Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 111

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

  1. #31
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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?

  2. #32
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #33
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    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.
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  4. #34
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing


  5. #35
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,714
    We don't all do that with Test cricketers
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  6. #36
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    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?

  7. #37
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,714
    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.

  8. #38
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    11,726
    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.

  9. #39
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    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?

  10. #40
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bagapath; 24-12-2009 at 08:17 PM.

  12. #42
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Richard; 25-12-2009 at 04:50 AM.

  15. #45
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,714
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    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

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The CW50 - No.20-11
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 13-12-2009, 01:49 AM
  2. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  3. Fm 2007
    By bugssy in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 02:41 AM
  4. Replies: 1876
    Last Post: 23-09-2005, 04:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •