• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who won these battles?

Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
the big bambino said:
Just love it when scrubs on cw rate their opinion over player’s actual experiences. WSC was the toughest cricket ever played.
Click to expand...
It's also the view of many journalists at the time, and while the challenge might be super high, there are clear differences between it and Test Cricket to the point for me to not count them as directly equivalent.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Johan said:
It's also the view of many journalists at the time, and while the challenge might be super high, there are clear differences between it and Test Cricket to the point for me to not count them as directly equivalent.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure there were journos who said that and if they did they’d be quickly corrected or ignored for their idiocy.

The players thought it was the toughest cricket they played and I recall being at a dinner featuring Max Walker who emphasised the challenges for batsman and bowlers as unrelenting due to the uniform quality of the players involved.

Bruce Laird was congratulated by the WI for his century against them on a minefield ... the list of performances is extensive.

The standard of player would never let the game’s degenerate to mere exhibitions - they were too proud for that. Plus they were being well paid and Packer wasn’t likely to accept substandard play from them. These guys were fighting for their cricketing lives and knew they couldn’t fool a sceptical public with exhibition standard cricket.

It was real and intense. The pitches did favour fast bowling it is true. In that regard it was unfair but consequently made for harder play as well. I can understand why Packer wanted it that way. A weakness of the contracted player system was lack of depth. He couldn’t afford to have his fast bowlers going down to injury bowling on batting pitches and ordered pitches for pace bowling accordingly.
 
Last edited:
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Like Seriously, players saying the Highest paid flashiest Tournament Ever is their Biggest Challenge; despite it being, at the Very possible Best, WI vs Australia with a strong bias against Spin or Medium pace, actually anything but just rough fast bowling; and without Jeff Thomson and Alvin Kallicharran.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
capt_Luffy said:
Like Seriously, players saying the Highest paid flashiest Tournament Ever is their Biggest Challenge; despite it being, at the Very possible Best, WI vs Australia with a strong bias against Spin or Medium pace, actually anything but just rough fast bowling; and without Jeff Thomson and Alvin Kallicharran.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would still be a great challenge. And overall it was a concentrated group of high quality players.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
How is it any more valuable than county runs vs high class bowling lineups or tour matches against full strength International XIs?
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Yeah that would still be a great challenge. And overall it was a concentrated group of high quality players.
Click to expand...
Overall, it was watered down WI vs Australia with a very biased type of bowling, and a pretty strong case of conflict of interest of what the owner wanted.
 
Last edited:
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
Most cricketers actually don't have the time to watch a lot of cricket, and they don't. For a long time in the past, there wasnt lot of video footage available either. Most of the peer rating is hence based off direct encounters or who they are friends with in their national/county teams.
Consensus is ofc a bit better, but still, cricketers and the general public mostly, rate players very differently than us nerds do on CW. Don't factor in a lot hence
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
[
Thala_0710 said:
Most cricketers actually don't have the time to watch a lot of cricket, and they don't. For a long time in the past, there wasnt lot of video footage available either. Most of the peer rating is hence based off direct encounters or who they are friends with in their national/county teams.
Consensus is ofc a bit better, but still, cricketers and the general public mostly, rate players very differently than us nerds do on CW. Don't factor in a lot hence
Click to expand...
I am talking consensus of those they actually faced.

Sobers talking about warne is useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top