Status of The Matches
The International Cricket Council declared that the matches would count as official One Day Internationals and Test matches. Until recently, ODIs and Test matches had to be played between the teams of two countries. Moreover, the ICC's own rules stipulate that a player can only represent one Test match playing side, and that Test matches are only played between member sides of the ICC, which the 'rest of the world' is not. Some previous matches, such as the series between England and the Rest of the World in 1970, were initially regarded as Test matches but later stripped of Test status by the ICC. At first it was unclear whether the Super Series matches would be recognised as official internationals, but following the decision to recognise the World Cricket Tsunami Appeal match as an official ODI, the ICC decided to award official status to the Super Series matches too. This was the first official Test match not between two countries.
This decision proved controversial among players and writers alike.
Cricket historians have generally opposed the decision because of inconsistency in that the 1970 Rest of the World series in England is not accorded Test status. Statisticians such as Bill Frindall have said that they will not recognise the ruling and will exclude the matches from their records. Although it has been said that this "raises the possibility of two competing sets of cricket statistics being in circulation", that has in fact always been a reality because there has never been a standard for match status and statisticians have always used their own match lists.
Many current and former Test cricketers also joined in the debate. For example, former Australian captain Allan Border said: "I firmly believe that this status should be restricted to matches between national sides. Test cricket is an institution that has been built up over a period of 128 years, and it should not be tampered with". Conversely, Tony Greig, who played for the Rest of the World against Australia in 1971-1972, said "My understanding of the status of first-class and Test cricket is related to the standard of the players. These are all Test cricketers... were played like Tests and were deadly serious. "
The matches themselves were characterised by poor crowds (half empty grounds) and lacklustre performances by the World XI. Former England batsman Geoffrey Boycott described the series as a "bunfight" and said that there was "nothing that resembled cricket" in it. The authoritative publication The Wisden Cricketer summed up the Test match as follows: " was a terrible game of cricket. It had a small crowd, little meaning and was forgotten quickly." The World XI players seemed to be there more for fun than anything else. Andrew Flintoff came up with some refreshingly honest statements amidst all the bullish officials: "I've got the Super Series in two weeks' time. I can't think of anything worse," he said, adding on arrival; "I'm only here for the food."
Captain Graeme Smith admitted to frustration in the aftermath of the series, saying he found it hard to deal with the fact that there weren't any repurcussions to 'losing so badly'
Read more about this topic: 2005 ICC Super Series
Famous quotes containing the words status of, status and/or matches:
“What is clear is that Christianity directed increased attention to childhood. For the first time in history it seemed important to decide what the moral status of children was. In the midst of this sometimes excessive concern, a new sympathy for children was promoted. Sometimes this meant criticizing adults. . . . So far as parents were put on the defensive in this way, the beginning of the Christian era marks a revolution in the child’s status.”
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“At all events, as she, Ulster, cannot have the status quo, nothing remains for her but complete union or the most extreme form of Home Rule; that is, separation from both England and Ireland.”
—George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)
“But, most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.”
—Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908–1973)