in sharjah. would that make australian bowlers candy stealers in that game? any good team can have a bad day. any horrendous team (=bangladesh) can have a decent day, too. you have to ignore such strange days and move on in life. anyways, bangla lost both the matches we are talking about. just winning a couple of sessions or three in a test match cannot assure them equal respect as the regular test playing nations.

But of course it would even out over a players career as such instances would be few & far between. They wouldn't be 'good' teams if they had these 'bad day's' you refer to very often.

 

[Zinzan]

I was trying to explain why i wont give too much credit to those performances.

Kind of a contradiction given you just described Gilchrist's innings as 'important' isn't it ?

 

[zaremba]

There's no one "correct" number which distills a player's ability or achievement and which can be precisely compared with a corresponding "correct" number for another player. A player's statistical record is a multi-faceted thing which can legitimately be analysed from a number of different perspectives. A proper analysis of a player will consider all of those perspectives.

Therefore, the answer to the question "should we exclude games v Bangladesh" is both yes and no. "Yes" because they have consistently been a sub-standard Test team and there are relatively cheap runs and wickets to be had against them. This can lead to an average player's Test figures being seriously flattered. "No" because Tests v Bangladesh are still Tests, and a (minor) facet of your statistical record is how good or bad you are at scoring easy runs and taking cheap wickets: in other words, how good a "minnow-basher" you are.

 

[Zinzan]

There's no one "correct" number which distills a player's ability or achievement and which can be precisely compared with a corresponding "correct" number for another player. A player's statistical record is a multi-faceted thing which can legitimately be analysed from a number of different perspectives. A proper analysis of a player will consider all of those perspectives.

Therefore, the answer to the question "should we exclude games v Bangladesh" is both yes and no. "Yes" because they have consistently been a sub-standard Test team and there are relatively cheap runs and wickets to be had against them. This can lead to an average player's Test figures being seriously flattered. "No" because Tests v Bangladesh are still Tests, and a (minor) facet of your statistical record is how good or bad you are at scoring easy runs and taking cheap wickets: in other words, how good a "minnow-basher" you are.

Your theory isn't particularly helpful & truth-be-told smacks of a contentedness for simplicity.

Whilst I agree it would be nigh impossible to come up with a perfect formula, surely the deeper the analysis done, the better, regardless of whether it's an exact science or not.

 

[bagapath]

Kind of a contradiction given you just described Gilchrist's innings as 'important' isn't it ?

it was "one of the most important performances against bangladesh", as i had written, because of the situation australia faced in that particular game. but it is still limited in its scope; a similar knock in a similar situation against a top notch test team would be "one of the most important knocks of all time". i was writing about the exception to prove the rule.

 

[Zinzan]

it was "one of the most important performances against bangladesh", as i had written, because of the situation australia faced in particular game, yes. but it is still limited in its scope; a similar knock in a similar situation against a top notch test team would be "one of the most important knocks of all time". i was writing about the exception to prove the rule.

Ah ha, but do you consider it as valuable as an 80 against a run of the mill team like Pakistan in a Test where he didn't see his side to victory?

 

[bagapath]

since i dont include bangladesh in these kind of discussions i dont get to compare performances against bangladesh with performances against real teams. so i am not able to give you an honest answer.

 

[Zinzan]

since i dont include bangladesh in these kind of discussions i dont get to compare performances against bangladesh with performances against real teams. so i am not able to give you an honest answer.

Haha, you're almost beaten by your own logic there

Seems you're almost doubting yourself for a second there & then you've thought, 'ah,that's right, the minnow rule'

 

[marc71178]

Reading through all this almost makes me want Bangladesh to beat England in the series next year, might finally get people to recognise that they have improved and are far more competitive now than even 12 months ago.

 

[bagapath]

Haha, you're almost beaten by your own logic there

Seems you're almost doubting yourself for a second there & then you've thought, 'ah,that's right, the minnow rule'

no dude. i have never compared any performance against bangladesh with a performance against other test nations. there is nothing new i am discovering about my own thinking here. when i said gilchrist's century in that game was important (for a performance against bangladesh) i had added how bangladesh with their amateurish play in the next innings and in the next game made it irrelevant in any other context. it is as important as michael clarke's six wicket haul against india. a freak show that resulted in nothing. australia lost the game; warne remained their leading spinner in post war era. similarly bangladesh had australia on the mat for a day or two and then bungled as usual. the sun came up in the east next morning. nothing changed.

 

[bagapath]

Reading through all this almost makes me want Bangladesh to beat England in the series next year, might finally get people to recognise that they have improved and are far more competitive now than even 12 months ago.

well... if it happens bangladesh's performance in the next few years would be watched with a bit more respect. it wont change the past, obviously.