Worst Player to Play 200 tests?

[Pratters]

The politics of it is also quite interesting. The ICC is essentially member nations grouped together. That didn't mean that the ICC decided tours. They were always decided mutually between member countries. During that time, ICC tried to control every thing with more ICC tournaments, having the future tours programme etc. The ICC Series - 3 ODIS and a test was in that spirit. The first official test wasn't a test at the time, you will be intrigued to know. It was given test status later. So there is no reason why the status of these matches can't be scrapped. I have seen statisticians not recognise them as test matches in their books etc and they are right here. The sooner the official international status of these matches is scrapped, the better.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yorkshire has a potential ATG batsman in their current side.









































And as well as Kane Williamson, Joe Root plays for them too.

 

[Howe_zat]

A middle order of Pujara, Williamson and Root would have been seen as unstoppable a couple of years ago. Things have gone a bit pete tong since then

 

[a massive zebra]

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.
`

huh? It shouldn't. I never said it should.

A middle order of Pujara, Williamson and Root would have been seen as unstoppable a couple of years ago. Things have gone a bit pete tong since then

How bout that random county bowler that took a hatrick a few weeks ago of Root, Williamson, Bairstow.

 

[anil1405]

Love how this thread started off without any substance and turned into a meaningful conversation.

 

[Pratters]

huh? It shouldn't. I never said it should.

and yet, you support another random match with strong players to have test status why exactly?

 

[Flem274*]

we need another world eleven game

maybe try a sick experiment, like a western eleven touring india on dustbowls for 5 tests or an asian eleven comes down to aus-nz-sa on a 9 test tour of home team stats padding

 

[Pratters]

@a massive zebra: LOL, that's gold.

 

[cpr]

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

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.

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.

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

I love watching an argument fall apart without anyone else touching it.

The fact were now arguing whether Yorkshire should be given test status as a result is even better.

Would therefore mean the answer to the original question could be Anthony McGrath

 

[Pratters]

Erm, not really, no, cpr.

 

[mr_mister]

awesome. luckily nothing of note happened on the field in that 10 minutes so we got to see the whole thing play out, only in cricket could you pull such a prank really

 

[TheJediBrah]

and yet, you support another random match with strong players to have test status why exactly?

Because it was granted Test status well in advance, and was a genuine Test match. The standard was definitely there. It wasn't a "random match". I don't see why you think the Yorkshire thing is the same, just because it's a strongish team? The World XI in 2005/06 was a professionally selected full-strength team.

Your only argument for it not having Test status is "it's not between two countries/ICC member states and don't think it should be a Test match". Which is fine, that's your opinion, but I definitely don't agree with it.

 

[Pratters]

It wasn't a genuine test match as a genuine test match is played between two countries. The point I make re Yorkshire is also quite clear.

 

[Spikey]

For me, it's gotta be Sachin Tendulkar

 

[cpr]

Erm, not really, no, cpr.

Well post 1 is you saying it can't be anyone because by your definition Sachin didn't play 200 tests. Post 4 is you admitting you were wrong and he did...without anyone actually questioning you. So yeah, really, yeah.

 

[Pratters]

Well post 1 is you saying it can't be anyone because by your definition Sachin didn't play 200 tests. Post 4 is you admitting you were wrong and he did...without anyone actually questioning you. So yeah, really, yeah.

So? I saw I was factually incorrect about some thing and mentioned it. How you can extrapolate that to the logic of another point I am making flawed is beyond me.

 

[cpr]

I'm not, I'm taking statement one, namely no-one can be the worst to 200 tests because IMO Tendulkar hasn't played that many, then pointing out how you then argued with yourself for a bit (ie you weren't responding to anyone) then corrected the Tendulkar statement The other two posts in the middle are you just waffling to yourself about something irrelevant, really couldn't give a stuff about the logic of that point, just focusing on how you refuted burgeys completely relevant and important question then disagreed with yourself 5 mins later.

 

[Pratters]

You connected both which doesn't make any sense.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It wasn't a genuine test match as a genuine test match is played between two countries.

Yeah you said that, but it's not actually a fact. It's just something you stated as one. A Test match is a Test match if ICC says it is.

The point I make re Yorkshire is also quite clear.

Sure but it wasn't really relevant was it?