Opinions on The Super Series

[Richard]

Unlike the *Official* thread this is designed to collate the ideas of the point of the Super Series.
For ICC, it's obvious - as with almost everything ICC-controlled, the most important thing is to make as much money as possible. Selections have clearly, and quite justifiably, centred on box-office appeal rather than talent. Whether the selectors have been specifically instructed or whether it's just come naturally is an open question.
For me, the biggest appeal to the cricketing World, the reason it got off the ground, was the desire to see Australia beaten. By coincidence, Australia have, at the last possible moment before the series, been beaten and seen their side break-up. It's now, as demonstrated by a poll on the front-page, almost assumed that The World XI will win the Test.
For me, the One-Day Super Series has all the makings of a complete farce like the Tsunami Relief match, three runfests. The Super Test has lost most of it's raison d'etre in that Australia have already been beaten and are now downright expected to be so again. Will it still be a big box-office event? Hell yes. Will it still be especially remembered? It'll depend on how exciting the cricket is. If we get a 600-plus-plays-300-and-300 it will be forgotten and hopefully not repeated.
The whole reason that this idea has got off the ground, I repeat, is the dominance of Australia, something which no team is likely to repeat for a generation.
What will be interesting to see is how much of an affect it has on all involved. If Australia are beaten it's unlikely to sufficently demoralise them to lose to West Indies. But so many teams are donating players, and will this have a destabilising effect on them?
We'll only know in November-December time.

[Barney Rubble]

Personally, although money is clearly one of the key objectives in staging this series, I think having "Rest of the World" sides put out that actually do represent the best players in the Rest of the World (roughly - selection dilemmas and injuries aside, all the main players agreed to play) raises the profile of the game somewhat - if you look at what happens every time football tries to stage "Europe vs Rest of the World", none of the big names turn out, and it ends up generating no interest or money. Even the Tsunami game was missing a lot of big names.

Cricket, however, has benefitted from the fact that the players themselves all seem eager to play alongside others who they wouldn't usually play with - Flintoff was raving about playing with Tendulkar before he pulled out, and Kallis has been saying what an honour it is in the last few days - it does at least serve to show that cricketers do maintain a professional respect for their opponents that seems to be missing in a lot of sports these days. How often would a Manchester United player praise an Arsenal player who happened to be his international team-mate? Never, whereas these players, who frequently face each other in the international arena, seem to be grateful for the opportunity to play alongside one another.

The Super Series doesn't have a lot of point, you're right - but I think that if it does become a tradition as the ICC plans it to be, it could do more for the game than a lot of people realise.

[Langeveldt]

Absolutely no appeal for me whatsoever.. I hope the whole thing is a complete failure..

I'd rather sit and watch a club match in the sun, watching cricketers play the best game in the world for cricket's sake.. Not to line the pockets of one of the most incompetent sports governing bodies of all time.. An absolute disgrace, what if one of these "stars" gets badly injured and misses a test season for his country?

What if this series was before the Ashes, would Flintoff and co be so keen to come forward?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble

Cricket, however, has benefitted from the fact that the players themselves all seem eager to play alongside others who they wouldn't usually play with - Flintoff was raving about playing with Tendulkar before he pulled out, and Kallis has been saying what an honour it is in the last few days - it does at least serve to show that cricketers do maintain a professional respect for their opponents that seems to be missing in a lot of sports these days. How often would a Manchester United player praise an Arsenal player who happened to be his international team-mate? Never, whereas these players, who frequently face each other in the international arena, seem to be grateful for the opportunity to play alongside one another.

That simply says a lot about cricket relative to football, and I don't really think we need this Super Series to realise it. The Ashes demonstrated it about as well as anything can. I mean, for peat's sake, England demonstrated professional respect to Brett Lee, just imagine what they feel for Australia's good players!

The Super Series doesn't have a lot of point, you're right - but I think that if it does become a tradition as the ICC plans it to be, it could do more for the game than a lot of people realise.

If it doesn't have a point, IMO it's unlikely to become a tradition.
Of course, ICC may well do their utmost to make it one, because of the vast money-making potential it may have (or may not).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

What if this series was before the Ashes, would Flintoff and co be so keen to come forward?

What I find interesting is that all the England players, Flintoff included, talk about their next assignment being Pakistan - I've not heard a single England player, involved or not, mention The Super Series.
Which tells us a bit about what the England players, if no-one else, feels about it. I can't remember who else is in the squad - IIRR Harmison might be.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the purpose of the Super Series (aside from the commercial one obviously) was best described as "a celebration of cricket itself". I think it's a wonderful event and has the potential to be a great spectacle... the gathering together of all the greatest cricketers in the world for a game played in good spirit and at incredibly high standard is something every cricket fan should really feel excited by, and I don't see any reason to take a cynical attitude towards it. It's no more a pointless moneymaking venture than the World Cup or the VB Series or any number of other cricket tournaments.

I certainly know I'll be watching.

[Richard]

Why was The World Cup invented?
(Or, more significantly, when?)
In 1975, before the current money-orientated ICC took command - this genuinely was invented with the sole purpose of being a celebration of cricket.
Why was The VB Series invented? For the simple reason that The ACB (as it was then) believed a three-team tournament is better than a two-team one (so do I).
Who was The Super Series devised by? An organisation that everyone knows has only one main concern (their stance on Zimbabwe demonstrates that well enough, as does their utterly ludicrous international schedule), money. Such an event is always likely to be a large money-spinner. Therefore it's very obvious to anyone who's willing to open their eyes and not simply believe what they want to believe, the event was devised (and, as demonstrated by the selections, organised) with money-making the most important priority by far.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, unless we get some form of serious injury or, worse still, it turns people off cricket (not especially likely, but not an impossibility).
And I repeat - had Australia not been so utterly dominant, I find it highly unlikely that the idea would have got sufficient backing from ICC members to get off the ground.

[FaaipDeOiad]

You're probably right about the Australian dominance thing, but I see this as a potential positive from that. And turn fans away from the game? As the World Cup did, it is far, far more likely to attract them. Australia vs The Rest Of The World is a huge attraction here, and the reason it's likely to be such a money spinner is because people actually want to watch it.

Anyway, I don't really care what organisation is responsible for it or what else they do. I think it's an excellent idea and one that will be of huge interest to the vast majority of cricket fans. Obviously it will be a massive event in Australia, and when it does eventually go to another country it will have the same impact there.

[archie mac]

When I first heard the idea, I liked it, but by the time it come around most of the mystique is gone, no Mark or Steve Waugh or Lehmann and now no Dizzy or Martin. These are the players which made Australia No 1 in the world.

I am especially against the Test being given official status, it makes a joke of Test Cricket. In the past World teams have not had there matches given Test status. So what was the difference?

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

You're probably right about the Australian dominance thing, but I see this as a potential positive from that. And turn fans away from the game? As the World Cup did, it is far, far more likely to attract them. Australia vs The Rest Of The World is a huge attraction here, and the reason it's likely to be such a money spinner is because people actually want to watch it.

Anyway, I don't really care what organisation is responsible for it or what else they do. I think it's an excellent idea and one that will be of huge interest to the vast majority of cricket fans. Obviously it will be a massive event in Australia, and when it does eventually go to another country it will have the same impact there.

Ditto for me

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

When I first heard the idea, I liked it, but by the time it come around most of the mystique is gone, no Mark or Steve Waugh or Lehmann and now no Dizzy or Martin. These are the players which made Australia No 1 in the world.

I am especially against the Test being given official status, it makes a joke of Test Cricket. In the past World teams have not had there matches given Test status. So what was the difference?

The difference is that the current organisation in charge of status of matches has little or no feel for the vital traditions - hence the utterly absurd decision to give the Tsunami Relief match ODI status when it shouldn't even have been a List-A-one-day game.
I don't feel giving these matches top status is quite as stupid as giving the Tsunami game it, but I do feel it'd be better if they weren't.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

And turn fans away from the game? As the World Cup did, it is far, far more likely to attract them. Australia vs The Rest Of The World is a huge attraction here, and the reason it's likely to be such a money spinner is because people actually want to watch it.

Just because people want to watch it before doesn't mean it can't turn people off after, and if it's a farce (which it might be - especially the one-dayers) it might just do so.
As for WC2003... did inestimatebly more harm for the game than good.

Anyway, I don't really care what organisation is responsible for it or what else they do. I think it's an excellent idea and one that will be of huge interest to the vast majority of cricket fans.

In other words decisions made for the wrong reasons might have a good impact... maybe. Doesn't change the fact that they were made for the wrong reasons, though (if you can call making lots of money in an event that will probably be harmless especially wrong).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

a game played in good spirit and at incredibly high standard

A game involving Clarke, Brett Lee, Tait, Hayden and possibly MacGill is categorically not one of a remarkably high standard.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

A game involving Clarke, Brett Lee, Tait, Hayden and possibly MacGill is categorically not one of a remarkably high standard.

[Richard]

Because of course we have so much evidence that these are such wonderful players, don't we?