The injustice of it all - Bangladesh and Supertests.

[Wicked Lester]

Australia will shortly play two tests against Bangladesh, then a couple more against Zimbabwe.

The centuries scored against these teams and the hauls of wickets taken by our bowlers will be included in our team's test records - as they should, they are regarded as test matches.

BUT does anyone else find this mildly disturbing when at the same time runs scored and wickets taken in the World Series Supertests (at a level regarded by all who played as the most challenging and highest they had ever been involved in) are not to be found in even the first class records (let alone tests) of those who took part.

After all these years with the wounds having surely healed its time to revisit this issue and look at incorporating these matches into the international careers of some of the finest players of their generation.

For example at the peak of their powers its interesting to look at the performances of 3 of the best;

IVA Richards - 1,281 runs at 55.70 (4 centuries, 4 fifties)
GS Chappell - 1,416 runs at 56.64 (4 centuries, 4 fifties)

DK Lillee 67 wickets at 26.87.

The addition of these figures would certainly give a better indication of their respective greatness.

Of course it probably wont happen but I guess as we prepare to humiliate the great Bangladesh side with our batsmen lining up to add test centuries to their records I thought I'd take the time out to note the anomolies in what is excluded from the records of several greats from the past.

[P76]

Thats a bloody good point Wicked, you know it's actually very hard to find the Supertest stats anywhere (incidentally where did you get yours? I've got the Cricket Wars by Gideon Haigh, which has them in the back, although the writing is so small it makes it difficult).

I'm sure it would be generally agreed that the supertests were tougher games than the "real" tests that were being played at the time, without the ridiculous prospect of Aus v. Bang that now presents itself for our "enjoyment".

I suppose the players that signed up for WSC knew that they would miss out on these sorts of things, but it is a shame. Even perhaps if the ACB wouldn't allow them to be included, perhaps some of the cricket sites and books should include them in brackets after the official stats, and start the process in that way, and maybe by increments get them more accepted.

[Wicked Lester]

I found the supertest results and averages at Baggy Green. The funny thing is I went back to find them and I can't seem to find them now.

Overlaying the supertest performnces on the test records of the three i noted in my previous post does the following to their test records

IVA Richards

135 tests, 208 innings, 14 not outs, 9,821 runs, 50.62 average, 28 centuries and 49 fifties.

GS Chappell

101 tests, 177 innings, 20 not outs, 8,526 runs, 54.30 average, 28 centuries and 35 fifties.

DK Lillee

422 wickets at 24.39

Would also provide Derek Underwood with his 300th test wicket - after finishing agonisingly close.

Interstingly even with the very quality of those playing in the Supertests the cream certainly rose to the surface with Barry Richards, Viv Richards and Greg Chappell the best of the batsmen. Similar with the bowling lead by Le Roux, Mike Procter, Imran Khan, Lillee, Joel Garner and Andy Roberts.

The decision by the ICC to disallow these matches to be included as internationals or even first class matches was made in 1979.

[The Scarecrow]

So I guess they are going to make these tests against Bangladesh only 3 days? Because that is all they would probably last for. As for Zimbabwe...I would guess the same, unless they have gotten better.

[P76]

Originally posted by The Scarecrow
So I guess they are going to make these tests against Bangladesh only 3 days? Because that is all they would probably last for. As for Zimbabwe...I would guess the same, unless they have gotten better.


Now there's an interesting idea - perhaps they should only count as a first-class fixture....

[EagleBlue]

"Supertests" stats are not even counted in the players First-Class stats which is an even bigger joke, when you consider some our state sides matches in the past against Tamil Nadu and England A are counted in first-class stats. :eek:

[crudbucket]

They weren't tests, they weren't sanctioned by the governing bodies of the day.
There WERE official test teams going around at that time, the players involved in the "Supertests" made their decision to play where they did and that's the end of the argument ......

They can't have it both ways.

[Jim Boy]

That's one argument, but then Test cricket took a number of years to get organised into 'Test' cricket. Only some bozo decided what should be classed as a test and what shouldn't and then looked at various matches that had been played in the past. Bringing in teams like Bangladesh have redefined the meaning of Tests and a review is long overdue.

[Jim Boy]

Now that I think about it, the solution is obvious.

Select those who played in the supertests to play in the forthcoming tests against Zim and Bang. Everyone should at the very least be able to maintain there averages. It should also make the series a little closer and more interesting.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by crudbucket
They weren't tests, they weren't sanctioned by the governing bodies of the day.
There WERE official test teams going around at that time, the players involved in the "Supertests" made their decision to play where they did and that's the end of the argument ......

They can't have it both ways. But the players weren't interested in what goes down in the record books, so I find that a nonsensical argument.

And the standard of cricket they played was at least worthy of being classified as Test cricket. Yet the supertests aren't even classified as first-class cricket even though the quality of cricket far exceeds almost all other first-class matches.

No, a hit-and-giggle afair between Oxford and Cambridge is much more worthy of FC status. :rolleyes:

[dr nick]

Originally posted by P76
Now there's an interesting idea - perhaps they should only count as a first-class fixture.... that would mean that every other nation would be accruing ratings points against them and not us (a reason why south africa are in the hunt for the #1 spot)

either that or EVERY match any country plays against Bangladesh be of only first class status (which i think is appropriate. i disagree with their test status in the first place)

[dr nick]

for similar reasons as to why the third test between india and south africa in SAF was not classified a "test match", i disagree that supertests deserve test status.

[Dogwatcher]

I agree that the supertests should be regarded as first class fixtures.

Can someone confirm this, but even matches between South African provinces and their 'Rebel' opposition from Australia, England, Sri Lanka and West Indies are regarded as first class fixtures? Am I wrong in this assumption? If so, it would seem silly that the supertests are also not regarded as first class matches.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by nicko18
that would mean that every other nation would be accruing ratings points against them and not us (a reason why south africa are in the hunt for the #1 spot) Not with the overhaul of the championship. ;) But yes, if Bangladesh play Tests against other Test nations, then they play tests against us.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Dogwatcher
Can someone confirm this, but even matches between South African provinces and their 'Rebel' opposition from Australia, England, Sri Lanka and West Indies are regarded as first class fixtures? Am I wrong in this assumption? If so, it would seem silly that the supertests are also not regarded as first class matches. Correct.

[Dogwatcher]

then it is ridiculous that the supertests arent at least given first class status if those rebel matches are.

[crudbucket]

The "Rebel" tours were sanctioned by the ruling home body at the time, that being the SACB.
Although the ICC didn't approve, as long as the SACB sanctioned them, they were "first class".
That wasn't the case in Australia, because clearly the ACB didn't sanction those games.

There are still some things that Kerry Packer can't buy .....