the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[Richard]

You keep bagging him out for choosing to play World Series Cricket like doing so was a bad thing. Cricket would not be what it is today if people, like Lillee, hadn't taken the decision to vote with their feet. The fact that doing so earnt them fair recompense for their efforts doesn't detract from the fact that today's cricket fans owe World Series Cricket a hell of a lot. Plus it was a much higher standard of cricket than most of the Test cricket at that time. AND if you add in Lillee's stats from those matches to his test averages, an even better and fairer picture of his comes out.

Except that there was absolutely nothing at stake in World Series Cricket. It didn't matter - you weren't playing for anything. Except money, obviously. The standard was only perceived - there is no way to prove it one way or other.
IMO cricket WOULD be what it is today if World Series Cricket hadn't happened. World Series cricket did a few good things for cricket, which almost certainly would've happened anyway, while doing one very bad thing. IMO that makes it bad - full-stop. And players deserve to be thought of as slightly lesser for joining it.

 

[Richard]

I think even today, ICC should go ahead and add the world series games to the official records. They were much better and highly competitive compared to the stupid ICC tests last year

No way. They were comparable to, in the equivalent of a few years ago, the late Sir Paul Getty getting some high-profile names to play at his ground, and ICC calling that a Test.
World Series cricket was comparable to club cricket in status and quite rightly. There was nothing at stake.

 

[Richard]

Web Staff please check. Whats the problem with "Quote" ?

HAHA! You guys have been fooled. Notice I've had no problem.

 

[archie mac]

No way. They were comparable to, in the equivalent of a few years ago, the late Sir Paul Getty getting some high-profile names to play at his ground, and ICC calling that a Test.
World Series cricket was comparable to club cricket in status and quite rightly. There was nothing at stake.

Money and pride?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haha, because womankind just knows it to be true. They love using it as leverage in arguments too.

Mind you, no woman's ever been hit in the knackers.

Well....

 

[Son Of Coco]

LOL, what's going on here, I was expecting an intense debate on Lillee vs. Marshall.
Instead, you guys are talking about pregnant women ...

We're back to the part where we analyse how they were both born...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Err, sorry?
Is Lillee's attitude\persona not pretty well known?

It is, it's why his wicket tally is actually divided up into those taken by the man himself, and those taken by his persona. He's the cricketing version of Dolly the Sheep.

 

[Ikki]

Except that there was absolutely nothing at stake in World Series Cricket. It didn't matter - you weren't playing for anything. Except money, obviously. The standard was only perceived - there is no way to prove it one way or other.
IMO cricket WOULD be what it is today if World Series Cricket hadn't happened. World Series cricket did a few good things for cricket, which almost certainly would've happened anyway, while doing one very bad thing. IMO that makes it bad - full-stop. And players deserve to be thought of as slightly lesser for joining it.

Would you care to delve into that?

 

[Swervy]

. And players deserve to be thought of as slightly lesser for joining it.

as a person..or as a player?

 

[Richard]

Money and pride?

Pride in what? Your country? Yourself? Everyone knows WSC meant nothing - the stats weren't recorded anywhere official - no-one knows what happened unless they've taken the trouble to find-out. Certainly no-one in WSC was playing for their country.

 

[Richard]

It is, it's why his wicket tally is actually divided up into those taken by the man himself, and those taken by his persona. He's the cricketing version of Dolly the Sheep.

Sorry, what?
I don't think his attitude really caused him to take wickets - it just made the wickets (and figures) he did take appear more impressive than they actually were.

 

[Richard]

Would you care to delve into that?

I've heard many, many critics talk scathingly of WSC - from EW Swanton to Gideon Haigh.
I'd say I "delved into" it pretty well in that post.

 

[Richard]

as a person..or as a player?

Well... clearly the two are often linked, but pricipally as a player.
I can't say for certain I'd turn-down a threefold pay-increase (it was something like that IIRR) were I in the same position, but I'd like to think I might.
Harold Bird did, after all.
Clearly, playing WSC which was, historically, meaningless in cricketing terms, wasted opportunities.
But the way some people put it, Australians weren't exactly on great money at the time and something like that can often seem like a gold shower.
I'd be a bit hard if I criticised anyone too much for that - and it's no coincidence that people like Knott and Underwood, who didn't really fit the mantles of traitors, didn't get too much flak.

 

[archie mac]

Pride in what? Your country? Yourself? Everyone knows WSC meant nothing - the stats weren't recorded anywhere official - no-one knows what happened unless they've taken the trouble to find-out. Certainly no-one in WSC was playing for their country.

Every player involved in the 'Super Tests' claimed it was the toughest and hardest cricket they ever played. Just ask (well you can't anymore) Hooksey how tough it was. I think it pertinent to mention the first use of helmets were used in these matches.

If you get a group of Aussie 5 year olds and tell them they are playing for their country in marbles they will give you 100%.

 

[archie mac]

I've heard many, many critics talk scathingly of WSC - from EW Swanton to Gideon Haigh.
I'd say I "delved into" it pretty well in that post.

I have read all of Haigh's books and I can't remember anything too negative?

Blowers was very anti WSC (re- 'The Packer Affair') but has since conceded it was a good thing for cricket.

 

[Swervy]

Well... clearly the two are often linked, but pricipally as a player.

so are you saying that maybe Viv Richards shouldnt be seen to be as good as many do, as a player, simply because he went over to WSC.

A players skill levels didnt drop simply because they signed on the dotted line you know

 

[Son Of Coco]

Sorry, what?
I don't think his attitude really caused him to take wickets - it just made the wickets (and figures) he did take appear more impressive than they actually were.

see previous post

I'll add one of these -

 

[Richard]

Every player involved in the 'Super Tests' claimed it was the toughest and hardest cricket they ever played. Just ask (well you can't anymore) Hooksey how tough it was. I think it pertinent to mention the first use of helmets were used in these matches.

If you get a group of Aussie 5 year olds and tell them they are playing for their country in marbles they will give you 100%.

I don't really care whether they took it seriously, played it tough, whatever.
Fact is, there was nothing at stake. They weren't playing for anyone, except Kerry Packer. There was no team to have pride in. Especially if you were playing for "Rest Of".
Surely you're not going to credit Kerry Packer with the introduction of helmets? It was Dennis Amiss' idea.

 

[Richard]

I have read all of Haigh's books and I can't remember anything too negative?

I can't believe you've read every single Haigh book?
I got one anthology for last Xmas - can't remember the name and don't have it to hand, it was a selection of short articles - which contained a piece where he pondered (in that unique way of his) the matter, then came, ponderously, to the conclusion that there was one big drawback that more than offset the several little gains (which, of course, would almost certainly have ended-up happening anyway).

 

[Richard]

so are you saying that maybe Viv Richards shouldnt be seen to be as good as many do, as a player, simply because he went over to WSC.

A players skill levels didnt drop simply because they signed on the dotted line you know

Err, yes.
But Richards signed early in his career. He still had plenty of time to accomplish many things. And did. So did plenty of other Australians. Equally, some had already achieved much.
Signing for WSC didn't in itself denegrate a player - but in some cases it did strip him of opportunities he needed to take to prove himself a complete player.