Who won these battles?

[Johan]

- No, tours games are clearly less high stake than WSC which given the player pool and compeititeness is intl class, just different if you like.

- Sorry but aggressive teams will win more games, period, regardless of their quality. Unlike you can provide actual examples.

- You problem if you haven't properly characterized pre 70s cricket which undoubtedly had a Victorian residue to it. So modern iterations may be more or less aggressive but that have graduated from that generally genteel standard. You just don't want those era cricketers to look bad which is not necessarily the case.

- we can always find out the sides that are good and the sides that are bad, for example, in the 50s England had Surrey playing with the bowling of Bedser, Lock and Laker while Yorkshire with Trueman, Wardle and Appleyard. Why do runs against Lillee and nobodies in WSC count but runs against Surrey or Yorkshires of the time don't?

- Current Australia wins more than current India even though latter are more aggressive.

- It's not about era at all, Your explanations on why Cricket post 70s or in 70s was more intense is entirely revolving around two countries with disregard for the remaining four (five) countries. I'm frankly not finding this victorian residue in pre 70s Cricket that wasn't present until 90s, just because one team managed to become aggressive and were world beaters convineantly when they did so is not evidence enough for me to regard the entire game to have become more intense, especially since Australia ceased to be an intense force by 1980s and Windies by 1990s.

 

[Johan]

I really hope this whole thing isn't based on the slow batting thing.

Like for Luffy I know that his whole thing against it has at least a little to do with Sunny not being invited and trying to legitimize his record in the tests that were being played against scrubs.

It's crazy how a few weeks ago there were many who were saying that Packer deserved to be on the mount Rushmore of cricket, not it's being discredited in the most ridiculous of ways. It pushed and professionalized cricket, introduced safety equipment and was among the highest levels of the game ever played. It's literally where the best players of the era was.

For someone who's also watched a decent amount of it, I can say that it was cricket, real proper cricket, not Bazball, nor just endless bouncers, or agricultural shots.

Yes, aggressive play, fast blowing and superb fielding were prioritized, some would argue that's how the game should be played, and the template that subsequently the West Indies, Australia and South Africa successively followed to being the best teams in the world.

I don't know what point you've been trying to make of late, but the inconsistencies are wild and making it not only harder to take you seriously, but taking away from who was once seen as among the better posters on the forum.

Well that's flattering, anyway.

I think Gavaskar was invited but refused because the Indian Cricket board told him he'd be banned from Cricket for life in India if he goes to play in Packer's game.

Regardless of all, I'm offering a completely fair trade of performances in tour games being taken as the same level as those in WSC, because those performances were also seen as no inferior to test games in the past, as long as the opposition is world class of course. it's a completely fair trade off, if you and Subz agree to it then I'm willing to reincorporate WSC records to their test numbers directly, would give me a better sense of consistency.

 

[subshakerz]

- we can always find out the sides that are good and the sides that are bad, for example, in the 50s England had Surrey playing with the bowling of Bedser, Lock and Laker while Yorkshire with Trueman, Wardle and Appleyard. Why do runs against Lillee and nobodies in WSC count but runs against Surrey or Yorkshires of the time don't?

- Current Australia wins more than current India even though latter are more aggressive.

- It's not about era at all, Your explanations on why Cricket post 70s or in 70s was more intense is entirely revolving around two countries with disregard for the remaining four (five) countries. I'm frankly not finding this victorian residue in pre 70s Cricket that wasn't present until 90s, just because one team managed to become aggressive and were world beaters convineantly when they did so is not evidence enough for me to regard the entire game to have become more intense, especially since Australia ceased to be an intense force by 1980s and Windies by 1990s.

- Because the context was an elite battle of the best in the world with a hard edge from the Chappell era

- No they aren't, bad example.

- Chapells teams became aggressive, and that influenced directly a pace explosion and teams like Pak and WI becoming top teams and a change in sports psychology, pay, equipment and professionalism with a lasting legacy until today.

 

[subshakerz]

Regardless of all, I'm offering a completely fair trade of performances in tour games being taken as the same level as those in WSC, because those performances were also seen as no inferior to test games in the past, as long as the opposition is world class of course. it's a completely fair trade off, if you and Subz agree to it then I'm willing to reincorporate WSC records to their test numbers directly, would give me a better sense of consistency.

This offer just means you believe WSC are international test level just different. Which is fine.

 

[Johan]

- Because the context was an elite battle of the best in the world with a hard edge from the Chappell era

- No they aren't, bad example.

- Chapells teams became aggressive, and that influenced directly a pace explosion and teams like Pak and WI becoming top teams and a change in sports psychology, pay, equipment and professionalism with a lasting legacy until today.

- are we saying Bedser/Lock/Laker and Trueman/Wardle/Appleyard are not world class? and just so you know, before the statsguru age tour games were rated very highly, Hadlee was holding back for New Zealand to save himself for county games for example.

- Yes they are.

- Nonsense. There was no effect in sports "psychology" of 5 of the 7 relevant cricketing nations, England/Australia/South Africa were having pace booms since the second world war, India didn't even have two world class pacers until very recently since the 1930s, New Zealand also had zero pace revolutions. Equipment was natural progression, Pay was improving since forever, "professionalism"? lol, that's been around since the turn of the century

 

[Johan]

This offer just means you believe WSC are international test level just different. Which is fine.

Take the offer or you get nothing and WSC, with tour games and good county performances, would be termed with first class Cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

Take the offer or you get nothing and WSC, with tour games and good county performances, would be termed with first class Cricket.

What does my having to accept tours have to do with anything?

Fact is you admitted you agree WSC are test level, or you wouldnt make the offer in the first place.

 

[Johan]

What does my having to accept tours have to do with anything?

Fact is you admitted you agree WSC are test level, or you wouldnt make the offer in the first place.

Test level but different, and without the official designation or any possibility of having it. Therefore termed with lots of Cricket that gets termed as First Class Cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

- are we saying Bedser/Lock/Laker and Trueman/Wardle/Appleyard are not world class? and just so you know, before the statsguru age tour games were rated very highly, Hadlee was holding back for New Zealand to save himself for county games for example.

- Yes they are.

- Nonsense. There was no effect in sports "psychology" of 5 of the 7 relevant cricketing nations, England/Australia/South Africa were having pace booms since the second world war, India didn't even have two world class pacers until very recently since the 1930s, New Zealand also had zero pace revolutions. Equipment was natural progression, Pay was improving since forever, "professionalism"? lol, that's been around since the turn of the century

- Saying the context of the WSC was different for raised stakes than regular county games

- Cummins is an aggressive captain

- no comparable pace boom of what we saw from 70s onwards. Pay increase well documented spike since WSC. Sports psychology plenty of testimony.

 

[subshakerz]

Test level but different, and without the official designation or any possibility of having it. Therefore termed with lots of Cricket that gets termed as First Class Cricket.

So we agree it's test level.

You can put first class cricket there too if you wish it's not my concern though.

 

[Johan]

- Saying the context of the WSC was different for raised stakes than regular county games

- Cummins is an aggressive captain

- no comparable pace boom of what we saw from 70s onwards. Pay increase well documented spike since WSC. Sports psychology plenty of testimony.

- No? County payed Hadlee more than NZC payed him, he put more effort, I guess the county runs scored against Hadlee > the international runs scored against Hadlee?

- he is balanced

- Evidence? Trueman/Statham/Tyson for Ashes > any pace lineup in 70s bar 1979 Windies. Pay is always increasing. Sports psychology changed only because a couple teams became better (Pak, Windies), now I guess sports psychology regressed because they're bottom barrell sides.

 

[Johan]

So we agree it's test level.

You can put first class cricket there too if you wish it's not my concern though.

Actually, if we're gonna go by official designation, it's not Test Cricket, now if you have it as fully Test Level then sure translate it into test cricket but don't whine when other Cricketers get a boost from performances in what can also be considered test level cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

- No? County payed Hadlee more than NZC payed him, he put more effort, I guess the county runs scored against Hadlee > the international runs scored against Hadlee?

- he is balanced

- Evidence? Trueman/Statham/Tyson for Ashes > any pace lineup in 70s bar 1979 Windies. Pay is always increasing. Sports psychology changed only because a couple teams became better (Pak, Windies), now I guess sports psychology regressed because they're bottom barrell sides.

- no because country format is fundamentally different from WSC

- Definitely more aggressive than defensive

- bar 1979? lol yes let's ignore that. Well you still have several then and let's not even mention their successors in the 90s. Pay room a big spike, don't ignore that. And sport psychology generally changed but applies differently to different teams.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually, if we're gonna go by official designation, it's not Test Cricket, now if you have it as fully Test Level then sure translate it into test cricket but don't whine when other Cricketers get a boost from performances in what can also be considered test level cricket.

We don't need to officially call it tests as long as you have agreed it's test standard

 

[PlayerComparisons]

When did cricket become a full time job?

 

[capt_Luffy]

We don't need to officially call it tests as long as you have agreed it's test standard

He didn't said they were Test standard. He said they are pretty on standard with a bunch of CC and tour matches which you never rate as equivalent to WSC

 

[Johan]

- no because country format is fundamentally different from WSC

- Definitely more aggressive than defensive

- bar 1979? lol yes let's ignore that. Well you still have several then and let's not even mention their successors in the 90s. Pay room a big spike, don't ignore that. And sport psychology generally changed but applies differently to different teams.

- How? it's the same format of Cricket, are we now going by just them playing under country names?

- He does both as need be, and overall he's just a good captain, if you remember it was Jaiswal and Bumrah who were going for all the attacks, as well as Siraj and Pant who were aggressive. Aussies were positively cautious the whole series. I think you're messing up positive Cricket for aggressive cricket and negative cricket for cautious cricket.

- Yeah because that's the best lineup ever? both the 50s/60s English lineups and the Invincibles Aussie lineups surpass anything in 70s bar Windies, Trueman/Statham beat Lillian Thomson, by a mile. Pay spikes were happening since the start of time. Ok, so it was only applicable for a couple of teams for a couple of years where they happened to be world beating sides, definitely a coincidence.

 

[Johan]

We don't need to officially call it tests as long as you have agreed it's test standard

I agreed that a lot of Cricket played under FC designation is Test class, either we count all of it or either we don't count any of it.

 

[peterhrt]

The popularity and credibility of WSC changed from the first year to the second. The first Packer Supertest between Australia and West Indies at Melbourne coincided with the first official Test of the summer against India at Brisbane. Both started on 2 December 1977.

31,788 spectators attended the four days of the official Test. The first day of the WSC "Supertest" attracted only 2,847. At one stage Packer and his staff were reported to be counting cars in the car park. The three days of the match saw a combined 13,885 walk through the gate. The media strongly supported the official matches. In England WSC was dubbed the "Circus".

The introduction of day/night cricket during the second season, with a new emphasis on one-day matches, swung the balance Packer's way, helped by a poor showing on the part of the official home team against England. The last Supertest in Australia, against the Rest of the World, drew 38,249 spectators over three days (February 2-4 1979). The following week, the final official Test against England, with the series already lost, attracted 22,000 during four days.

 

[peterhrt]

I think Gavaskar was invited but refused because the Indian Cricket board told him he'd be banned from Cricket for life in India if he goes to play in Packer's game.

No Indian players were approached by Packer during WSC. For the planned 1979-80 edition, which never happened, Gavaskar and Kirmani were rumoured to have held discussions with Packer. The Indian board stripped Gavaskar of the captaincy and dropped Kirmani, officially "on the basis of form".