Unrecognised Match Tribute

[aussie tragic]

I still don’t think its fair that the ICC World XI vs Australia is counted as legitimate test records when the 1971-72 World XI vs Australia and the 1977-79 Packer WSC Supertests are not..........

Accordingly, I thought I’d see what the records would look like if they were counted.

I’ll start with some Aussie “Greats”

Greg Chappell
Supertests: 17 Tests, 1840 runs @ 63.45, HS 246*, 7 centuries, 5 fifties
Official: 87 Tests, 7110 runs @ 53.86, HS 247*, 24 centuries, 31 fifties
Combined: 104 Tests, 8950 runs @ 55.59, HS 247*, 31 centuries, 36 fifties
Would be 4th Highest Australian Run Scorer (currently 9th)

Ian Chappell
Supertests: 19 Tests, 1527 runs @ 46.27, HS 145, 5 centuries, 6 fifties
Official: 75 Tests, 5345 runs @ 42.42, HS 196, 14 centuries, 26 fifties
Combined: 94 Tests, 6872 runs @ 43.22, HS 196, 19 centuries, 32 fifties
Would be 11th Highest Australian Run Scorer between Bradman and Harvey (currently 14th)

Rod Marsh
Supertests: 20 Tests, 63 Dismissals, 717 runs @ 21.73, HS 102*, 1 century, 3 fifties
Official: 96 Tests, 355 Dismissals, 3633 runs @ 26.52, HS 132, 3 centuries, 16 fifties
Combined: 116 Tests, 418 Dismissals, 4350 runs @ 25.59, HS 132, 4 centuries, 19 fifties
Would hold Australian Record Dismissals (Gilchrist 416)

Dennis Lillee
Supertests: 18 Tests, 91 wkts @ 25.08, BB 8-29, 8 Fivefor, 1 Tenfor
Official: 70 Tests, 355 wkts @ 23.92, BB 7-83, 23 Fivefor, 7 Tenfor
Combined: 88 Tests, 446 wkts @ 24.16, BB 8-29, 31 Fivefor, 8 Tenfor
Would have held World record for 14 more years (Currently 1981-86)

 

[aussie tragic]

Viv Richards
Supertests: 14 Tests, 1283 runs @ 55.78, HS 145*, 4 centuries, 4 fifties
Official: 121 Tests, 8540 runs @ 50.24, HS 291, 24 centuries, 45 fifties
Combined: 135 Tests, 9823 runs @ 50.90, HS 291, 28 centuries, 49 fifties
WI 2nd Highest Run Scorer (same)

Here is the WSC Link: http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/worldseries/content/story/323724.html


EDIT: yeah, my 1500th post

 

[Richard]

The Australia-World XI rubbish of 2005/06 shouldn't be a Test, no way (IMO) but the WSC games should be such even less. They were private games, akin to matches on Sir Paul Getty's lawn. Personally I'm afraid I've never given a stuff about them - the players knew what they were getting themselves in for, and chose money over the game. That's not an illegitimate choice, I imagine most would've and would make it. The recent ICL furore shows it's a problem that hasn't gone away. But everyone knew these games were meaningless as far as career input was concerned, and that's the way it should stay.

World XI games (be they in 1970, 1971/72 or 2005/06 or any other time) are bad, but at least they were played "in routine" as alternative to what would normally be considered Tests. At least one normal Test team was involved.

But anything with "Rest Of" in the title (or even inaccurately omitted) should never be given international status or even thought of, AFAIC.

 

[aussie tragic]

So at least we agree that the Australia vs World XI game of 1971-72 should count if the 2000’s version did and under those guidelines we’d have:

Greg Chappell
Supertests: 3 Tests, 425 runs @ 106.25, HS 197*, 1 century, 2 fifties
Official: 87 Tests, 7110 runs @ 53.86, HS 247*, 24 centuries, 31 fifties
Combined: 90 Tests, 7535 runs @ 55.40, HS 247*, 25 centuries, 33 fifties

Ian Chappell
Supertests: 5 Tests, 634 runs @ 79.25, HS 145*, 4 centuries, 1 fifty
Official: 75 Tests, 5345 runs @ 42.42, HS 196, 14 centuries, 26 fifties
Combined: 80 Tests, 5979 runs @ 44.62, HS 196, 18 centuries, 27 fifties

Rod Marsh
Supertests: 5 Tests, 11 Dismissals, 186 runs @ 31.00, HS 77*, 0 centuries, 2 fifties
Official: 96 Tests, 355 Dismissals, 3633 runs @ 26.52, HS 132, 3 centuries, 16 fifties
Combined: 101 Tests, 366 Dismissals, 3819 runs @ 26.71, HS 132, 3 centuries, 18 fifties

Dennis Lillee
Supertests: 4 Tests, 24 wkts @ 20.08, BB 8-29, 2 Fivefor, 1 Tenfor
Official: 70 Tests, 355 wkts @ 23.92, BB 7-83, 23 Fivefor, 7 Tenfor
Combined: 74 Tests, 379 wkts @ 23.68, BB 8-29, 25 Fivefor, 8 Tenfor

I do disagree that the WSC teams were not test class though as the Aussie WSC team was the 1977 Test Team + Test fringe players and they would have thrashed the 1978-79 ACB XI (just like England did)

 

[Goughy]

Ive no strong opinions either way on this topic. But if rebel WSC cricket games are being included then the rebel Tests in SA need to be included. The South Africans viewed them as Tests.

 

[Richard]

It'd be quite wrong for the SA-vs-Rebel-team games to be classed Tests IMO. First-Class, yes, I don't have any problem with that - and the ICC's decision to withdraw said status from them in 1993 was utterly useless, pointless and served no purpose. I hope it's put back as it'll stop needless squabbling over the status of some games, as Wisden have refused to implement the ICC-sanctioned changes.

And as I said - I've always been 100% against WSC games being classed as Tests, because they were completely and totally different. The players were playing for Kerry Packer's franchises, not their countries. This would be like the IPL being a one-day rather than Twenty20 competition and those games being given ODI status.

 

[Richard]

So at least we agree that the Australia vs World XI game of 1971-72 should count if the 2000’s version did

I do disagree that the WSC teams were not test class though as the Aussie WSC team was the 1977 Test Team + Test fringe players and they would have thrashed the 1978-79 ACB XI (just like England did)

I've always completely discounted games involving Packer-gutted teams (Australia and West Indies) from any consideration (don't consider West Indies' defeat in India or Gavaskar's runs in the series as particularly Test-worthy). But it's vital that they remain Tests, as they were a show of defiance against the Packer Schism.

I honestly don't care whether the Packer teams were Test-class or not - being Test-class isn't the only credential for Test status (though obviously it's one that is a must for the thing being awarded IMO, hence my distaste for Bangladesh currently having it). An England+South Africa+India team would be Test-class too - doesn't mean I'd want it playing Test cricket.

As I say, though - I don't think "if 2005/06 counted so should 1971/72 and 1970". I think "because 1970 and 1971/72 didn't count, nor should 2005/06".

Greg Chappell
Supertests: 3 Tests, 425 runs @ 106.25, HS 197*, 1 century, 2 fifties
Official: 87 Tests, 7110 runs @ 53.86, HS 247*, 24 centuries, 31 fifties
Combined: 90 Tests, 7535 runs @ 55.40, HS 247*, 25 centuries, 33 fifties

Ian Chappell
Supertests: 5 Tests, 634 runs @ 79.25, HS 145*, 4 centuries, 1 fifty
Official: 75 Tests, 5345 runs @ 42.42, HS 196, 14 centuries, 26 fifties
Combined: 80 Tests, 5979 runs @ 44.62, HS 196, 18 centuries, 27 fifties

Rod Marsh
Supertests: 5 Tests, 11 Dismissals, 186 runs @ 31.00, HS 77*, 0 centuries, 2 fifties
Official: 96 Tests, 355 Dismissals, 3633 runs @ 26.52, HS 132, 3 centuries, 16 fifties
Combined: 101 Tests, 366 Dismissals, 3819 runs @ 26.71, HS 132, 3 centuries, 18 fifties

Dennis Lillee
Supertests: 4 Tests, 24 wkts @ 20.08, BB 8-29, 2 Fivefor, 1 Tenfor
Official: 70 Tests, 355 wkts @ 23.92, BB 7-83, 23 Fivefor, 7 Tenfor
Combined: 74 Tests, 379 wkts @ 23.68, BB 8-29, 25 Fivefor, 8 Tenfor

It is vaguely interesting how much impact would be made on the Chappells, especially, mind. Not that I'd be in favour. As I say - I still hope that one day the 2005/06 game will be removed from the Test list, and a damn sight more accurate (ie, worse) it'll make Stuart MacGill's record if so. No-one else will be affected that much.

But it's interesting still.

 

[Indipper]

WSC and at least part of the Rebel Tests will eventually be regarded as Tests by historians, I have no doubt about that. The arguments against it are purely political and have nothing to do with the quality of cricket, which should be the only concern in the matter.

 

[aussie tragic]

Here is the 1971-72 Australia vs World XI link

http://gulf.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1971-72/WORLD-XI_IN_AUS/

Doug Walters also had a great series so it would have been:

Supertests: 5 Tests, 355 runs @ 71.00, HS 127, 2 centuries, 1 fifty
Official: 74 Tests, 5347 runs @ 48.26, HS 250, 15 centuries, 33 fifties
Combined: 79 Tests, 5712 runs @ 49.24, HS 250, 17 centuries, 34 fifties

That would be enough to move him above Gilchrist in runs and above Harvey in the averages.....

 

[Burgey]

Love reading the scorecard for the match in Perth - Lillee - 8/29.

Saw an interview with Sobers on that game in the Chappell Era video. IIRC he saw Lillee bowl in Brisbane, where he bowled real fast, and as Sobers said "My thoughts immediately turned to Perth, adn I thought to my self 'What has Sir Don got me into here?'" Apparently he walked out to bat, and as he walked past the slips he looked at them and said "What on earth are you all doing way back here?" to which Marsh replied "You'll find out"!!

Of course Sobers got his revenge with that wonderful 200+ in Melbourne.

 

[aussie tragic]

Interesting for me, the following players would have worse records if the 1971-72 games were added:

Graeme Pollock
Supertests: 3 Tests, 209 runs @ 41.80, HS 136, 1 century, 0 fifties
Official: 23 Tests, 2256 runs @ 80.97, HS 274, 7 centuries, 11 fifties
Combined: 26 Tests, 2465 runs @ 58.69, HS 274, 8 centuries, 11 fifties
Would drop him from 2nd in all-time averages (retired players) to 5th, just ahead of Barrington's 58.67

Sunil Gavaskar
Supertests: 5 Tests, 257 runs @ 28.56, HS 68*, 0 centuries, 2 fifties
Official: 125 Tests, 10122 runs @ 51.12, HS 236*, 34 centuries, 45 fifties
Combined: 130 Tests, 10379 runs @ 50.14, HS 236*, 34 centuries, 47 fifties
Would just keep his average above 50

 

[aussie tragic]

It is vaguely interesting how much impact would be made on the Chappells, especially, mind.

umm, Ian Chappell starts with a century in each innings of the first test and scores 4 centuries in the 5-test series, while Greg Chappell scores a century in his first test for Australia (lucky he did it in his first official test as well).

Both Chappells would have a decent jump in career batting average, so I think its a real shame they're not counted seeing as how they were not "rebel" games.....

 

[SJS]

I still don’t think its fair that the ICC World XI vs Australia is counted as legitimate test records when the 1971-72 World XI vs Australia and the 1977-79 Packer WSC Supertests are not..........

Accordingly, I thought I’d see what the records would look like if they were counted.

I’ll start with some Aussie “Greats”

Greg Chappell
Supertests: 17 Tests, 1840 runs @ 63.45, HS 246*, 7 centuries, 5 fifties
Official: 87 Tests, 7110 runs @ 53.86, HS 247*, 24 centuries, 31 fifties
Combined: 104 Tests, 8950 runs @ 55.59, HS 247*, 31 centuries, 36 fifties
Would be 4th Highest Australian Run Scorer (currently 9th)

Ian Chappell
Supertests: 19 Tests, 1527 runs @ 46.27, HS 145, 5 centuries, 6 fifties
Official: 75 Tests, 5345 runs @ 42.42, HS 196, 14 centuries, 26 fifties
Combined: 94 Tests, 6872 runs @ 43.22, HS 196, 19 centuries, 32 fifties
Would be 11th Highest Australian Run Scorer between Bradman and Harvey (currently 14th)

Rod Marsh
Supertests: 20 Tests, 63 Dismissals, 717 runs @ 21.73, HS 102*, 1 century, 3 fifties
Official: 96 Tests, 355 Dismissals, 3633 runs @ 26.52, HS 132, 3 centuries, 16 fifties
Combined: 116 Tests, 418 Dismissals, 4350 runs @ 25.59, HS 132, 4 centuries, 19 fifties
Would hold Australian Record Dismissals (Gilchrist 416)

Dennis Lillee
Supertests: 18 Tests, 91 wkts @ 25.08, BB 8-29, 8 Fivefor, 1 Tenfor
Official: 70 Tests, 355 wkts @ 23.92, BB 7-83, 23 Fivefor, 7 Tenfor
Combined: 88 Tests, 446 wkts @ 24.16, BB 8-29, 31 Fivefor, 8 Tenfor
Would have held World record for 14 more years (Currently 1981-86)

If Packer series was recognised (and the 'rebels' were allowed to play the 'official' matches as well) the records may have been greater for these players PLUS some of the easy runs and wickets those playing official cricket in those years got, would have seen a massive reduction.

ICC would do the game great justice by at least according official status to those tests and one day internationals played under 'Packer'. This is the least they can do.

 

[SJS]

I get a tingling sensation just reading those great names. Here is the World Squad that faced the Australians of 1977-78 in the WSC super tests.

1. Barry Richards
2. Gordon Greenidge
3. Roy Fredricks
4. Viv Richards
5. Zaheer Abbas
6. Clive Lloyd
7. Asif Iqbal
8. Tony Greig
9. Mike Proctor
10. Imran Khan
11. Andy Roberts
12. Joel Garner
13. Wayne Daniel
14. Derryk Underwood
15. Alan Knott

And this is a world side WITHOUT the Aussies. Add to it

• Greg Chappell
• Ian Chappell
• Dennis Lillee
• Rod Marsh

and you cant find many world squads down the 130 years of test cricket that sounds so imposing.

To score runs or get wickets in this ensemble would have meant something and yet we do not even recognise those feats but are willing to give official status to the Asia versus Africa and similar mindless jamborees of the ICC.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Although there's no way any of the Packer Circus should be included in official records, no one should get the idea that this was garden party cricket. Many on the seasoned participants considered it the toughest cricket they ever played.

 

[Richard]

If Packer series was recognised (and the 'rebels' were allowed to play the 'official' matches as well) the records may have been greater for these players PLUS some of the easy runs and wickets those playing official cricket in those years got, would have seen a massive reduction.

ICC would do the game great justice by at least according official status to those tests and one day internationals played under 'Packer'. This is the least they can do.

They wouldn't. Those games, for the umpteenth time, weren't international cricket. They were in no way equable to international cricket.

Regardless of the standard, Packer, the only person at stake in these games, was not interested in the welfare of cricket. That alone is enough to condemn games played under his aegis to the realms of the unclassified.

 

[Richard]

umm, Ian Chappell starts with a century in each innings of the first test and scores 4 centuries in the 5-test series, while Greg Chappell scores a century in his first test for Australia (lucky he did it in his first official test as well).

Both Chappells would have a decent jump in career batting average, so I think its a real shame they're not counted seeing as how they were not "rebel" games.....

As I said - the only reason I don't want them counted is because one team involved was a "Rest Of" team. As I said, it is a bit of a shame, because undoubtedly the games were good ones and were perfectly fine as far as who was behind them was concerned.

But there's no way any team with "Rest Of" in it should ever be a Test-playing team. Makes a mockery of what Test cricket is about.

 

[Richard]

WSC and at least part of the Rebel Tests will eventually be regarded as Tests by historians, I have no doubt about that. The arguments against it are purely political and have nothing to do with the quality of cricket, which should be the only concern in the matter.

No, it shouldn't. Like it or not, cricket politics is a big part of what decides things. Also, the fact that Kerry Packer had no interest in the welfare of the game of cricket is hardly a political argument.

 

[aussie tragic]

As I said - the only reason I don't want them counted is because one team involved was a "Rest Of" team. As I said, it is a bit of a shame, because undoubtedly the games were good ones and were perfectly fine as far as who was behind them was concerned.

But there's no way any team with "Rest Of" in it should ever be a Test-playing team. Makes a mockery of what Test cricket is about.

But the fact is that the recent Australia vs World XI is counted, hence previous games that followed that same concept should also be counted (of course Packer WSC does not meet that criteria).....

....I guess you also don't count the West Indies who as everyone knows is a team made up from several countries and could therefore be called a "Best of" team not worthy of test status as you define it

 

[Richard]

But the fact is that the recent Australia vs World XI is counted, hence previous games that followed that same concept should also be counted (of course Packer WSC does not meet that criteria).....

But I don't subscribe to the theory that said ROW XI 2005/06 match should be counted. I agree with you that there's no difference between the ROW XIs of 1970, 1971/72 and 2005/06, completely. They should all be treated the same. But I feel that none, not all, should be of Test status.

....I guess you also don't count the West Indies who as everyone knows is a team made up from several countries and could therefore be called a "Best of" team not worthy of test status as you define it

West Indies aren't a "Rest Of" team, though, are they? I've no truck with agglomeration (think that's how it's spelt) of nations\countries being made Test teams, as long as there's long-termness in there. If, for instance, USA+Canada and Europe (excluding UK) were to be made Test teams and had the calibre to play at the level, I'd be quite happy with that.

What I don't like is when a team thrown together on a whim, with no qualification other than "not from X", gets Test status. When players from that team can go back and play for their "normal" team 3 days later.

There has to be permenance about a Test-playing team, IMO.