Sportolysis – The World Sports Blog

Sehwag, Pathan were poor but weren’t dropped till very late and after Pathan was brought back, we might bring back Sehwag as well. The selection committee under More had erred while picking the teams. Indian preparation for the world cup has been left till too late.. We have to resort to try out Uthappa right now and even if he has a few good innings and a few bad ones, we cannot assess his reliability as we would like. Then there is Gambhir of course.

That many players were pretty poor in the last 18 months holds little weight because the team management and selectors were pretty rigid regarding specific players (Ganguly comes to mind instantly as does Kumble) when they should have tried the players who had been too good to ignore in the past or who looked promising enough. Australia rested a few players for the Champions Trophy for instance to get their team right as they approached the world cup.

Now, we have this situation where two players – Pathan is being tried again and Sehwag might be played as well just because we do not know how x y z players are because there isn’t much time to give x y z players a proper run. The Indian selection policies over the past 18 months or so have been a joke. I am blaming the Kiran More lead committee and not the Vengsarkar lead committee here.

The Vengsarkar lead selection committee are fixing the damage as much as possible and have done a good job of it. They brought back players, have tried people (even Jaffer in South Africa was at least an attempt to get things right). Some things have clicked while others haven’t and that is fair enough. What isn’t fair though is that crucial world cup spots like who will open will be decided based on what pans out in the next four games versus Sri Lanka.

It is an emotional roller coaster the youngsters particularly could have done well to do without because such shorter runs harm more than build players. That the moves of the new selection committee seem to be working is a very good sign though and augurs well for India for the world cup. It is a circus Indian cricket would have done well to avoid.

Here’s what my team would look like –

AC Gilchrist
SR Tendulkar
IVA Richards
BC Lara
RT Ponting
MG Bevan
Imran Khan (c)
RJ Hadlee
CEL Ambrose
J Garner
Murali

Some spots were easy to fill in while others had close competition. Gilchrist and Tendulkar opening is a dream pairing at the top. Richards at number 3 has extra ordinary stats and he walks into the team as well.

Lara is a much better batsman statistically at number 3 and Ponting bats higher up as well. However, some accommodations have to be made given that it is a world XI and all the best players cannot bat in their favorite positions. Dean Jones just misses out.

Bevan at six walks right into the team as well. Maybe Hussey will challenge Bevan for this spot after a few years (or some one else in the all-time XI) but right now, it is too early to consider Hussey.

For the all rounder of the team, Imran Khan brings much more to the table compared to a Kapil Dev, Chris Cairns or even some one like a Lance Klusener. That he was an inspirational leader and would be the automatic choice to captain the team adds further weight to his selection.

The bowling spots provided a bit more stiff competition. I went for Hadlee, Ambrose, Garner and Murali ahead of McGrath, Akram, Warne and Saqlain. I cannot look past Ambrose and Garner. The mean and tall bowlers would never give an easy run (as evident by their economy rates). Bowling together, they would be capable of causing problems to most opposition.

Then, there is Hadlee v Akram. Hadlee’s ODI bowling is phenomenal as is Akram’s. Hadlee’s stats: Ave of 21.56 and eco of 3.30. Now even in an era where runs were not scored that fast, an economy of 3.3 is amazing, not to forget the average. Add to that, the batting of Hadlee is stronger (batting average – 21.61). Hadlee offers more than Akram for me. Given also that the tail of my team is pretty weak batting wise (Ambrose, Garner, Murali), some one like Hadlee at 8 is a better option.

Where the spinner’s spot is concerned, Saqlain could have been in with a real chance had he played much more. Where Murali v Warne is concerned, it is a close call. Warne brings in more to the team in the batting department. However, Murali’s bowling average (23.07) compared to Warne’s (25.73) sneaks it for Murali.

The one possible weak aspect of the team is less variation in the fast bowling department. Akram could make the ball talk even on the flattest of wickets while McGrath could test the best of the batsmen not just because of pace. I decided to go in with what I thought would be the most dangerous bowling attack. The Windies of the 70s and 80s didn’t have that much variety in their attack but they did the job.

However, on a subcontinent or a flattish wicket, where tail batting would not be needed as much, I could probably replace Hadlee and bring in Akram and McGrath for Hadlee and Ambrose respectively. Similarly, on a pitch where quite a few wickets are likely to fall and where a bit more spine in the tail is needed, Warne could replace Murali.

There would always be Jonty Rhodes as the 12th man of course.

A lot of people think the punishment given to Gibbs is too strong (which he has appealed against incidentally). A case can very well be made that a two match ban may or may not be very harsh but from where I sit, an international cricketer should be sensible enough to know what he says and if he says some thing which can have an implication of having a racial under current, it is needed that there is some strong punishment meted out.

Racism, even the hint of it, has to be kicked out of sport and I would have been unhappy with any thing less than a 1 match ban. That it was a two match ban and it has been brought into spotlight means that cricketers will think twice before bringing racism into sport. I mentioned regarding India in my earlier post and far too often they have not made big deals and I am glad Pakistan has here and all the more, action has been taken.

If the offense was not racism, there could be reason for it to be analysed seeing intent. Dean Jones got a tough punishment it may seem but racism is a grave and so the action was needed there as well. Just because Jones was stupid did not mean he didn’t deserve to lose his job or Gibbs didn’t deserve to get a severe punishment.

I can see why some people might feel the punishment is too harsh given he might not have intended to say such a thing or didn’t intend to say such a thing in the context it was taken. However, the implications, as it is with most racial slurs, cannot be ignored and so I am happy with the two match ban.

A minor controversy has emerged in cricket with South Africans allegedly racially abusing Pakistani players. The South African officials are saying that the phrase used was they’re like animals... Footage shows that the exact phrase used also included go back to your zoo with plenty of expletives in between though it is not clear on whom the insults were directed at.

I don’t see why a player has to crop abusive behaviour on the field just because he is playing cricket. I don’t see tennis players mouthing off against each other for example and I don’t see it in any sport at least as openly as I see in cricket. Isn’t tennis a professional sport as well?

Kallis called an Indian batsman (I think it was Dravid) you *abuses* Indian during the recent South Africa-India series. Now why should a player tolerate such nonsense just because he is playing cricket?

I have been a long term advocator of playing cricket with the bat and the ball instead of the mouth and even though I might be in a minority, I feel firmly on the topic. I don’t see why sledging should be passed as part of the game.

Friendly banter is okay but sledging, particularly the racial kind, is not required in sport.

Update: Cricketvideosunplugged has the video of the incident.