Should World Series Cricket records be added to Test records or First Class records?

[the big bambino]

If that ICC XI game is test status then so should all the WSC Super tests. I agree with the OP that certain skill sets were favoured over others but I think there were understandable reasons why the pitches were made for pacemen, other than Packer being a fan of the skill. But it only went on for two seasons. Australian pitches have generally been pace friendly over the last few years; South Africa has produced green mambas ever since readmission. I think it was a missed opportunity to include the super tests in test records as part of the settlement. Maybe the Packer side raised it but was sidelined in pursuit of the overall deal.

 

[Coronis]

If that ICC XI game is test status then so should all the WSC Super tests. I agree with the OP that certain skill sets were favoured over others but I think there were understandable reasons why the pitches were made for pacemen, other than Packer being a fan of the skill. But it only went on for two seasons. Australian pitches have generally been pace friendly over the last few years; South Africa has produced green mambas ever since readmission. I think it was a missed opportunity to include the super tests in test records as part of the settlement. Maybe the Packer side raised it but was sidelined in pursuit of the overall deal.

I believe the majority sentiment amongst both players, pundits and fans is that it shouldn’t be.

Notable things that would happen if this is the case:

Murali doesn’t hit 800.
Hayden doesn’t hit 30 tons.
Murali’s Australia record is much worse.
Smith’s away record gets even better.
Sehwag still doesn’t hit that 50 average.

 

[The Sean]

I believe the majority sentiment amongst both players, pundits and fans is that it shouldn’t be.

Notable things that would happen if this is the case:

Murali doesn’t hit 800.
Hayden doesn’t hit 30 tons.
Murali’s Australia record is much worse.
Smith’s away record gets even better.
Sehwag still doesn’t hit that 50 average.

And am I right that Inzamam does get his 50 average?

 

[Coronis]

And am I right that Inzamam does get his 50 average?

Ah yes that was the one I was thinking of

 

[Starfighter]

If that ICC XI game is test status then so should all the WSC Super tests.

The difference is that one was officially organised as a test, the others were organised by a breakaway group in defiance of the game's established authorities. If you count them, then there's also good reason to count the rebel tours to South Africa (let alone the 1970 and 71/72 World XI series).

There's other sports where the established organisations don't recognise rival breakaways in reckoning games and achievements.

 

[the big bambino]

The difference is that one was officially organised as a test, the others were organised by a breakaway group in defiance of the game's established authorities. If you count them, then there's also good reason to count the rebel tours to South Africa (let alone the 1970 and 71/72 World XI series).

There's other sports where the established organisations don't recognise rival breakaways in reckoning games and achievements.

If a test can be played against a non country like the ICC XI, then that opens the way to recognise tests against the WSC World XI.

Cricket has a precedent in subsequently recognising matches as tests so can do so for WSC. All it would take is ratification from the governing body and boards meaning the break away argument can be overcome.

WSC was a schism in the game. Whereas the SA matches were tainted by political and human rights issues. You could recognise them but nobody would want make that case. Whereas with WSC they certainly can.

The WSC teams were the best available. That isn’t a pre requisite for delayed test recognition. But it is it is a point for consideration. It is incongruous that games containing the likes of Hiibbert, Ogilvie, Serjeant and Maclean are considered tests while those containing the stars of WSC aren’t,

 

[Starfighter]

If a test can be played against a non country like the ICC XI, then that opens the way to recognise tests against the WSC World XI.

Cricket has a precedent in subsequently recognising matches as tests so can do so for WSC. All it would take is ratification from the governing body and boards meaning the break away argument can be overcome.

WSC was a schism in the game. Whereas the SA matches were tainted by political and human rights issues. You could recognise them but nobody would want make that case. Whereas with WSC they certainly can.

The WSC teams were the best available. That isn’t a pre requisite for delayed test recognition. But it is it is a point for consideration. It is incongruous that games containing the likes of Hiibbert, Ogilvie, Serjeant and Maclean are considered tests while those containing the stars of WSC aren’t,

It's like you're determined to miss the point.

 

[Northerner]

Most certainly the matches where of test standard as where the Aussie and W Indies rebel tours. but perhaps it is a bit too far for official test status. most definitely they should be considered 1st class games. may be the ODI games should be official,

 

[shortpitched713]

If that ICC XI game is test status then so should all the WSC Super tests. I agree with the OP that certain skill sets were favoured over others but I think there were understandable reasons why the pitches were made for pacemen, other than Packer being a fan of the skill. But it only went on for two seasons. Australian pitches have generally been pace friendly over the last few years; South Africa has produced green mambas ever since readmission. I think it was a missed opportunity to include the super tests in test records as part of the settlement. Maybe the Packer side raised it but was sidelined in pursuit of the overall deal.

It really, really shouldn't be. It was absolutely an exhibition match.

 

[the big bambino]

It's like you're determined to miss the point.

You always go this route when anyone challenges the asinine and impressive dogged loyalty to your hardline opinions.

I responded to what you wrote. I don’t agree with it. Your response above tells me you have no worthwhile counter argument. Just a Cromwellian intolerance that something contrary to what you think should exist at all.

 

[Starfighter]

You always go this route when anyone challenges the asinine and impressive dogged loyalty to your hardline opinions.

I responded to what you wrote. I don’t agree with it. Your response above tells me you have no worthwhile counter argument. Just a Cromwellian intolerance that something contrary to what you think should exist at all.

You didn't address my point. The fact you state the WSC was a schism and then can't put two and two together about why the matches aren't recognised says it all really. The rest isn't relevant.

There's nothing hardline about my opinion, it's the one that's shaped the game's records. You on the other hand consistently act petulantly whenever someone challenges your arguments.

 

[the big bambino]

You didn't address my point. The fact you state the WSC was a schism and then can't put two and two together about why the matches aren't recognised says it all really. The rest isn't relevant.

There's nothing hardline about my opinion, it's the one that's shaped the game's records. You on the other hand consistently act petulantly whenever someone challenges your arguments.

Shut up and listen. I think I know the matches aren't recognised. I'm just saying they should be and offered reasons. Matches have been retroactively designated tests and the schism has been conciliated ... It's pointless really; I'm repeating arguments you either don't understand or ignore because they rebut your own. Its a justifiable position whether you agree with it or not. I just don't see the point discussing with a quarrelsome blowhard like you.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricket Australia already recognized WSC stats in their own category in 2015.

 

[Coronis]

Cricket Australia already recognized WSC stats in their own category in 2015.

So? That means exactly what’s written, they’re classed as WSC matches. Not Test and not FC. Basically there’s just an official note on them now.

You didn't address my point. The fact you state the WSC was a schism and then can't put two and two together about why the matches aren't recognised says it all really. The rest isn't relevant.

There's nothing hardline about my opinion, it's the one that's shaped the game's records. You on the other hand consistently act petulantly whenever someone challenges your arguments.

Shut up and listen. I think I know the matches aren't recognised. I'm just saying they should be and offered reasons. Matches have been retroactively designated tests and the schism has been conciliated ... It's pointless really; I'm repeating arguments you either don't understand or ignore because they rebut your own. Its a justifiable position whether you agree with it or not. I just don't see the point discussing with a quarrelsome blowhard like you.

Its like a much higher cognitive level kyear and subz. You gotta love it

 

[subshakerz]

So? That means exactly what’s written, they’re classed as WSC matches. Not Test and not FC. Basically there’s just an official note on them now.

That's my point. They are put in a separate category already. Which is what I support

I am arguing they shouldn't be included in tests, Coronis.

 

[Johan]

Test designation in general is a little overplayed.

 

[subshakerz]

Test designation in general is a little overplayed.

Well all that matters is the quality of cricket in assessing cricketers. But test is premium to me and WSC and first class achievements are supplementary to that.

 

[Johan]

Well all that matters is the quality of cricket in assessing cricketers. But test is premium to me and WSC and first class achievements are supplementary to that.

Yeah, and a lot of Cricket before 1990, First class ones, were indeed test class/international standard, That's why I think WSC/Tour Games/High level county games should be impactful to legacy, more than quite a few tests but obviously less than the elite tests (Ashes, BGT of today, Worrell trophy of yesterday) etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, and a lot of Cricket before 1990, First class ones, were indeed test class/international standard, That's why I think WSC/Tour Games/High level county games should be impactful to legacy, more than quite a few tests but obviously less than the elite tests (Ashes, BGT of today, Worrell trophy of yesterday) etc.

I think using FC series and WSC as supplementary evidence is fine. Not FC career though as comparable with intl career.

And we already discard minnow tests, I don't think we just restrict ourselves to focus just on elite test series even though they are important. You need to be consistent against all types of opposition outside of that. The name of the trophy matters less to me than quality of opposition.

 

[Johan]

I think using FC series and WSC as supplementary evidence is fine. Not FC career though as comparable with intl career.

And we already discard minnow tests, I don't think we just restrict ourselves to focus just on elite test series even though they are important. You need to be consistent against all types of opposition outside of that. The name of the trophy matters less to me than quality of opposition.

DC games where one can dissect lineups to be test standard/world class, WSC, perhaps the Rebel Tours, all make sense to me considering they involve players and teams that would likely beat half the test sides of the time and of today.

Agreed on the last part, I just give a little more credence to performance against elites and underperformance against weak sides, than to underperform against elites and perform against the weaker sides