• 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.

Opinions on The Super Series

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
archie mac said:
Also a series between the ROW and Australia, (early 70s) where Sobers played an innings described by Bradman as the best ever innings played in Australia is not recorded in Test match records. I think Lillee claimed 8-20 in one of these matches.
That would've been Sobers' 254 at Melbourne I think...and Lillee took 8/29 in this match.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
archie mac said:
Because in the past they have not given these type of matches Test status, I refer to a series in England (late 60s I think) where at the time it was thought the match would receive official sanction, but this was later withdrawn, and one of the English players, played what would have been his only Test. (Jones?)

Also a series between the ROW and Australia, (early 70s) where Sobers played an innings described by Bradman as the best ever innings played in Australia is not recorded in Test match records. I think Lillee claimed 8-20 in one of these matches.
I'm far too young (I was a year old at the time) to have seen Sobers' double century in Melbourne (or remember Lillee's scalps for that matter) in that '71 series. Were those matches contested in the kind of spirit comparable to a match of official status? And if so, would this disjoint be rectified by granting those matches official status, or is there an additional reason not to do it in this instance?

The main problem in contemporary cricket with matches not given official status is that they seem to prioritize a guarantee that the audience gets it's money's worth, in terms of big players making big scores (often at the expense of the bowlers who have to "provide") and an atmosphere more geared towards kidding around.

I think that one of the appealing things about official status is that it gives some real motivation to the top players in the world to approach the competition with the commitment they'd give any other official match.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Slow Love™ said:
I'm far too young (I was a year old at the time) to have seen Sobers' double century in Melbourne (or remember Lillee's scalps for that matter) in that '71 series. Were those matches contested in the kind of spirit comparable to a match of official status? And if so, would this disjoint be rectified by granting those matches official status, or is there an additional reason not to do it in this instance?

The main problem in contemporary cricket with matches not given official status is that they seem to prioritize a guarantee that the audience gets it's money's worth, in terms of big players making big scores (often at the expense of the bowlers who have to "provide") and an atmosphere more geared towards kidding around.

I think that one of the appealing things about official status is that it gives some real motivation to the top players in the world to approach the competition with the commitment they'd give any other official match.
The Matches from those earlier series were granted First Class status but not Test status. One reason for not granting retrospective Test status, would be the problem with players Test appearence number. For instance I know Slater has tatooed his number somewhere on his person.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Dasa said:
That would've been Sobers' 254 at Melbourne I think...and Lillee took 8/29 in this match.
Thanks for that I was only 5 at the time but have read a little bit about the series, the ROW team looks quite strong from that period. I could have sworn that Lillee's figures were 8-20, but there you go.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
archie mac said:
The Matches from those earlier series were granted First Class status but not Test status. One reason for not granting retrospective Test status, would be the problem with players Test appearence number. For instance I know Slater has tatooed his number somewhere on his person.
LOL. I remember Slater had his test cap number tattooed (and was there some talk that he'd got that wrong?) on his body - I guess this could be affected should somebody who only played in a game like that change what the number was.

Either way, tattoos aside, I wouldn't see it as such a huge issue - but if it's considered too complicated, so be it. I'm still not totally sure how this would be an argument not to give these games official status though.
 

greg

International Debutant
Slow Love™ said:
LOL. I remember Slater had his test cap number tattooed (and was there some talk that he'd got that wrong?) on his body - I guess this could be affected should somebody who only played in a game like that change what the number was.

Either way, tattoos aside, I wouldn't see it as such a huge issue - but if it's considered too complicated, so be it. I'm still not totally sure how this would be an argument not to give these games official status though.
He made his debut at the same time as Brendon Julian took his number in accordance with the custom that he was higher in the batting order so made his appearance "before him". The problem was that Cricket Australia changed the custom a couple of years later when they published a list of Test players, with 'tie breaks' being decided by alphabetical precedence. :D
 

archie mac

International Coach
Slow Love™ said:
LOL. I remember Slater had his test cap number tattooed (and was there some talk that he'd got that wrong?) on his body - I guess this could be affected should somebody who only played in a game like that change what the number was.

Either way, tattoos aside, I wouldn't see it as such a huge issue - but if it's considered too complicated, so be it. I'm still not totally sure how this would be an argument not to give these games official status though.
You are right, Slater did have the wrong number, but they managed to swap it with someone else (Julian I think?)

They are loath to do these things at it would throw out thousands of books and reference dates. Some of the earlist Tests could also be called into question. Some of the first Tests between England and Sth Afr. were not even considered First Class at the time.

Even when it was discovered that WG Grace only scored 124 hundreds and not 126 which has long been the number he is credited with, most historians and stats people have refused to change. It would make a big difference to the history of Cricket.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
greg said:
He made his debut at the same time as Brendon Julian took his number in accordance with the custom that he was higher in the batting order so made his appearance "before him". The problem was that Cricket Australia changed the custom a couple of years later when they published a list of Test players, with 'tie breaks' being decided by alphabetical precedence. :D
Yeah, that was it. I think Slater steadfastly maintains that his figure is right though - oh well, as long as it works for him. :)

Does anybody remember that odd game around '95 or '96 where Dean Jones played as part of a World XI vs Australia at the MCG? It was mainly notable because Jason Gillespie (in what was, I think his first international match) clean bowled Richie Richardson. Richie looked horrified, and it definitely looked like it was "against the script" of the match. Later, things got really stupid when Mark Waugh was lobbing up watermelons so as to ensure Deano got a century himself. (Well, most of the crowd clapped.)

I'm hoping to see something a little more serious when the Super Series takes place.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
archie mac said:
You are right, Slater did have the wrong number, but they managed to swap it with someone else (Julian I think?)

They are loath to do these things at it would throw out thousands of books and reference dates. Some of the earlist Tests could also be called into question. Some of the first Tests between England and Sth Afr. were not even considered First Class at the time.

Even when it was discovered that WG Grace only scored 124 hundreds and not 126 which has long been the number he is credited with, most historians and stats people have refused to change. It would make a big difference to the history of Cricket.
True - although the nature of reference books for a sport that's ongoing is that the statistics are perpetually changing. And the claim that "all this was true as of 1970" could still be maintained. (As a side issue, I wouldn't mind the World Series stuff being incorporated into official stats, either - they were hard-fought matches between the best players in the world.)

But like I said, even if retrospective changes are considered too complicated to undertake, I don't see that as having to prevent these upcoming matches from being granted official status. As long as they are intended to be contested to an intensity appropriate to such a fixture, I am in favor.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
honestbharani said:
I am certainly shocked that some people think that such matches don't deserve international status. These are world class players playing in a very competitive match, why shouldn't it be an international match?
For the same reason that World Series Cricket matches shouldn't and weren't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Slow Love™ said:
Either way, tattoos aside, I wouldn't see it as such a huge issue - but if it's considered too complicated, so be it. I'm still not totally sure how this would be an argument not to give these games official status though.
I would willingly strip every ODI of ODI status, retrospectively, that involve teams not strong enough to play ODIs.
 

goldstein

Cricket Spectator
It'll be terrific to see the best all on the one field, but I can't help thinking there will be a lack of meaning to the occasion. If the Rest of the World win, it'll be a case of 'so you bloody well should', while if Australia win it could be argued that the ROTW has had inadequate preparation as a unit.

In this age of players already struggling with their current workload, these matches seem a tad unnecessary. That problem can be solved by reducing the plethora of meaningless ODIs and focusing on quality rather than quantity, so a series such as this should be OK now and then.

Although I'll be going to the Supertest, the only reason is because you rarely see so many legends on the one field. If it becomes a regular event, the novelty will eventually wear thin.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Dasa said:
That's a terrible attitude... just because you don't want it, you don't want anyone else to enjoy it either??
Personally I find it totally acceptible - I find it a manufactured contest, and I don't want it to be enjoyable because I don't really believe it deserves to exist.
And if it's a failure, much the better chance of it not being repeated.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Slow Love™ said:
I'll echo archie mac's opinion to a degree - obviously at this stage, the World XI won't be taking on an Australian team anywhere near as strong as when this thing was envisioned, and that's a shame. But timing of events such as this can be very difficult..

Anyhow though, I find the prospect of this as an ongoing event pretty exciting, and I will definitely be watching - I don't care whether it was created as a money-spinner or not. All the Aussie cricket fans I personally know feel similarly, and it seems a popular idea within the country.
Which is, perhaps, the most interesting part. If the host country is geared for watching... why not?
However, the attitude of "I don't care whether it was created with the virtually sole intention of money-making" is too much like sticking your head in the sand for me. It's glaringly obvious to anyone who really opens their eyes and mind that that's the case, and as such it's really just luck if it does provide a wonderful cricketing occasion - and as I've mentioned, I reckon the one-dayers are well on track not to do so, and the six-day game could possibly go the same way if ROTW get their act together.
 

howardj

International Coach
Richard said:
Personally I find it totally acceptible - I find it a manufactured contest, and I don't want it to be enjoyable because I don't really believe it deserves to exist.
And if it's a failure, much the better chance of it not being repeated.
You really are singularly the most carping, negative and contrary person I've come across. Can't you just chill out and enjoy what is sure to be some magnificent cricket? If these sort of matches were played regularly or instead of internationals where nation competes against nation, then I think you'd have a point. However, given it's virtual one-off nature, can't we just relax and savour the quality of the cricket?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
honestbharani said:
Sure, it is done for commercial interest. Tell me how many boards actually stage matches for their LOVE of the game alone? Commercial interests is always an important issue, and if this brings more money which CAN be spent on cricket, then so be it.
Of course commercial interests are always an important issue - a VERY important one, indeed, and the only justification for anyone touring Zimbabwe - the fact that they'll be fined if they don't.
Fact is, though, international cricket has become a commercial thing - it originated purely out of the fact that people wanted to play it. This is different. If cricket wasn't ruled by a body who might do well called I$$ this WOULD NOT have happened, and it really is just an accident if if all goes well.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
howardj said:
You really are singularly the most carping, negative and contrary person I've come across. Can't you just chill out and enjoy what is sure to be some magnificent cricket?
That's just the point - it's not sure to be so, at all. The one-dayers have all the makings of a complete farce and I probably won't even bother to watch them, and while I'll certainly be watching the six-dayer I won't be either amazed or especially disappointed if it degenerates into a 600-plays-300-and-300.
As for being negative - I make no apologies for it. I don't like to see the best in everything, like most people.
If these sort of matches were played regularly or instead of internationals where nation competes against nation, then I think you'd have a point. However, given it's virtual one-off nature, can't we just relax and savour the quality of the cricket?
That's just the point - we're not talking about that, ICC have it in mind to make this a regular thing.
 

howardj

International Coach
Richard said:
That's just the point - we're not talking about that, ICC have it in mind to make this a regular thing.
Yeah, once every few years - you sure have a weird definition of 'regular'
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Richard said:
For the same reason that World Series Cricket matches shouldn't and weren't.
Hello Richard, nice to see you back, mate. :)

I'll bite though. If you're cavalier enough with the record books to happily strip the ODI status of all one-dayers featuring teams not up to your standards, what's your objection criteria for the WSC matches having official status, given that it was designed as a competition of the best vs the best?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
My gripe with WSC isn't the standard, that's not in question.
My gripe with WSC is and always has been that it was devised by illicit means, was never officially sanctioned and is, rightly, similar in status to a pub game between some rich landlord who's bought-up a load of the best players to play in his back ground.
Incidentally - a piece coming soon that may interest you. :)
 

Top