Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Richard

WSC matches are categorically not First-Class, nor have they ever been regarded as such, nor should they ever be so. They were organised with the specific aim of disrupting real cricket and should never, ever be recognised as anything other than totally unofficial.

Personally I don't have a problem with SA Rebel tour games being FC, and think the ICC's belated decision to rule some of them not so was pretty stupid and completely pointless. Outlawing them from the Test arena was fair enough but First-Class cricket is a different matter.

You think the rebel tours didn't want to destabilise official cricket?

[Richard]

Oh, for certain they did, but for different reasons. Packer purely wanted cricket for his television station, he didn't give a damn about the welfare of the game; Bacher and co. wanted it because they didn't believe South Africa should've been outlawed. All right, that was a pretty shallow belief, but they weren't deliberately trying to destabalise the game in England, Australia and West Indies as they ended-up doing; they were merely trying to right what they saw, wrongly in the eyes of most, as a wrong.

In my book South African domestic cricket (which remained First-Class in the eyes of all throughout isolation) is a different matter to Test cricket. First-Class matches can be handed-out on a whim; there is a very specific nature to Tests. Debarring countries from playing Tests had a means and an aim; ruling matches non-First-Class would have been and was completely pointless - there is no stigma attached.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game?

I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject.

Personally I wouldn't rate someone higher on first class average if all of them have played a number of tests. It kind of shows that the guys with the higher average in first class cricket couldn't handle the step up to tests. I guess you have to take the eras they all played into account too.

[silentstriker]

We spend so much time debating the records of Test players of the same era, dissecting, removing, analyzing every stat even when the opposition is relatively standardized. How can you even begin to do the same to FC records? I don't see it.

[GIMH]

We don't all do that with Test cricketers

[silentstriker]

Of course, this is true. But if the criteria is "judging by the records", those who don't care about records would automatically be removed from this discussion, surely? The only people who would decide whether its fair or not to judge players on FC record would be people who already think it's fair to judge players on Test records?

[GIMH]

Hmm, maybe it's just me but I think you're being a bit pedantic. I would never say a player's record should be ignored, I just believe that the analysis of statistics can sometimes (and I do stress, only sometimes, I do appreciate good statistical analysis, I just hate OTT stuff) suck all life out of the game, because sport is not a science. I don't think the question is really focusing specifically on averages, but rather achievements, i.e. can we judge those who didn't play Tests based on what they did elsewhere?

I don't think the standardisation of records etc needs to be a factor in whether or not you can fairly judge a player based on their FC achievements.

[Pothas]

As far as I am concerned first class cricket should never be ignored or totally disregarded. Ramps and Hick scoring 100 centuries is an amazing achievment and one which should be celebrated regardless of their performances in tests.

[silentstriker]

Well, if you care about records at all, then obviously standardization would be the first thing to look at, otherwise you don't really care about it at all (which is fine too, of course, if that's what you prefer). Otherwise, it's just numbers without meaning surely? What are they except in context against other numbers?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Personally I wouldn't rate someone higher on first class average if all of them have played a number of tests. It kind of shows that the guys with the higher average in first class cricket couldn't handle the step up to tests. I guess you have to take the eras they all played into account too.

You certainly do. Although what you say is true at the current time and has been for 20 years or so, it certainly hasn't always been.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Richard

The idea that Surrey v Yorkshire (or in fact Yorkshire v several other counties) was of a lower standard than for instance West Indies v India would've been in, say, 1935, is plain wrong. There are many other examples. For some, a tourist fixture against Yorkshire in 1935 would've been barely lesser than a Test against England, and certainly greater than a Test against South Africa.

possible. but by the 60s and 70s tests were the ultimate form of the game. I was looking forward to hearing from you about that specific period since you had mentioned it in your earlier post.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Richard

WSC matches are categorically not First-Class, nor have they ever been regarded as such, nor should they ever be so. They were organised with the specific aim of disrupting real cricket and should never, ever be recognised as anything other than totally unofficial.

didn't know this. its a shame though because the players were as serious as though they were test matches. deserved a FC status at least.

[Richard]

I don't think they do deserve First-Class status. Standard, even at First-Class level, is not absolutely the only consideration. Packer matches do not have to be First-Class for their worth as far as assessing a player's calibre is concerned - many people, rightly, look in part at Packer matches when assessing players, especially the likes of Barry Richards. But Packer had at the heart of his aim the disruption of First-Class and Test cricket in order to serve his own purposes. This to me makes it abhorrant to ever recognise such games as First-Class. They were entirely private enterprises. No-one has ever recognised games under Sir Paul Getty's aegis as First-Class either, despite the fact that a large number of outstanding cricketers have sometimes been involved and despite the fact that Getty was a cricket affectionado who, unlike Packer, cared deeply about the game's welfare.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by bagapath

possible. but by the 60s and 70s tests were the ultimate form of the game. I was looking forward to hearing from you about that specific period since you had mentioned it in your earlier post.

No, I'm every bit as confident about what I wrote earlier as I am that, say, Lancashire's attack was stronger than that of West Indies, Australia and probably Pakistan as well in the late-1960s and early-1970s. Of course, the West Indies team of 1966/67 (which comprised in case anyone is unaware of Hunte, AN Other, Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse, Sobers, Lloyd, Hendriks, Hall, Griffith and Gibbs) was miles ahead of any domestic side probably in history. And of course the side Australia had assembled by 1974/75 and 1975/76 was among the best ever. The best Test cricket was of course still superior to any domestic FC cricket. But the 1972 WI vs. NZ series would've been very unlikely in my book to be of a higher standard than a good deal of county or state cricket around the same time - in terms of bowling if not batting.

And look at it this way - in 1964 Bobby Simpson was the dominant Test player. But would he really be regarded as the best player around ahead of Garry Sobers, who was in barnstorming form in the Sheffield Shield and County Championship? Of course he wouldn't. Sobers' domestic performances were easily strong enough to maintain his pre-eminence.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Well, if you care about records at all, then obviously standardization would be the first thing to look at, otherwise you don't really care about it at all (which is fine too, of course, if that's what you prefer). Otherwise, it's just numbers without meaning surely? What are they except in context against other numbers?

No