Who won these battles?

[Johan]

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".

guess the rumours had truth to it for such quick retaliation.

 

[peterhrt]

guess the rumours had truth to it for such quick retaliation.

That would seem to be the case.

 

[kyear2]

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.

When discussing certain players, one B.A. Richards in particular, I've frequently referenced his numbers and performances vs touring sides, where he averaged around 70. It is a plausible gauge of quality, and one that's always been part of the rating of players for decades and even one that factored in the only team that been given a moniker, the invincibles.

But that has nothing to do with the undisputable fact that WSC matches were the equivalent of test cricket and again I stress, better than the test matches that were concurrently being contested.

There's nothing to debate, that's where the best players were.

 

[Coronis]

When discussing certain players, one B.A. Richards in particular, I've frequently referenced his numbers and performances vs touring sides, where he averaged around 70. It is a plausible gauge of quality, and one that's always been part of the rating of players for decades and even one that factored in the only team that been given a moniker, the invincibles.

But that has nothing to do with the undisputable fact that WSC matches were the equivalent of test cricket and again I stress, better than the test matches that were concurrently being contested.

There's nothing to debate, that's where the best players were.

So Kerry Packer not inviting Gavaskar = Richards > Gavaskar?

 

[kyear2]

So Kerry Packer not inviting Gavaskar = Richards > Gavaskar?

Struggling to see how you came to that conclusion based on what I wrote above.

I've been very clear (and you very much aware) the basis of why I rate Barry above Gavaskar.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barry averages 25 in Rebel Tour matches btw.

 

[kyear2]

Barry averages 25 in Rebel Tour matches btw.

Really trying to understand the point of this post.

 

[Coronis]

Struggling to see how you came to that conclusion based on what I wrote above.

I've been very clear (and you very much aware) the basis of why I rate Barry above Gavaskar.

You quote a post about Gavaskar not being in WSC. You then make a post about Richards performance in WSC and say the best players were there. Pretty obvious what you’re getting at.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Really trying to understand the point of this post.

That Rebel Tours were, by your definition, Test equivalent. And Barry averages in the 50s on including them IIRC. Calculated them with @sayon basak quite a while back, didn't wrote down the findings. See if he has them.

 

[subshakerz]

Really trying to understand the point of this post.

Isn't it obvious?

G Pollock did better in those rebel matches btw.

 

[kyear2]

You quote a post about Gavaskar not being in WSC. You then make a post about Richards performance in WSC and say the best players were there. Pretty obvious what you’re getting at.

If you read the post, that comment was in reference to a very specific poster and their related opinions of WSC.

No one has responded to the point that the WSC matches were of grater quality and relevance compared to the "test" matches that were being played at the same time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Grater Quality as in a spectacle to amuse, sure. I can count it as Test equivalent of we do so for every FC match with an above Test Standard bowling attack.

 

[subshakerz]

Grater Quality as in a spectacle to amuse, sure. I can count it as Test equivalent of we do so for every FC match with an above Test Standard bowling attack.

If you count it as test equivalent what are we arguing about then?

 

[Coronis]

If you read the post, that comment was in reference to a very specific poster and their related opinions of WSC.

No one has responded to the point that the WSC matches were of grater quality and relevance compared to the "test" matches that were being played at the same time.

I believe this has been explained to you maybe… once before.

Most people here when picking all time test teams don’t consider non-test matches as any significant part of their choice.

Putting any quality argument aside… if its an ATG test side I’m (and most others) not considering FC/WSC/etc. performances.

Maybe this will make it easier - when talking about great NBA players I don’t bring up their olympic performances either.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you count it as test equivalent what are we arguing about then?

I don't count it as Test equivalent the same way I don't count every match with an above Test Standard bowling attack as Test equivalent. Sure I rate them, but definitely not as a Test equivalent.

 

[kyear2]

That Rebel Tours were, by your definition, Test equivalent. And Barry averages in the 50s on including them IIRC. Calculated them with @sayon basak quite a while back, didn't wrote down the findings. See if he has them.

I have never once referred to the rebel tours as test standard.

They weren't remotely close to the standard or competition of WSC nor the ROW test series, and no one would suggest that they were.

And again, the rebel tests were well after his peak and primary career which was mostly from 1966 to the end of WSC.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're trying to do, but none of this takes away from the fact that during the 70's Barry was rated ahead of Sunny, and was rated the best in the world till Vivian took over in '76. That Barry was rated ahead of Sunny by practically all of the great bowlers of the era. But keep at it.

 

[sayon basak]

That Rebel Tours were, by your definition, Test equivalent. And Barry averages in the 50s on including them IIRC. Calculated them with @sayon basak quite a while back, didn't wrote down the findings. See if he has them.

In RoW tour of ENG:-
10 innings; 338 runs @37.55

In WSC:-
8 innings; 554 runs @79.14

In Tests:-
7 innings; 508 runs @72.57

In Rebel tours:-
10 innings; 252 runs @28

Overall:- 1652 runs @51.62

 

[subshakerz]

I don't count it as Test equivalent the same way I don't count every match with an above Test Standard bowling attack as Test equivalent. Sure I rate them, but definitely not as a Test equivalent.

I don't know what it will take to convince you if the higher talent pool and the player testimony themselves of the intensity and greater professionalism of it don't sway you at all. Conversely you will consider the tests matches with sub par teams of the time more representative.

 

[subshakerz]

In RoW tour of ENG:-
10 innings; 338 runs @37.55

In WSC:-
8 innings; 554 runs @79.14

In Tests:-
7 innings; 508 runs @72.57

In Rebel tours:-
10 innings; 252 runs @28

Looks like Barry fell off the cliff a bit

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have never once referred to the rebel tours as test standard.

They weren't remotely close to the standard or competition of WSC nor the ROW test series, and no one would suggest that they were.

And again, the rebel tests were well after his peak and primary career which was mostly from 1966 to the end of WSC.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're trying to do, but none of this takes away from the fact that during the 70's Barry was rated ahead of Sunny, and was rated the best in the world till Vivian took over in '76. That Barry was rated ahead of Sunny by practically all of the great bowlers of the era. But keep at it.

The Rebel tours were literally full blown Test Series. Much closer to a Test series than WSC lol. But as Barry fluked them, sure carry on.....

You are pretty pathetic mate. The Early 70s was literally Gavaskar's Early Career and Barry's Prime. Sure those two stages are exactly equivalent to each other. And surely, everyone rates Barry higher except who didn't like Imran and Wasim. Btw, by every fast bowlers I believe you literally means Lillee and Snow...... But carry on ig.