Should World Series Cricket stats be recognised?

The players played cricket for 2 seasons of the highest caliber and the records should preserved. Obviously not as a 'Test' record but a extra line in their record. I suppose according to you those who placed behind Lance Armstrong should not be elevated in the placings. Or those runners shouldn't get elevated in 100m Olympics final of 1988 re Ben Johnson Or even more criminally Jim Thorpe's medals shouldn't be returned to him(posthumously) Pffffff

I'm coming late to this but Sheek, to be clear, the WSC matches are NOT getting FC status which renders what CA have done little more than an official acknowledgement that the games took place. CA does have the power to treat them as FC (just as the SACB deemed the rebel tours to be FC) but still refuses to.

Amen Sheek. It's also worth mentioning that many inter-state Australian matches given first class status included simultaneous fixtures involving the same state, e.g. Victoria vs Tasmania. The truth of course was that one match was a de facto 2nd XI match but not acknowledged as such. And that was true of the official Australia side during WSC. If anything it is the official Australia tests during WSC that should be derecognised, because that was verging on a 3rd XI national team, playing against the 1st XI of other nations. The WSC Australians were the representative 1st XI national team, as were the WSC West Indians. Why do we exclude or include certain data sets from statistical calculations? Usually it is to maintain data homogeneity, so we can compare like with like. So that a tally of 200 test wickets to a bowler or 5000 test runs to a batsman is a roughly comparable achievement regardless of which player or team we are talking about. Any variations between players/teams, or over time, would then reflect genuine differences in general talent levels or playing environments (e.g. more batting-friendly pitches over time, or that Bodyline succeeded against Bradman), and allow legitimate conclusions to be drawn from the stats. Gift wickets or runs against consistently 3rd-rate national teams contaminate and invalidate such stats. By that criterion WSC and most rebel South African tour numbers belong to the test stats. By contrast many test stats against nascent test nations (e.g. Bangladesh or Zimbabwe today) which are currently included probably should be excluded. As should overly flattering bowling stats that result from selective and temporary laxity in enforcing no-ball rules against Sri Lankan chuckers. The only reasons for not doing so are politics and the Machiavellian machinations of administrators, which are not statistically valid reasons. Regarding non-national test-strength teams such as Rest of the World XI's, I am in two minds. While the wickets and runs earned against such teams may be against legitimate test-strength players, the figures for these non-national teams themselves are not comparable between different eras because they do not consistently represent one particular nation. And the players by their own admission often do not give their very best when playing as mercenaries for a manufactured team compared with when playing as representative players for their own countries.

So should wessels record stand given he played for two nations . I thin the super test should be included as a reflection of ones test careers as those games were probably of a higher standard than the tests of that period. I certainly do myself

I don't share the view that pre 1992 records should be obliterated either.

Ok good, wsc should be counted with those type of stats. Have like a seperate asterix column for those type of things.

Certainly have WSC stas in a separate section. I have no problem with that as long as they are not in Test section even though its standard was very very high. So was the standard of Rest of the World XI under Garry Sobers which played Australia in 1971-72. It included Kanhai, Gavaskar, Bedi, Greig, Lloyd, Peter and Graem Pollock, Engineer, Zaheer Abbas, Intikhab Alam, Asif Masood... So was the standard of Rest of the World XI under Sobers who played England in 1970. It also included Kanhai, Graham McKenzie, Engineer, Lance Gibbs, Barlow, Engineer, Lloyd. the Pollock brothers, Proctor, Mushtaq Mohammad, Intikhab, D Murray... Do recognise their records in a separate section. But NOT in Test section because to me a Test match is between two nations. Well, West Indies is made up of many countries but they have played as one nation ever since their existence.

No, Andy. They are not.

How were "many people on too many sides" culpable for apartheid. Only one side to this issue.

Are Australia A stats counted?

WSC stats deserve more recognition than the sanctioned games of the era, the quality of players was certainly superior.

Kersi, It would be a very boring world if we agreed on everything! Awesome crowd at Adelaide today, pushing 45,000.

Spruce Moose, I understand perfectly the political implications of the rebel tours. I also understand that we live in a world where you can't sit on the fence. At least, not for very long. Sooner or later, you must declare your interests/intentions. But I look at this purely from a sporting viewpoint. The rebel tours helped give hope to South African cricketers (of all colour) for the day when they could re-join the international community. Indeed, I believe the rebel tours were instrumental making the Saffies competitive from the first day of their international return in 1992. Wessels, Kirsten, Cook, Kuiper, Donald, Snell, Richardson & the coloured Omar Henry all played rebel tests in the 1980s, giving the team a core of experienced 'test' standard players. I certainly don't subscribe to the view in some ANC circles that all South African test cricket pre-1992 should be obliterated from the record books. The story of apartheid is a very sorry one, with too many people on too many sides culpable for what transpired. For example, the D'Oliviera affair involved extraordinary duplicity, although in some instances clumsily well intentioned, in both England & South Africa. Thus making easy black & white deliberations (no pun intended) very difficult.

Sheek, Although good friends we tend to disagree with each other on many issues. I like a good debate and appreciate your point of view. See you soon.

"I would also suggest the rebel tests of the 1980s between SA & various rebel teams must also be recognised. Apart from the Sri Lanka tour of SA in 1982/83 (a very weak team), all the remaining matches were genuine contests." Genuine they may have been, but the rebel tours must never be recognised for right political reasons. Australia, CA and the ICC, along with many countries opposed apartheid. To recognise those matches would be grossly disrespectful to the anti-apartheid movement, if not even tacitly condoning the actions of an apartheid government. It some sense it is a shame, as they were fiercely competitive matches, but the official boycott of SA was done for the right reasons.

Hi Kersi, I know we've previously discussed that we stood on different sides of the WSC-Establishment war. I am delighted the super tests will be recognised as first-class matches. It is 37 years overdue! You say that a test ought to be between two nations. However, the ICC has broken this rule not once, but at least on one other occasion. You mention the Australia vs ICC XI match in 2005. However, way back in early 1930, the MCC sent two England teams, one each to New Zealand & West indies. Each touring team played four tests & while it was nation vs nation, there is no way either England team was anywhere representative of England's best talent. Indeed, not only was the talent split between the two teams, but a number of leading players declined to tour at all. Kersi, Eventually I believe the WSC stats, plus those of the 1970 & 1971/72 World XI tours, must eventually be recognised as genuine tests. I would also suggest the rebel tests of the 1980s between SA & various rebel teams must also be recognised. Apart from the Sri Lanka tour of SA in 1982/83 (a very weak team), all the remaining matches were genuine contests. There are so many anomalies within ICC's own protocols that it is defending the indefensible. WSC changed cricket mostly, mostly I emphasize, for the better I believe! I apologise as some of this has already been mentioned by other roarers.

JohnB, thank you for these excellent additions and corrections. We learn more from this debate.

I remember Brucey being given out for his highest ( and first ) test score, 92. There was some doubt as to whether he hit it.

Kersi, not correct. March 1892 different England teams played tests within 3 days of each other in Australia (Lord Sheffield’s XI the tour was called) and Sth Africa – winning both by an innings. The English team in SA had 6 players for whom this was their only test (only one game on the tour was later accorded this status) plus 2 Australians for whom this was their only Test for England (Ferris and Murdoch – who to be fair were top drawer test cricketers). It was the only Test played by 8 of the Sth Africans. It only adds to the less than test match feeling of the game that one of the Sth Africans was a Hearne, while the England team included 2 of his brothers and a 3rd more distantly related Hearne (actually easily the best of the 4. He took over 3,000 first class wickets, the 4th highest all time tally). See http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/714423.html I would also respectfully query a number of other things you say. In doing so, I'm not actually arguing that Supertests should be tests. I'm torn on the question. I'm more saying that some of your arguments have some issues, or that some facts you state are not quite right. You mention you were against the ICC World XI v Australia game being given Test match status - but go on to say that WSC games should not be tests because they were rebel games played against the wishes of the administrators of the day. If rebel status and the wishes of administrators are the criteria, why does the non-rebel World XI game, clearly approved and accorded test status by the administrators of the day, not qualify? You bring out the old line that test matches should be between 2 nations. This has often not been the case, and still isn't. The West Indies isn't a nation (it was from 1958 to 1962, but wasn't at any other time). Australia only became a nation in 1901, South Africa in 1910, and India in 1947. Each played tests before then. You say that only the World XI game has been given Test status. As of now, that is correct, but as I understand it, the England v Rest of the World games in 1971 were treated and recorded as tests at the time, although subsequently expunged. Incidentally, that's the reverse of what has often happened in the past - games not regarded as tests at the time subsequently being treated that way (most games in SA before 1900, up to as recently, relatively speaking, as the 1946 Australia v NZ game). There was an interesting article Cricinfo saying that quite a lot of players in those early SA tests would have died not realising they were test cricketers, as that status was not conferred until some time afterwards. See http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/436989.html All of those games would have required re-writing of records after the event and rendered previous almanacs inaccurate, so while not ideal it's not unprecedented. I think it's notable that many of those games raise arguments that various games shouldn't be regarded as tests - some eye-catching records that still leap out of the page today (George Lohmann's bowling) came out of some of those games which were incredibly one-sided. And yet Bruce Laird never scored a test hundred.

I'm all for the stats of WSC and especially the Rest of the World series in 1971.If my computer wasn't going so slow I'd put up a bit of a case but Ian Chappell for example hit six centuries in these matchjes which are forgotten in the record books. Maybe as extra stat at Cricinfo. Also Graeme Pollock played in rebel tests and was amazing.