The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[h_hurricane]

ATG Test XI:
Hubbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Bevan
Imran
Gilchrist
Warne
Marshall
Murali
McGrath

Jadeja over Warne any day of the week even if that means playing two left armers.

 

[Red]

Barry Richards record in WSC is pretty epic btw.

 

[bagapath]

Barry Richards record in WSC is pretty epic btw.

deserves to be in the all time WSC XI, then.

 

[h_hurricane]

deserves to be in the all time WSC XI, then.

Exactly where he belongs. Also should be a strong candidate for all time XIs for South Australia, Natal, Hampshire, Gloucestershire etc.

I am not even sure if everyone will pick him in an ATG SA XI. Many would go for Smith and Mitchell.

 

[Red]

deserves to be in the all time WSC XI, then.

And WSC matches should be classified as tests and therefore it'd add to his legacy as one of the great opening bats of all time.

 

[bagapath]

And WSC matches should be classified as tests and therefore it'd add to his legacy as one of the great opening bats of all time.

He is already known as a great opening bat in first class cricket. That is what he shall remain. Forever

 

[Starfighter]

And WSC matches should be classified as tests

May as well remove the distinction between internationals and the IPL while you're at it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

So, Red Hill is Ian Chappell?

As I've said before, if you believe WSC was for the good of cricket, then look upon it not being counted as first-class cricket as a necessary sacrifice for the betterment of the game. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too*.


*Although I regard that saying as flawed.

 

[Nintendo]

So, Red Hill is Ian Chappell?

As I've said before, if you believe WSC was for the good of cricket, then look upon it not being counted as first-class cricket as a necessary sacrifice for the betterment of the game. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too*.


*Although I regard that saying as flawed.

It not being counted as first class is fine, but the level of play during WSC was test tier, any achievements from it should hold the same weight as test performances as far as atg discussion goes.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That's not what I think he's saying though—based on what not a small amount of others say, but it's a fair enough argument for ATG discussion to consider them. After all, I've used WSC when discussing Lillee's record.

 

[Red]

May as well remove the distinction between internationals and the IPL while you're at it.

I'm not sure how that makes any sense? The IPL is a local cricket tournament, the same as the Big Bash.

That's not what WSC was.

So, Red Hill is Ian Chappell?

As I've said before, if you believe WSC was for the good of cricket, then look upon it not being counted as first-class cricket as a necessary sacrifice for the betterment of the game.

I don't know how this makes sense either. It wasn't counted as first class as it wasn't sanctioned by the official cricket powers of the day. There's no reason this can't be revised now and the records included in the participants test and FC career stats etc.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm not sure how that makes any sense? The IPL is a local cricket tournament, the same as the Big Bash.

They're both tournaments outside the official international framework, in the case of WSC even more so as it was a complete revolt against the official authority (even moreso than the ICL). May as well count the Rebel tours as test matches as well, as they're no different to WSC in that regard. The 1970 and 71/72 RoW matches have a much more legitimate case (the 1970 were briefly considered official tests), but their inclusion is a moot point these days.

If I could rock up with a whole bunch of money and put on some matches that doesn't mean they should be considered official. The quality doesn't matter either - I'm sure the Australia Rebel team could have beaten the official team.

 

[Red]

They're both tournaments outside the official international framework, in the case of WSC even more so as it was a complete revolt against the official authority (even moreso than the ICL). May as well count the Rebel tours as test matches as well, as they're no different to WSC in that regard. The 1970 and 71/72 RoW matches have a much more legitimate case (the 1970 were briefly considered official tests), but their inclusion is a moot point these days.

I know the history of them. Really well actually.

You know there's been times in world history where revolution against official authority has bought about good things and history can be revised to reflect that? Every dipshit in the IPL earning way more money than they deserve should send half of it to the guys who made WSC happen.

If I could rock up with a whole bunch of money and put on some matches that doesn't mean they should be considered official. The quality doesn't matter either - I'm sure the Australia Rebel team could have beaten the official team.

WSC wasn't just about a rich guy putting on some matches and expecting them to be official. It was essentially a union movement designed to bring fairness to the players in terms of payment. Packer's motive were to get cricket from the ABC to Ch 9, but he also had the player's welfare in mind.

 

[Red]

And yeh, the "rebel team" would've absolutely fkn pantsed the "official team"

 

[NotMcKenzie]

WSC wasn't just about a rich guy putting on some matches and expecting them to be official. It was essentially a union movement designed to bring fairness to the players in terms of payment. Packer's motive were to get cricket from the ABC to Ch 9, but he also had the player's welfare in mind.

Call me cynical, but I'd say it's that he knew he could use use the issue to his advantage. And you, as I said, you are clearly suffering from Ian-Chappellism.

Simple fact is that these people chose to break with the official system, and likely would have known this at the time. Supposing that players' welfare was in their minds, they decided it was worth their while making the sacrifice. To want their figures to be revised now shows that they have doubts it was worth it, because they clearly believe their stats to be more important than the cause and the sacrifice they made. Or perhaps it is an expression of greed rather than concern for welfare.

 

[Red]

Call me cynical, but I'd say it's that he knew he could use use the issue to his advantage. And you, as I said, you are clearly suffering from Ian-Chappellism.

Simple fact is that these people chose to break with the official system, and likely would have known this at the time. Supposing that players' welfare was in their minds, they decided it was worth their while making the sacrifice. To want their figures to be revised now shows that they have doubts it was worth it, because they clearly believe their stats to be more important than the cause and the sacrifice they made. Or perhaps it is an expression of greed rather than concern for welfare.

Everyone knew they could use the situation to their advantage. I said that "Packer's motive were to get cricket from the ABC to Ch 9". The players wanted to be paid properly. That's where it all started.

And of course they decided "it was worth their while to make the sacrifice" and "break with the official system". If the cricket board hadn't reconciled with the players, compromised, and offered better financial deals for players, however, WSC probably would have evolved to become the elite competition worldwide, over test matches. Why would players choose to play for nothing when they could get rewarded for their talent and their ability to draw crowds/sponsorship.

I dunno what you mean by "Ian-Chappelism". I like Chappelli, but he is on record as saying he doesn't care whether the stats from WSC are in the official test/FC records or not. My point is that they should be at least acknowledged as the equivalent of tests, at the very least. The fact they haven't even got FC status is absurd, when you see some of what is accepted as FC cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Packer's motive were to get cricket from the ABC to Ch 9, but he also had the player's welfare in mind.

you really think?

 

[Line and Length]

I agree with many of the points that Red Hill makes. While I believe acknowledging WSC matches as Tests may be a step too far, they certainly deserve to be recognised as First Class fixtures. The players and performances were 'first class' in every sense of the term. Cricketers worldwide have benefited from the WSC saga.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Everyone knew they could use the situation to their advantage. I said that "Packer's motive were to get cricket from the ABC to Ch 9". The players wanted to be paid properly. That's where it all started.

And of course they decided "it was worth their while to make the sacrifice" and "break with the official system". If the cricket board hadn't reconciled with the players, compromised, and offered better financial deals for players, however, WSC probably would have evolved to become the elite competition worldwide, over test matches. Why would players choose to play for nothing when they could get rewarded for their talent and their ability to draw crowds/sponsorship.

I dunno what you mean by "Ian-Chappelism". I like Chappelli, but he is on record as saying he doesn't care whether the stats from WSC are in the official test/FC records or not. My point is that they should be at least acknowledged as the equivalent of tests, at the very least. The fact they haven't even got FC status is absurd, when you see some of what is accepted as FC cricket.

It's not absurd; the argument is essentially, 'you liked them'. Quality—apart from the issue of subjectivity of course—does not determine first-class or test status, and nor does percieved 'representativeness', otherwise we could have all sorts upgrades and downgrades going on. Matches are deemed to be first class by the governing body, and that is the definition (also, three or more days and eleven a side). Why should a concious step outside that definition be considered first class? Again, your answer will be in essence, 'you liked them'.

By 'Ian-Chappellism', I mean exactly the opinions you are expressing, because they line up very much with things he has said over the years, including having WSC considered first class which I believe he has supported. It encompasses nostalgia, uncritical thinking and a certain amount of hipocrisy (if one compares his current opinions on player behaviour to his own behaviour from his playing days).

Why would players choose to play for nothing when they could get rewarded for their talent and their ability to draw crowds/sponsorship.

Then be satisfied with those rewards. Seems a pretty good deal to me for sacrificing one's first-class career given the relative rewards of each at the time.

WSC probably would have evolved to become the elite competition worldwide, over test matches.

This is actually very presumptuous. Australia and West Indies were the most affected, and only in the West Indies would it have made the biggest difference (and even then, they had considerable depth). Few of the young players (i.e. not Chappell/Lillee/Marsh) from the Australian WSC generation had any significant influence at international level after the split ended. England managed to cover its gaps very well.

The players and performances were 'first class' in every sense of the term.

Except the important sense. You might not like it, but there it is.

 

[stephen]

**** the official body. They were the cause of WSC in the first place. They wanted cricket to stay with the ABC out of tradition and wanted to protect the amateur status of the sport despite sports professionalizing across the world.

The official bodies were forced into a deal with Packer because they knew they would lose any control of the sport if they didn't. Cricket would have split into tests and WSC. The rules would have entirely diverged and you'd end up with a **** version of the spot and a good version of the sport, just like Rugby Union and League.

To me, and many others, "test" matches have nothing to do with administrators and everything to do with who the best ****ing cricketers in the country are. In that sense WSC was more test-like than the depleted official test sides of the era.

WSC deserves test status far more than any test Bangladesh played before 2010, far more than half the tests in the early 80s.

At the very least I wish cricinfo would add filters to optionally include WSC and rebel tour stats.