WSC Records - How do you deal with them?

[kyear2]

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.

I will again say, the test stats of the regulars that plundered weakened sides are less relevant to me, than the stats from WSC.

I already know you.disagree, but like literally everything else, we can agree to disagree.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I will again say, the test stats of the regulars that plundered weakened sides are less relevant to me, than the stats from WSC.

I already know you.disagree, but like literally everything else, we can agree to disagree.

And I will say again, they are of equal value. Let's not go there for now....

 

[kyear2]

Greg, Viv, Imran and a few others should get extra credit based on WSC performances.

Barry and Lillee are conspicuously absent.

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.

I agree not superior, very much on par.

 

[kyear2]

CW is cricketweb Chris Woakes

It all makes sense now.

 

[BazBall21]

I hold good WSC performances in high regard. Pretty simple.

 

[subshakerz]

Barry and Lillee are conspicuously absent.

Barry yes. Lillee is pretty much his normal returns so I don't see his needle changing.