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.