Casual take. This one is out imo.
I still think it was clearly not out. Not just as it hit him in the shoulder, it clearly would had gone over the stumps.
I agree the shoulder lbw was technically the least bad but honestly the moment it hit the shoulder he shouldn't have entertained it.
with WSC Viv easily beats Lillee but it was seen as the IPL of the time and a circus by many really so it deserves to be as devalued and ignored as possible, in regards to all of the participants. but anyway, refer to the signature below from now on when considering tagging me.
What? You used to argue it was elite cricket and intl level. Come on man. I want to take you seriously.
Your first mistake.
I don't reckon I should waste my last couple posts on this site degrading World Series Cricket but here we are. It cannot be taken seriously because they were practically exhibition matches, both sides were paid by the same person, the same person chose how the games would be played, the same person also put down nonsensical rules such as no slow batting or no spinners and yada yada because he thought they were boring (spinners are). It's a monetized version of test cricket that only existed to fatten pockets and the main intent was to entertain, not to win, and this showed as none of the players wanted to rusk injuries. Simply put, it's below even some first class club games that took place in England, let alone on par with proper Test Cricket, it should be rated like IPL.
It definitely was a more monetized version of test cricket but there is a plenty of player testimony to indicate that the players took it seriously and felt it was an intense challenge. The relative high quality of the pool of players alone should make one take it seriously.
Player testimony would naturally be biased, What are they even going to say? All in all, the points regarding high talent pool and players taking it seriously is something also applicable to something like IPL, or any of the franchise Cricket played around the world really, only tests really directly applicable to international Test Cricket are the 1970-71 World XI tours of England and Australia, and the Commonwealth XI unofficial tests in Asia, everything else should just default under the first class terminology.
The player testimony is usually particular to how WSC changed the way they played cricket and it's intensity. And it's pretty silly that you would consider intl tests played with sub par teams during WSC as more applicable than very strong XIs in the WSC itself, or a World XI in 70/71.
nothing serious.
Don’t tell me this is cos of that thing yesterday
If it's not serious then stick around bud.
I can lie but generally I don't like to.
Srsly man thats a pretty nothing thing to leave over. Such a waste.
you know what? you're right.
