We knew we had it coming
Rahul Bhatia13-Jul-2004
The absence of New Zealanders in the side was questioned, and Fleming’s exclusion, in particular, rankled© Getty Images
We knew we had it coming. When readers responded to our Rest of the World XI selection, there were practical suggestions, appreciation, anger, accusations of bias, questions regarding the selectors’ sanity and, to top it all, someone queried whether the teams were picked by a bunch of car mechanics. It wasn’t all that bad though because a bulk of the players picked themselves, but as ever, there were a few contentious issues, and none more than the non-inclusion of Stephen Fleming, widely regarded as the best captain in international cricket. The responses are still coming in and it will be a while before we put up a Readers XI. But meanwhile, here are the a few big discussion points.Where’s New Zealand?
Aren’t New Zealand the second-best one-day team in the world? This was a repeated refrain in addition to “where’s Stephen Fleming?”. “New Zealand looks like it may move into second spot in the ODI rankings, but only a brief mention of Cairns. How can that be?” asked Greg Nuthall. Andrew Mason was angry at the disrespect shown to the Kiwis. “Why do people still not rate New Zealand as a cricketing nation? As long as they continue to not give us at least a token amount of respect, we will continue to keep biting them on the ass … when they don’t expect it.”Some suggested that the absence of any New Zealanders probably meant that they played more like a team than the others. But others demanded to know the nationality of the 22 selectors. Ramprasad Sugumaran believed that all the selectors were from England, and Kamal Dorabawila accused the committee of being English “or biased towards the English.”Michael Vaughan’s position as opener and captain came under immediate – and brutal – scrutiny. “Were the selectors opting for a specialist captain? Or were they half English?” asked Kit Boyes. “Nothing more than a one-hit wonder,” said Adrian Nung, explaining that Vaughan had only one good series against Australia. And Jake Berry couldn’t believe Vaughan was captain. “He is probably the most over-rated captain in world cricket, and has been in terrible form lately in both, Tests and one-dayers.”But who, then, should be captain? Who will connect the Rest of the World’s fist with Australia’s upper lip? A man with “rat cunning”, came the prompt reply from John Baldwin. “If you want someone to lead your team, who thinks like an Aussie, plays like an Aussie and is respected by Aussies because of it, then you need a quasi-Aussie. My team would be captained by that quintessential quasi-Aussie, Stephen Fleming.” Pratik Shah bolstered the argument with his spirited defence of Fleming’s batting. “If we look at just the last year and a half, it’s [Fleming’s average] an astonishing 54.73. Meanwhile,” he adds, “Vaughan’s recent performance is hardly anything to write home about. In the last 18 months, Vaughan has averaged a sub-par 35.61.”You get the picture. The general points raised were that Fleming was the best captain in the world, and he has scored more runs than anyone else this year, so why wasn’t he in the team? And why weren’t Chris Cairns, Jacob Oram and Hamish Marshall included in there too? Even our omission of Mark Richardson – left out after a raging fist-fight in the selection room – surprised Tejaswi Aswathanarayana, who believes he’s the best Test opener in the world.
The man scores 281 against Australia, and then terrorises them just about every time they meet. So what do you do? You leave him out© Getty Images
A man in the middle
The middle order of Rahul Dravid, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar was left unscathed, but Jacques Kallis’s inclusion and Inzamam-ul-Haq’s exclusion were criticised. According to Hariharan Sekhar, Kallis gorges on weak attacks and struggles against stronger ones. “He tends to struggle against Australia and can’t handle quality spin bowling.” But who should replace him? “Because of this, VVS Laxman is the obvious choice.” Natarajan Ramamurthy says the same thing and then backs it up with cold numbers. Since January 2000, Kallis’s bowling average in Australia is 66.50, while his batting average is 32.61. “This throws in some doubt the merit of his selection. Laxman, on the other hand, averages more than 63 against the Australians.” But Laxman isn’t the only contender for that spot. Sheik Salim flies the flag for Inzy. “Inzamam’s records place him automatically in both Test and one-day XIs.”Keeping wickets
With Adam Gilchrist the world’s best keeper-batsman by far – and currently employed with Australia – who would wear the gloves for this team? Certainly not Mark Boucher, replied many. If Tanveer Singh Parwar had his way, he’d bring Andy Flower out of the retirement home. Others suggested Kumar Sangakkara. Nigel Harbridge says that he should be selected “ahead of Boucher due to his better batting ability, and also the fact that Murali will be bowling the most overs and should have someone who has experience in reading his deliveries.” And, according to Hiran Leitan and Daran, Sangakkara should keep in the one-dayers as well, as Dravid would be useless at keeping to Murali in this form of the game.The bowling department
What was noticeable here was that people didn’t question the inclusion of three fast bowlers and a spinner. The sole spinner, Muralitharan, had support from Mike O’Dea, who suggested that he should be allowed to bowl the doosra, and “if he has to, make him wear the brace.” For the most controversial man in world cricket, the lack of criticism was telling. The fast bowlers, however, were a different matter.Shaun Pollock has lost it, Shoaib Akhtar is a showoff, and Steve Harmison’s inclusion was due to a dark English lobby at work, according to readers. “Pollock,” says Simon Bradwell, “is a spent force. He’s lost his pace and penetration.” Sameer Tare agrees, and adds that perhaps Irfan Pathan and Makhaya Ntini are more deserving of inclusion.
Showboat Shoaib gets in? Are you crazy?© AFP
But Peter Vincent, in a systematic demolition of Shoaib, questions the logic of selecting him. “Shoaib Akhtar in both teams? Are you crazy?” he warms up. “What about Vaas? Or Bond, Dillon, Ntini, even Streak? Showboat Akhtar is inconsistent and a poor team man and as likely to bowl a dozen no-balls and skive off with an Indian movie maiden as he is to make an impact against the Aussies.” Instead, Shane Bond was recommended for a place in the team. If he’s fit, wrote a reader, he’s the second-best fast bowler in the world.The one-day selection
And that was only the Test team. But there were fewer problems with the one-day side. Only Yuvraj Singh’s inclusion caused a major rift, with calls for Abdul Razzaq to be picked instead. The other omission that readers found odd was that of Gayle, whose century in the crunch one-dayer against England took his team through to the NatWest Series final. Jonathan Ellis was vocal in his support: “I’m surprised that, in the one-day team, nobody mentioned Chris Gayle. He’s a better batsman than Yuvraj Singh, and a far better bowler, and what’s more, he’s an opener.”Then there was an appeal for Andrew Flintoff, whose recent performances have won him many followers. Adrian Nung dissed Vaughan and said, “Flintoff is the only Englishman who can definitely make a World XI.”A matter of bias
The presence of numerous Indians and Englishmen in the Test and one-day sides didn’t sit well with many readers. Of the 22 selections made, 11 came from the two countries. Fahad Fazli sensed “an Indian connection”, while Abid Butt demanded to know the nationality of the 22 selectors. Sonam Tenduf-La asked if it was “right to assume that a lot of the selectors were Indian?”Clueless selectors
And finally, after going through reams of complaints/suggestions/anger, we came across a question posed by Romil Kothari. “What do you do,” he asks, “if your most-voted player, Murali, chooses not to go to Australia?”What you do, Romil, is retire from the selection panel and stick to writing.