Removing statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbawe

[NUFAN]

I agree with Black Warrior especially post 78.

FMD. Who these days says 'player x is better cause he averages 2.89 more runs than player j' In Tests. I think most people on here can review an innings and work out how good it was.

I tend to look at crunch performances and game winning/saving knocks, basically looking at a players average is only an average way to determine how good a Cricketer is.

 

[vcs]

To be fair, I didn't. (I assume it was moronic in the most professional possible way )

What I'm saying is that in general, this is not going to work because there are so many other variables in a match than who the opposition is - and how they're playing you is very hard to judge just from who they are.

On a specific basis, of course, such as when you mention Irfan, than yes, it is of course relevant when discussing his merits. But the same isn't true for everyone, far from it.

So it's perfectly relevant to point these things out on occasion, but not to try and generally remove the significance of all these performances, or lack thereof. I dare say Gambhir and Tendulkar's innings were pretty relevant to the outcome of this match.

Crucially, a lot of the time international cricket isn't about beating the best while playing their best. Sometimes it's about whethering the storm one day and seizing the advantage while you have it. Take, for example, Strauss and Cook just surviving until the end of day 3 at Brisbane only to take apart some sub-par bowling on the second day. Being able to do that can often be the difference between winning and losing.

Very well said.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The assumption is that over a significant number of innings the discrepancies being talked about even out - they might not perfectly, but then no statistical analysis is perfect. I can easily name 5-8 FC sides in the world of better quality than Bangladesh. Should we start including the stats of players scoring and taking wickets against them in test records?

Your second point is rubbish. South Africa aren't the only side who have feasted on an impotent attack on a flat pitch at home. As India showed in the second innings, the only reason they could not make runs was because they were caught on a damp track. Are you going to discount all such matches from history where inequitable conditions prevailed due to rain to a much larger extent? Are you going to discount centuries from Sehwag, Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dhoni against the South African attack at Calcutta?

Huh? My whole argument was that we should NOT discount any record regardless of opposition and conditions. I used South Africa's example to make that very point.

Yes when analysing a player's record, or comparing two players, we can assign a higher value to a performance against a stronger opposition or testing conditions and a lower value to a performance against a weaker opposition or easy conditions, but no performance should be discounted.

For example: Lara's 375 against England is a greater knock than Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe because of the difference in the opposition. I have no problems with that. I have problems with this "Hayden is not great because the only triple he has is against the minnows"

 

[Uppercut]

Please tell me I didnt read that.
I actually had to read that post twice to be sure you werent being sarcastic..

Have you considered even for a second that the reason Bangladesh might have lost all test matches might be because some players did score runs that changed the result of their game in their favour??

Just admit it..you are not familiar with most of Bangladesh's matches..and that is fine..if their cricket does not interest you, you dont have to be aware..but if you are making an argument that involves them, please make sure you do some research.

Of course I watch their matches.

If they are capable of beating a test-standard side, I just think it's incredible that they've not yet managed to do so even once in 50+ attempts. For every instance you give of a match where a batsman played what appeared to be a crucial knock against Bangladesh I can give you about twenty where a cricketer completely failed and it had no effect on the outcome of the match whatsoever. As of today, you get away with not scoring against Bangladesh 100% of the time. Obviously in theory, someone has to score the team's runs, but in practice those who don't have always won the match anyway.

I don't have anything against Bangladesh at all, ftr. Their fans are absolutely fantastic. I'm just determined not to patronise them. There's nothing wrong with NUFAN's way of acknowledging their improvements and being positive, it's just that if Ireland were granted test status and lost every one of their first fifty games, people speaking about us like that would make me feel physically ill.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Of course I watch their matches.

If they are capable of beating a test-standard side, I just think it's incredible that they've not yet managed to do so even once in 50+ attempts. For every instance you give of a match where a batsman played what appeared to be a crucial knock against Bangladesh I can give you about twenty where a cricketer completely failed and it had no effect on the outcome of the match whatsoever. As of today, you get away with not scoring against Bangladesh 100% of the time.

I am sorry but I just cannot buy that. I don't know on what basis you can say that.

 

[Uppercut]

The fact that it's never happened once in hundreds of instances must make you think it's pretty unlikely, surely?

 

[honestbharani]

The fact that it's never happened once in hundreds of instances must make you think it's pretty unlikely, surely?

you mean those matches would have been won against Bangladesh even if nobody scored runs and got wickets?