recognizing records

So according to this article, a couple of Indian kids have broken the record for the highest partnership in any form of recorded cricket. In a school match, they put on 721 runs in just 40 overs.

My question is, why is this being reported as if it is actually a record? Is it comparable to Sangakkara and Jayawardene making 624 in an actual Test against South Africa this year? I mean, good for these kids, but this was a Hyderabad Under-13 school tournament.

Even Tendulkar and Kambli's 638-run stand in a 3-4 day game in a 16-17 year old all-India interschool tournament is a more valid record, although that too is overrated. Cricinfo's wording is priceless:

"The closest any Test batting duo came to going past the Tendulkar-Kambli record was when Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara added 624 for the third wicket against South Africa in Sri Lanka earlier this year. "

The closest they ever came?! Are you kidding me? 624 is pretty damn close to 638, and 624 in an actual test trumps 638 in a school tournament by about 500 miles. They shouldn't even be discussed in the same sentence.

Kambli, of course, remained unwilling "to buy the argument that school cricket makes for easy records."

So here's what I think. Tomorrow, there's a match in my studio apartment. All are welcome - boys, girls, infants, and seniors. The wall by the radiator is a six, and the tv stand is the wicket. If you hit the computer, you're out... Let's make some records!