can you explain this a bit, please?
it is going to be a shock to the world if you manage to make a convincing argument that while lillee, gavaskar, sobers, g.chappell, roberts, barrington, bedi, chandra, prasanna, gibbs, lloyd, kanhai, i.chappell, knott, holding and underwood were winning accolades for what they were doing in tests, a higher standard of cricket was played in the first class arena.
Ind33d I did not. The likes of Sobers, Roberts, Greg Chappell etc. were all heavily in the business of conquering both Tests and the domestic First-Class arena - in most cases, in at least a couple of different countries. There is also, of course, the fact that cricket games which rightly have no status at all (most notably Packer games) are sometimes worthy of consideration when assessing a player's calibre.He never made that suggestion.
What??? boycott averaged 56 in FC and 47 in tests. he is not even considered second best to hobbs as an opener. he is seen to be inferior to gavaskar and greenidge as well. you say barrington would have been no.2 behind bradman if he had done better in FC cricket?? barrington is also known as borington. he was too slow, like boycott, to be considered part of world XIs, irrespective of good test records. dont confuse the issues here. and you are talking about one player when i have listed about 20 in my post. they all competed against each other in tests and earned their reputation. FC cricket in England or Aus or anywhere else was nothing compared to that except in pre WW1 England when the best cricket in the world was probably played there.Ind33d I did not. The likes of Sobers, Roberts, Greg Chappell etc. were all heavily in the business of conquering both Tests and the domestic First-Class arena - in most cases, in at least a couple of different countries. There is also, of course, the fact that cricket games which rightly have no status at all (most notably Packer games) are sometimes worthy of consideration when assessing a player's calibre.
However you mention Barrington, a player who repeatedly struggles to get the accolades his Test record appears to merit. Well, no small part in his Test record not being regarded as the ultimate example of his excellence is the fact that his domestic FC average is so much lower. If Barrington had averaged 60 in First-Class cricket and 58 in Tests I've little doubt he'd be irrefutably considered by all as a serious contender for second best to Bradman.
they are as far as i knowI'm pretty sure the WSC matches are not regarded as first class
yeah it isOn the first class/not first class theme, is the SA/India "test" that lost test status when (IIRC) Mike Denness was rejected by both teams as referee considered FC?
I'm pretty sure the WSC matches are not regarded as first class although, perversely, I believe the rebel tours to South Africa are - the other way round I could understand but that's plain wrong
they are as far as i know
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.cricketarchive doesn't include them as first class - although I can't find a definitive statement to that effect
I said nothing of the sort, so stop reading what you'd like to have been written and read what was written. The idea that Gordon Greenidge was better than Boycott is debateable at best, nonsense at worst BTW.What??? boycott averaged 56 in FC and 47 in tests. he is not even considered second best to hobbs as an opener. he is seen to be inferior to gavaskar and greenidge as well. you say barrington would have been no.2 behind bradman if he had done better in FC cricket??
That's nonsense. Most people don't care less whether players are boring when they consider how good they were - all that matters is... well, how good they were. Hobbs (and Sutcliffe, and Hutton) was better than Boycott not because he was more interesting but because he was better.barrington is also known as borington. he was too slow, like boycott, to be considered part of world XIs, irrespective of good test records. dont confuse the issues here.
They also earned their reputations in the domestic game. Had they done lesser there - which was never going to happen BTW - their reps would've suffered accordingly. The point is not about any one player but that most players who perform at Test level have also tended to perform at domestic FC level - and the odd example who has not done suffers for it.and you are talking about one player when i have listed about 20 in my post. they all competed against each other in tests and earned their reputation.
I'm sorry, but to say that is historically ignorant, nothing more. 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.FC cricket in England or Aus or anywhere else was nothing compared to that except in pre WW1 England when the best cricket in the world was probably played there. The super tests or the ROW tests are FC only by name. they were essentially invitational teams featuring the best international cricketers hence they were of highest quality, almost as good as tests. that is not true of any FC cricket outside the packer series or the ROW vs Aus series.
You think the rebel tours didn't want to destabilise official cricket?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.
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.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.
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.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.