Why the ICC must recognise World Series Cricket

To not list these Players Achievements in WSC (at the very least given first class status) is truly mind boggling to me. To decide to give only one World XI match official test status (Aust. Vs World XI in 2005) is Hypocritical. Its seems there is one rule for one and another set for all others, Either they are all official tests or none of them are. It would be interesting to see how many early test teams were privately sponsored and were players paid by these sponsors or by their governing bodies of the time. I for one am grateful to have seen Sir Garfield Sobers play on the 70/71 World XI tour as well as Dennis Lillies 8 wickets in Perth against such a great team. People seem to forget why players signed with WSC at the time. They were the ones pulling in the people and the controling body was reaping all the rewards and snubbed their noses at Ian Chappell and Co. when asked about pay rises for their efforts. To not give WSC "Super Tests" and one day games any official status is laughable. I hope the ICC have a rethink on this policy and recognise the players for what they did on the field and stop treating them as traitors to the game. No matter what they do to try and erase this period in their history those of us who saw it will never forget the great players from all over the world that we would never have seen play due to politics of the time. If the ICC won't acknowledge what we all know should be, then they will always be known as ICC (Idiots Controlling Cricket)

If the ICC wants to do something to restore their respect among the cricket fraternity rather than sit around and do nothing (ie slow over-rates), here's their chance. Remove all the bitterness of the past and make WSC games either 'First-Class' or 'Listed' games. Because if the ICC don't do this, then they'll continue to be the laughing stock not just in world cricket, but in world sports administration.

Well jason, Those 2 stats you mentioned aren't meaningless to the people that matter - Richards' & Lillee's contemporaries. And that includes some huge names in world cricket. Bradman saw Richards bat for his home state South Australia in 70-71, when he averaged over 100 for the season. He hit 356 against a WA attack of McKenzie, Lillee, Mayne & Lock - all current, past or future test bowlers. Lock was the ex-England spinner. Richards also hit 224 & 146 in separate tour matches against England, as well as one century against each state. On that basis, his WSC achievements, his county performances, etc, Bradman had no hesitation in naming Richards along with Hobbs as the openers in his all-time team, despite playing just 4 official tests. It's really a sporting tragedy that Richards played his last test in March 1970 before he turned 25, Procter before he turned 24, while Graeme Pollock had just turned 26. But that's another story!

Barry Richards' double-century for the WSC World XI against WSC Australia in 1977-78 at Perth would've received greater significance and respect from the cricket hstorians IF it was an official test. But because it was a WSC game, it's largely forgotten. Same applies to Dennis Lillee's 7-23 against the WSC World XI at the SCG in the 4th SuperTest of 1978-79;most talked about if it was an official Test, however because for reason explained above, meaningless.

JohnB, You're right. Those tests from the 1970 World v England were regarded as tests initially, but the idea lasted less than 12 months. All the players from both sides played official tests, bar one. Alan Jones, I think his name was - opening bat for Glamorgan. He played the first test when Boycott was injured. It was his only outing at the highest level. From memory he made 5 & 0, & that was it for him. With respect to the Maori tests, I don't have a problem. Players from yesterday didn't have the opportunity of today's players to appear in 15 tests a year. So any test they got back then, I say good luck to them.

Coming back into this late - I have an idea that the Rest of the World games in England in 1971 (?) were at the time regarded as test matches, but were subsequently declared officially not to be (tough luck for the blokes who only ever played those games for England). I don't think the games on the Australian tour in 71-2 were thought of as tests even at the time. Say what you like about the Aust v ICC game a couple of years back - everyone said beforehand that it was a test, and it was played on that basis. You can say that it shouldn't have been, but seeing that it was I don't see how that can be changed. Sheek you mentioned the ARU treating games v Maori as tests - I worked with a bloke who played for Australia once, v Maori in I think 1958 - I know there'd be at least one vote there for the "once a test match, always a test match" proposition. On the other hand I think (again, could be wrong) that there have been examples of cricket matches being upgraded to test status after the event - the very first one from 1877 is one example, but also ealrly games in Sth Africa (the one-sided nature of which will always cause some distortions in the record books). All a very roundabout way of saying that in my view it would be equitable to treat WSC "supertests" as tests (and also those 1970's Rest of the World games). To me, a team calling itself something like the Cavaliers may be test standard (even extremely high test standard) but is not purporting to play anything more than exhibition games - to say otherwise would be to say that games v the Barbarians on UK rugby tours should be tests. A much trickier question would be "rebel tour" cricket in Sth Africa in the 70s and 80s. I find the idea of calling those games tests objectionable, but I'm having difficulty saying why they should be treated differently from the WSC.

Now there's an oddity of oddities - rugby league test & world cup appearances. Between 1954 (when the world cup started) & 1995 (super league war), world cup appearances were not considered test matches. Go figure! But in 1995, in an effort to shore up crumbling support, the ARL suddenly decided that world cup appearances counted as test matches. Then in 2000, world cup appearances were once again persona non grata. I think the situation has now been resolved once & for all, but the mystery is why it took so long. Administrators really are imbeciles of the first order. All because of petty personal grudges & bias.

Another thing I should point out is that rugby league historian David Middleton put Super League matches in his 1997 Yearbook alongside the traditional ARL games, the reason being 'for historical purposes.' Surely the ICC do the same for World Series Cricket as well?

Geideon Haigh, in his excellent book 'The Cricket War' said this on the snub by the ICC re World Series Cricket: ....' was simply that for two seasons, the best players in the world played some remarkable, path-breaking cricket whose 56,126 runs & and 2364 wickets, for reasons best known to the ICC, are not first class. A skeleton of scores are to be found in the relevant Wisdens between pages 1001 and 1008 (1979) and pages 1095 and 1107 (1980) in less psace than is devoted to county 2nd XI averages.' If that's the case, then why did the players who played WSC take an enormous gamble, risk their Test careers and play in a series they knew might either change the face of cricket forever or leave cricket struggling for survival as a sport?

Yes Jason, That's another point again. The argument back then was that it had to be the 'best of one country' versus the 'best of another country'. Yet in 1970, 1971-72 & 2005 you had the best of one country playing the combined best from several countries. 2005 is recognised, the former two not. Go figure! For me, it's a question of quality & standards. Fair enough to have tests between Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. But then again, the above examples can't be beaten for quality. Matched yes, beaten no. Players are not only victim to the whim of administrators, but also politics. England sent comparable teams to India in 1933-34 & 1937-38. The former (3 matches) were recognised as tests, the latter (5 matches) not. Go figure! Due to political, military & civil unrest in India & Pakistan during the late 40s & early 50s, no national teams toured there. However, a combined Commonwealth team toured thrice in 1949-50, 1950-51 & 1952-53, playing 5 unofficial tests each time against the best Indian teams of the day. Then there are the 19 unofficial tests played by South Africa against rebel touring teams between 1982-89. A composite best SA XI from those years is pretty damn impressive: Barry Richards, Jimmy Cook, Peter Kirsten, Graeme Pollock, Kenny McEwen, Clive Rice, Mike Procter, Alan Kourie, Ray Jennings(k), Garth le Roux, Vincent van der Bijl, Steve Jefferies(12). Procter (once), Richards(4), Kirsten(6), Rice(7) & Cook(once) all captained SA during this time. Last for this post, but by no means the end of the ambiquities of it all, an International Wanderers team toured in 1976. Made up mainly of Aussie players, a composite XI looked like this : Glenn Turner (NZ), John Morrison (NZ), Ian Chappell (AU), Greg Chappell (AU), Mike Denness (EN), Martin Kent (AU), Bob Taylor (EN-k), Gary Gilmour (AU), Max Walker (AU), Dennis Lillee (AU), Ashley Mallett (AU), John Shepherd (WI-12). The Saffie side was led by Eddie Barlow, & included Richards, Pollock, Rice, Procter & van der Bijl from above, plus Lee Irvine, Tony Smith (keeper), Denys Hobson & Rupert Hanley. A couple of places (2-3) were reserved in each of the 3 tests for non-white players.

Why did the ICC recognise the Australia-World XI games back in 2005 (and I must admit, the cricket was of a poor standard), but never those that was played in 1971-72 (which included Sir Garfield Sobers 254 at the MCG-an innings Sir Donald Bradman rated the finest display of batting seen in this country) or the WSC games between Australia, West Indies and the World XI which was a much higher standard?

Make that back in 1977, not 1877!

Nutreg, Sometimes I think we're discussing different things. I agree about loyalty. But it's not as cut & dried as you make out. Yes, the WSC cricketers did it for money. Guess what? I work for money. Yes, that's right. I work for money, to feed the family, pay the bills, live a reasonable lifestyle. Back in 1977, support for WSC & establishment went along largely generation lines. The older generation was vehemently oppossed. People are entitled to earn from sport, like any other occupation. The controlling bodies back in 1977 expected players to play more for the same pittance. That's clearly not right. The issue of granting first class status is seperate. clearly, this is a revenge motivated thing. Sonny Bill Williams' crime was NOT chasing more money. His crime was breaking an existing contract. Back in 1877 there were no contracts. You get selected for Australia, you get match payments. No selection, no match payments. Ditto the 1986 NZ Cavaliers. They weren't contracted to the national union, they were amateurs. They were free to do as they pleased. Sometimes, Nutreg, it is the establishment that is wrong, either legally &/or morally. Actually, make that often. Australia has the reputation of being a country founded by convicts. Convicts? For stealing a loaf of bread out of abject hunger, & being sentenced to life imprisonment??? Such draconian laws. Sentences that didn't fit the crime. Nutreg, it's not so simple, especially when the establishment is often just as guilty, or even more guilty.

I BELIEVE THAT ALL STATS FROM THE WORLD SERIES MATCHES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING AT THE TOP LEVEL, THAT I S TEST MATCH, & 1.D.INTERNATIONALS. IF THAT PERIOD OF THE GAME DID NOT INVOLVE THE VERY BEST OF CRICKETERS ,INCLUDING SOME SOUTH AFRICANS, WAS NOT AT LEAST EQUAL OR BETTER THAN THE TRADITIONAL ( HEAD IN THE SAND icc VERSION ) . iI WILL BARRACK FOR COLLINGWOOD NEXT YEAR; ( COUGH.COUGH, SPLUTTER. ) I NEED NOT NAME NAMES WHO PLAYED DURING THAT TIME, AND THOSE THAT DIDN'T AFTER W.S.C. PLAYERS WERE ALLOWED BACK IN, TO ME IT IS OBVIOUS. UPDATED LISTS ETC.' WOULD BE A TRUE INDICATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE GAME '. CHEMOSA.

I think it is taking responsibilities for your actions. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. If the cricketers or any other group break with the controlling, established, ruling body then that is their decision and really can't be expected to be welcomed back with open arms and all be forgiven and to receive unearned kudos and glory. It is up to them to start their own controlling body such as league did and Rugby did. See how the old Australian Soccer Federation was locked out by FIFA so many years ago. Think about those who remained loyal. Why should these cricketers be an exception. \Iit is why Sonny Bill was so ostracised.

Netrug, Good thing you're not running the country. As you get older you might appreciate the world has less black & white, & much more grey. It's only vested interest groups who try to paint the world black & white. BTW, you're not a retired ACB member, are you???

Caps and first class appearances can only be given by the recognised controlling body. I am sorry but breakaway or rebel groups do not count. please refer to super league which is actually a breakaway body from a breakaway body. South Africa Rugby was the controlling body and so awarded caps but New Zealand did not award caps to the Cavaliers. South Africa also awarded caps rgen the 'Boks played South America {Jaguars) but the Argentine RU did not award caps to the Argentine players. For some reason, Australia recognised the Maoris as a separate group and also when we played the All Black third team as the top 30 players were in south Africa. Also teams like Russia, Italy and spain when they played France B side. None were awarded to the French players. The cricketers went for money or they did not like the established ruling body so they cannot now claim to be recognised by the ICC.

And to give you an idea just how tough WSC was, say you're playing for WSC Australia and you go up against the WSC West Indies which includes Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner & Colin Croft, and if you're horribly out of form, then in your next game play against WSC World XI which might have Mike Proctor, Andy Roberts, John Snow, Michael Holding and Garth Le Roux. There was no way you'd get back to Sheffield Shield cricket and try to regain some form.

JohnB, One point I was indirectly making, there are so many anomalies, how can you justify not granting first class status to WSC? You also mention 1949 for the wallabies. They also recognised matches against NZ Maoris as official tests between 1920-58. It's a variation of playing 2 teams from one country. The nay-sayers getting up on their high horse, will find they haven't very far off the ground to go!!!

Netrug, At the time of WSC, the players didn't know if they would ever be accepted back into the estsblishment. Whether the games would be first class recognised, hardly entered their thoughts. Had they bothered to think about that at all, it's likely they couldn't see a problem with the games being recognised as first class. Refusing to fgive irst class recognition to WSC is nothing more than revenge by the establishment. Now your logic starts to become twisted. i'm not sure what you're getting at with the Aboriginal cricketers. Their tour is officially recognised in the history books. Maybe none of their games were considered first class, simply because of their perceived standard. Also, in the old days, first class games generally had to be a duration of minimum 3 days. Anything less was usually non-first class. I think you're statement about the Aboriginal cricketers not being recognised requires further scrutiny. I can assure you the NZ Cavaliers tour of SA is recognised by the Saffies, who gave Boks caps for each of the 4 tests. I've also seen videos of the 4 tests, & they were up to the standard of any test series. The rest of the world indirectly recognises the Cavaliers tour, by accepting the number of tests those Boks players appeared in, as their official total. For example, two great Boks backs - Naas Botha & Danie Gerber - are universally acknowledged as playing 28 & 24 tests respectively, which includes the 4 tests they each played against the Cavaliers. As for the IRB recognising rugby league tests, I might draw your attention to the small matter of rugby league being a different sport altogether to rugby union, with the international game run by its own board.