Who won these battles?

[smash84]

No I'm not arguing that. Just that the level of cricket was high enough for us to consider those performances when we do player assessments.

It is literally the same argument except you have one circus (T20) in place of the other circus (WSC).

And the quality of play in some of the IPL matches far exceeds the quality in some of the international T20 matches.

 

[sayon basak]

It is literally the same argument except you have one circus (T20) in place of the other circus (WSC).

And the quality of play in some of the IPL matches far exceeds the quality in some of the international T20 matches.

Do think IPL should be considered while discussing T20's.

 

[smash84]

No you have already decided that it doesn't matter which quality of players are involved and what they say, because they are paid higher it means it must have been carnival cricket.

Yet at the same time you will allow the 1970 ROW series where they aren't even representing their own side in basically exhibition games to be counted.

I wonder whether Imran's WSC performance factors into kyear2 rating him higher? He has 25 wickets in 5 matches at 20.84.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No you have already decided that it doesn't matter which quality of players are involved and what they say, because they are paid higher it means it must have been carnival cricket.

Yet at the same time you will allow the 1970 ROW series where they aren't even representing their own side in basically exhibition games to be counted.

RoW was alloted Test status back then, WSC wasn't.

 

[subshakerz]

I wonder whether Imran's WSC performance factors into kyear2 rating him higher? He has 25 wickets in 5 matches at 20.84.

You know Kyears excuse?

It was a bowling friendly series so let's ignore those stats hahaha.

I'm serious, he said that to me.

My God him and his anti-Imran obsession.

 

[subshakerz]

RoW was alloted Test status back then, WSC wasn't.

So was 2005 Super Test which everybody now sees as a joke.

Why then shouldn't we downgrade Sobers 254 against Aus in 70/71?

And I already told you, Cricket Aus has officially recognized WSC stats.

 

[subshakerz]

It is literally the same argument except you have one circus (T20) in place of the other circus (WSC).

And the quality of play in some of the IPL matches far exceeds the quality in some of the international T20 matches.

I don't mind them being used to assess a T20 player, why not?

 

[capt_Luffy]

So was 2005 Super Test which everybody now sees as a joke.

Why then shouldn't we downgrade Sobers 254 against Aus in 70/71?

I don't rate it as a Test Series either exactly. I rate it because it was an ATG innings against some Top tier attacks.

2005 Super Test is still more valid than WSC though.

 

[smash84]

So was 2005 Super Test which everybody now sees as a joke.

Why then shouldn't we downgrade Sobers 254 against Aus in 70/71?

FTR, I don't consider the 1970 row matches as test cricket either. I also don't rate Sobers as highly as some of the others though and excluding that 254 is partly the reason.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@subshakerz just so we are clear, I don't have a problem with rating WSC. I do. I have a problem with rating it and not rating a bunch of other high quality FC matches, and rating it as an equivalent to Tests.

 

[Thala_0710]

Do think IPL should be considered while discussing T20's.

By all that I've read, watched and understood, I believe that WSC (pretty much like IPL) was of a similar standard, if not better, than test cricket. I definitely factor it in whilst rating people in red ball cricket. However, a lot of discussions are specific for tests. They don't factor in there.

 

[smash84]

I don't mind them being used to assess a T20 player, why not?

Because to me league cricket is just fundamentally different from national level cricket. The stakes are entirely different.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't rate it as a Test Series either exactly. I rate it because it was an ATG innings against some Top tier attacks.

2005 Super Test is still more valid than WSC though.

Why is it an ATG innings if it's just an exhibition game not being played for his country?

And lol at you rating the Super Test which the cricketers themselves are on record as treating like a joke. None of the WSC cricketers said that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why is it an ATG innings if it's just an exhibition game not being played for his country?

And lol at you rating the Super Test which the cricketers themselves are on record as treating like a joke. None of the WSC cricketers said that.

Back then it was in a Test match played for his country. And where did you get the idea I don't rate FC innings?? There are 3 particular Trumper knocks in England I totally rate really highly, as I do the runs Merchant scored in England or the Commonwealth games runs of Worrell.

Yeah, Super Test didn't paid them that highly.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz just so we are clear, I don't have a problem with rating WSC. I do. I have a problem with rating it and not rating a bunch of other high quality FC matches, and rating it as an equivalent to Tests.

We can debate the FC stuff separately but we should agree on WSC.

Just so we are clear, I am not in principle against using WSC, ROW or even quality first class games in player assessment. But as I told Kyear on Barry, they are used in supplementary to a players test record, not in replacement of it.

Does that make sense?

 

[subshakerz]

Because to me league cricket is just fundamentally different from national level cricket. The stakes are entirely different.

Ok but as I said in the post above, if on top of international T20 there are some IPL feats to bolster a players case, I don't mind them being used in arguments.

 

[Johan]

As I said, no one bad mouths the biggest employment of their's for no reason whatsoever.

No job?

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, Super Test didn't paid them that highly.

Dude that wasn't the reason. It was just a one off test and mindless ODI series that didn't seem to have real stakes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

We can debate the FC stuff separately but we should agree on WSC.

Just so we are clear, I am not in principle against using WSC, ROW or even quality first class games in player assessment. But as I told Kyear on Barry, they are used in supplementary to a players test record, not in replacement of it.

Does that make sense?

This is the same debate. You can't take one and not take the other.

Totally. If you use WSC as supplementary, alongside RoW and Quality FC games, then you do exactly the same that I do. I definitely rate them, but they weren't Tests, like some FC games featuring a bowling line-up of Trueman, Appleyard and Tyson weren't.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No job?

Dude, only a year till graduation. Let me live this One.....