subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Shall they be ignored? Included in international records? Or at least held to the same level or more as international records?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
WSC Records - How do you deal with them?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
You mean the sides affected by WSC absences?
kyear2
International Coach
Yes, and the ones who played against them.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Fair point. Though we do point out Packer weakened sides a fair bit.
I think we shouldnt add WSC to overall records but in our comparisons can add it in country specific records in Aus and WI.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
So below intl record standing?
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
WSC records matters definitely. Below Test is not fair to opposition strength, ahead of Test wishful fantasy; I would say they are on par with Test. Though may I add so were matches like RoW XI vs Australia/England and to an extent the rebel tour matches and matches like bicentenary Test, etc.
Also, of course performance against WSC weakened sides should be noted for their respective level of strength, but downplaying them heavily is also equally stupid.
And of course, if the question is Test only; then they shouldn't be factored in. If the goal is to judge the quality of batsman in red ball cricket, then definitely.
Also, of course performance against WSC weakened sides should be noted for their respective level of strength, but downplaying them heavily is also equally stupid.
And of course, if the question is Test only; then they shouldn't be factored in. If the goal is to judge the quality of batsman in red ball cricket, then definitely.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Greg, Viv, Imran and a few others should get extra credit based on WSC performances.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
They should get credit based on performance considering conditions and opposition, as they normally do. No more, no less. The idea that WSC was "superior" to Test is also ridiculous.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Not superior to me, equal.
Like Viv and Imran get critiqued by CW for not doing as well versus or in Australia.
If you add their WSC numbers, Viv averages well over 50 I think in Aus and overall. Whereas Imran's average in Aus also goes way down.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Definitely on a par with Tests and should be regarded as such.
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
I don’t think Viv does. That would be idiocy. He for all reasons averages 48 there at a super high SR and had the best series there by a modern bat. Domination of Lillee/Thomson. He is easily one of the best bats there
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
They are critiquing Viv now in the thread vs Hadlee for being soft against Australia.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Woakes is the only player in my living memory who could have brought down Viv's average in World Series. Too bad that they never locked horns with each other.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
WSC would have stood for Woakes Series Cricket.
It would have meant even more then.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
CW is cricketweb Chris Woakes
To begin with, WSC wasn't taken seriously. Nobody turned up to watch, until the day/night gimmick was introduced. Official Tests against India drew large crowds.
The operation was dubbed a "circus". Basically exhibition matches. There was also the issue of integrity, where every player on both sides was paid handsomely by the same person - Packer. Were they likely to risk injuring a star opponent? Was everyone trying their hardest? If so, then the matches should count for something.
Several participants said it was the toughest cricket they played. What else were they going to say?
The operation was dubbed a "circus". Basically exhibition matches. There was also the issue of integrity, where every player on both sides was paid handsomely by the same person - Packer. Were they likely to risk injuring a star opponent? Was everyone trying their hardest? If so, then the matches should count for something.
Several participants said it was the toughest cricket they played. What else were they going to say?