This month marks the 40th anniversary of World Series Cricket (WSC) devised by Kerry Packer’s money and by the brains and expertise of Richie Benaud, Tony Greig and Ian Chappell among others.
After months of secret signings of Test stars, the story broke in May 1977 after it was leaked to famous England cricket writer Ian Wooldridge and The Daily Mail (UK).
In the end, Packer signed up Test greats from Australia, England, the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan for supertests and One-Day/Night games over two seasons.
WSC was the biggest game changer in cricket history; bigger than Bodyline, bigger than Ben Hur. No golden chariots, no jousting between knights in silver armour on horsebacks but top-class cricketers demanding proper payment for their days in the sun. And their emancipator was television mogul and billionaire Kerry Packer.
Books have been written on the controversy that divided the cricket world. The late Bill O’Reilly, regarded as one of the greatest bowlers of all time, was against it and called it the “Packer Circus”.
Responding to this, Packer had said, “If you want to look at circuses, you’d better look at Australia fielding its third XI.”
The story of establishment against ‘rebel’ cricketers filled newspaper headlines from 1977 to 1979. Peter McFarline’s A Game Divided (1977) and Gideon Haigh’s Cricket War – The Inside Story of Kerry Packer’s World Series (1993) go into minute details as to how the idea was conceived, developed in secrecy and revealed to a stunned audience.
There were many reasons behind the creation of WSC. Packer wanted to televise all Test matches in Australia on his TCN 9, Sydney. His Consolidated Press’s bid for Test telecast rights were rebuffed in 1976 by the Australian Cricket Board. In retrospect one feels that had ACB negotiated with Packer, the outcome would have been different.
When the ICC and England’s Test and County Cricket Board tried to enforce a Test and first-class match selection ban on the defectors, Packer backed a successful High Court challenge against the “restraints of trade”.
WSC changed cricket as never before and never since. Celebrated cricket author Christopher Martin was moved to write, “With the possible exception of WG Grace, there has been no more influential figure in the history of cricket.”
As Andy Bull wrote recently in The Guardian, “Packer brought in coloured clothing, flood-lit day and night matches, white balls and drop-in pitches grown in green houses.”
I do not agree entirely with this statement. Packer provided the money but it was the brains of Benaud, Greig, Ian Chappell and others who thought of these innovations. I may also add that night cricket was tried in England in early 1960s but failed due to fog and dew.
Despite opposition from the establishment, the WSC supertests went ahead and were very popular in its second season.
What looked a pipe dream, the matches between Australian, West Indians and World XIs became a reality. Former Test greats Benaud, Ian Chappell, Garry Sobers, Fred Trueman, Bill Lawry, Keith Stackpole, John Gleeson among others were used as consultants, commentators and ambassadors for this innovation.
VFL Park in Melbourne was the first venue for a supertest on December 2, 1977. After a lukewarm start, the crowds took to supertests in a big way in 1978 with popular chants like “C’mon Aussie C’mon, C’mon” by the advertising firm Mojo.
A day-night match between Australians and West Indians on 28 November 1978 attracted over 50,000 in Sydney. But the quality of batsmanship suffered with the fast bowlers dominating the scene.
To quote Haigh, “By the end of 1978-79 summer it was in the interest of both sides to resolve their differences. The failure of the Ashes series had severely depleted the finances of the ACB and its member associations.”
The same feeling was shared by other countries. The authorities in England, West Indies and Pakistan were under public pressure to re-assimilate the WSC signatories. Fortunately, peace was declared.
The mesmeriding performances in the supertests are not recognized by ICC and Wisden. The cream of cricket icons had performed brilliantly in those two years of brief divorce before the remarriage.
Three outstanding performances:
Should these and other marvellous feats in WSC be recognised by the ICC?
After 40 years of peace and high quality TV broadcasts, the right for Channel 9 to broadcast the cricket is currently debated, with money as always part of the complications. Will this complete a full circle?
Ants32
Roar Rookie
Absolutely, those records should be included. They are not even considered first class or list-A, an absolute travesty imho. :( I can understand not including them in Test and ODI records, given the arguments; most of which were covered here in the comments. :/ Obviously the greatest games ever played, but that's probably just because they occurred in my youth. :D
JohnB
Guest
So you don't recognise West Indies' tests?
davSA
Guest
Apartheid ended 25 years ago.Burgy Green.. Think you can let go now?
david
Guest
Still the greatest quality cricket (test and one-day) I have seen. How could it not be with the greatest players all in the same place at the same time and the crowd was like a football crowd with more atmosphere than we usually see in cricket.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Your logic makes sense, Ritesh,
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
The marvellous feats are to be applauded. However not to be recognised as the games were not not legally sanctioned. Quality of cricket is not enough o ensure their being included as records. If so, would a Test 100 versus a poor attack of say Zimbabwe be disregarded due to poor quality.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you Spencer and jarijari.
jarijari
Guest
Kersi, if reports of the Nine Network losing up to $40 million a year on cricket coverage are accurate, then the TV rights bill is simply unsustainable, perhaps unless Fox Sports is permitted to share the broadcast under proposed changes to the federal government's anti-siphoning laws. On your historical take, well, it was the most defining time in international cricket. Packer's men modernised the game, based on England's cultural evolution, and we haven't looked back. Contrary to the opinion of so many commentators, I reckon one-day cricket will not wither away. Lots of people say it has been usurped by T20, yet there are broadcast contracts around the world in place for the next few years, and I'm sure they will remain, ensuring the 50-over game's future. There is good reason each of cricket's national teams has been restricted to a maximum of three international T20 games in a domestic season: it protects the more lucrative marketing model of an eight-hour broadcasting coverage compared to the three-and-a-half-hour format of T20. And, so crucially, it protects and promotes the coverage of the IPL, Australia's BBL and other domestic tournaments. Anyway, nice historical piece as always, Kersi.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
There would still be T20. The BBL/IPL ball game is directly an Americanized version of cricket. 2.5-3hour timeslot after work with 120 balls (roughly 146 pitches). I touched on a few more of these points in a previous article having to do with the similarities and differences between baseball and cricket. Would enjoy your thoughts as well. http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/03/09/cousins-but-not-brothers-understanding-the-stark-differences-between-baseball-and-cricket/ At this point, the only room for ODI is for World Cup to give a test match "feel" given the impracticality of doing so in the five-day format. Besides that, T20 and Test are satisfying what most people want and one day just will continue to proverbial slip while sitting between two chairs.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
A very interesting note to end on. "After 40 years of peace and high quality TV broadcasts, the right for Channel 9 to broadcast the cricket is currently debated, with money as always part of the complications. Will this complete a full circle?" Things do tend to be cyclical so it is not out of the question.
BrainsTrust
Guest
There was a story about England and India but it talked about their MOU so thats an individual agreement between those two nations that one pays the other touring expenses. Then becuase the BCI has frozen funds and they wanted the England pay for their own expenses, the English were miffed. Thats not about playing players but for travel expenses, the MOU would agree on how many stars the hotel has to have, they would be five stars these days. or else one side puts the others into a cheap hotel. In the old days DOn Bradman himself who was extremely tight with ACB funds would book the worst Indian hotels for the Australian touring team. The Indians the one time they paid for the Austrailians hotel because of some delay they put them into a luxury one. In the WSC, Packer paid for everything teams hotels and travel costs, ground hire, when the food was bad for the players lunch he even went personally to get them hamburgers from his favourite hamburger joint.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
I doubt it. This is exactly what I mentioned in my first comment on this thread Kersi. If there was no packer I don't think the limited overs game and all the commercialisation around it would exist. We would be in a different world today as far as cricket is concerned.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Brains - I am not sure that's true actually. When a country is on tour, they are actually paid by the host nation is the way i always understood it. Just from memory of reading this somewhere during the India-England series. I could have misunderstood it so worth checking out.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
A question to you all. If there was no WSC would there be T20? Or more relevant, would IPL and BBL have sprung up?
BrainsTrust
Guest
The great thing about WSC it was the first time the West Indies were payed well to play for the West Indies and gained a new level of professionalism and their trainer Dennis Waight. The irony is that what Packer did no one has done since, no one pays the opposition in international cricket which is why you have the current extreme disparity with the three rich and well resourced teams and the rest. Commercialism and professionalism was already around in cricket, limited overs cricket already started in county cricket, Indian cricketers were rich from endorsements, ironically professionalism in English cricket initially was about getting players to do the tiresome choir of bowling and fielding while the rich amatuer gentleman did the batting . They actually had two dressing rooms one for amateur gentleman and one for the working class professionals and in the same way that the West Indian captain was in the early years a white man Englands captain had to be amateur gentleman. When Alan Border went to play in English league cricket he discovered that the professional on the team was like a servant to the others.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
BTW, this May also marks the 40th anniversary of Starwars. In a way, WSC was also a star war!
Pope Paul VII
Guest
oops sorry Kersi my mistake, Maxi's 7/88 came in the previous match. Ray Bright picked up 5/149 against ROW's 675.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you Andrew, Pope Paul and other Roarers for your favourable comments and contrasting viewpoints. Pope Paul, thanks for adding Maxi Walkers' 7-88 to the list of outstanding performances..
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you PineasGage on your praises in triplicate. But I still think that a Test should be between countries.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Great stuff Kersi. Worth noting that in that innings where Greenidge, Richards and Richards all scored 140 plus, one Maxy Walker took 7/88!