The ICC's Best Test XI?

So on the occasion of the two-thousandth Test match, the ICC has taken it upon themselves to right royally arse it up once again.

To celebrate the two-thousandth match in the most honoured form of the sport, the celebrated accountants who today control cricket decided to celebrate by announcing an XI comprised of the best players ever to play Test cricket. A great idea, good publicity and rightfully commemorating the best to grace the arenas. The team was announced the weekend before the match to great fanfare and instantly the enormous errors of judgement inherent in the selection process became obvious.

Awesome, but best ever?  Only maybe.

Those named should almost be ashamed of their selection and those who missed out should let rip with a relieved sigh. Why? Because an honour which should be immense has been turned into swill. The ICC, with their infinitely clear vision, opened selection to an internet-based popular vote. While generating remarkable website traffic and the trending hash-tag #ICCTestXI - publicity you can't buy - it also produced results biased beyond all common sense and by anointing the team selected by the fans, the ICC has spat in the face of cricketers like Sir Garfield Sobers, Malcolm Marshall, Keith Miller, Jack Hobbs, Harold Larwood, Bill O'Reilly, Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards.

The team features aggressive and enduring batting, a skilled all-rounder and devastating bowling. What it lacks, however, is credibility due to the populist selection policy encouraged by the ICC. Although the XI selected would be highly competitive against any other "Best of" team, the results are swayed to the Internet generation and to the subcontinent. This is to be expected given India's population and the popularity of cricket within. But for the ICC to come out and then anoint these players as the best ever to play reeks of pandering to the whims of their clientele.

When ESPN Cricinfo selected their best ever team last year it was done so according to a selection panel of respected, educated voices. The fans got their say, able to select their teams and compare. When the NBA marked it's fiftieth anniversary with the "Fifty Greatest players in NBA history", the list was compiled by experts - so too, was the AFL's Team of the Century. The greatest blunder here isn't that the public were consulted, it is that ONLY the public were consulted and now the ICC will consecrate these eleven players as the greatest. This devalues the contribution of every single player to grace a field before 1980 because the people who voted are swayed by recent memory, youth, YouTube and covered pitches.

Leaving aside the fact that comparing players across eras is a futile exercise because of the changing face of cricket over time, it's errors of judgement like these which make it seem the ICC has sought public debate and promotion at the expense of Test cricket's rich, textured history. It's eminently possible that voters didn't even know of Bill O'Reilly or Herbert Sutcliffe. Being selected to a commemorative XI should be amongst - if not the - greatest individual honour a player can receive. When a deserving player - Sobers, for example, a unanimous selection to the Cricinfo team - is ejected in what amounts to a popularity contest, the flaws in the system laid down by the ICC scream like Bruce Reid after he snaps in half.

Every player who made the list, with the exception of the statistical anomaly Bradman, played within the last thirty years. This most damning evidence is proof enough in itself how swayed to the modern the voting has been - no matter how talented this era's the players have been. In a "Fan's All-Time XI", sure, I'll buy that - but then to be named the best ever by the game's governing body? The ICC, never a stranger to populism, has taken another step towards joining FIFA in the abyss.

Kapil Dev's finest moment.  True to form, it's not in a Test match.

Finally, the ICC must concede than any popular vote put up by it has to be tempered with the knowledge that India will dominate. While Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag and Sachin Tendulkar rate as amongst, if not the, best candidates for their positions - though you'd have a hard time convincing me - Kapil Dev, very good player that he was, does not. The players in front of him (Sobers, Miller, Botham, Imran Khan and even Hadlee) were all vastly superior. This reflects strongly the 1.2 billion Indian obsessions with cricket - it has seven times the voting power of the next most populous cricketing nation, Pakistan, 25 times that of South Africa and 255 times the voting power of New Zealand. Of course the voting is going to be swayed.

Having backed themselves into a corner, the ICC will crown these players as the best the Test format has ever seen. Under the outward guise of inclusivity, the never-ending hunt for publicity has created a team which almost - but not quite - completely fails to resemble the best ever. Without using adequate foresight, they've smote another blow to cricket tradition.

But this is the ICC. What more could we expect?

Anti-Franchise: In defense of provincial cricket

To hear recent suggestions that in the future cricket sides will be drawn down franchise, rather than national, lines is both predictable and upsetting. Cricket, a sport unique in both in the basis of its rules and its appeal, continues to evolve at a rate unthought of only a decade ago. In many ways, the game has benefited from this enforced change. In others, it has not.

The Franchise model forms the basis of nearly every team sport in the world. In every type of football, all the American-born sports, motorsport and even cycling, competition is played out by teams of players coming from diverse nations, backgrounds and experiences. In cricket - and perhaps Rugby Union - players generally represent the province in which they were raised. The IPL (the forerunner of any future franchise system) aside, players don't enter a draft and subsequently are not doled out to whoever is prepared to pay the most.

It's this state-based system which, like only Rugby, cover-drives home the simple fact that the pinnacle of cricket is the International game. Where football has the World Cup, basketball has the NBA and tennis has Wimbledon, the highest single honour a cricketer can receive is just to represent their country. The romance of the Baggy Green - as with all countries colours - still holds firm. What an insignificant piece of cotton becomes when transformed by green dye and an emblem! It seduces the best of the best and lures them in what seems a more wholesome way than that of money or fame.

International cricket is what drives the sport, of that there can be no question. It's not Domestic Twenty20 that fills the ICC's coffers. Neither has First Class cricket made superstars of polar opposites like Sachin Tendulkar and Merv Hughes. To witness two domestic teams compete is now often an exercise in loneliness. It has been thus for years. Full endorsement of one's cricketing abilities has for so long been a letter from a national selector, not an excited gathering around a television screen or Green Room, waiting for one's name to be read out. That is now changing as cricket, so long the gentleman's game, inexorably plunges the way of all the others.

For, should an ICC Franchise model go ahead, it wouldn't be long before the biggest event in World Cricket isn't an Ashes series or a Border/Gavaskar trophy clash, but a match between "perpetual arch-rivals" Mumbai and Essex. Witness how the UEFA Champions' League now carries so much weight. Football has a franchise model because it has the budget to administer such a network worldwide. Look at every English Premier League rostser and count the home-grown players. The best players always play for the big clubs, which creates a two-tier system of "haves" and "have-nots".

If the World Cup is the pinnacle of football (and this in itself is sadly questionable), with such ludicrously ostentatious money available at the "second level", the best football is now played in the UEFA Champions' League and not the World Cup. (Note: we're talking "best" here, not necessarily "most exciting"). Last week's finalists, Manchester United and Barcelona, would most probably defeat the national teams of the countries in which they play. It would be so with cricket and suddenly, the International game is not the top level of the sport and could be seen by many only as an irritant.

The franchise system wouldn't be the end of world cricket. It would perhaps allow for more competitive matches between teams able to buy, sell or trade their way out of a slump rather than depend on youth development like downtrodden national sides are now forced to resort. But surely the highest possible level of competition isn't the most important thing? Cricket is perhaps the most popular sport in the world where it's impossible to follow without supporting a team. And choosing a side to support is easy - it's your national side, made up mostly of players who play on your shores. While no-one's suggesting that International cricket is in danger, its unique nature as the best level of competition will be.

As will the individual nature of each team. For so long it's been common knowledge to pack spinners for India, fast men for Australia and experts at swing for England. The qualities of individual cricketers that go hand-in-hand with their passport will lessen as they ply their trade in countries and climes anew. Imagine how much sooner India could have claimed the World's number one ranking should Rahul Dravid or Yuvraj Singh played for a franchise from Perth? By implementing a global franchise system (and it would have to be global and binding), cricket once again loses part of each nation's identity with willow or leather.

A franchise system is an easy fix. Pacemen not performing? Then buy/trade for another one, rather than either a) creating new techniques and tactics to minimise those weaknesses or b) developing a new fast man, c.f. the Australian Cricket Academy.

Which suggests another reason for maintaining the status quo: franchises have far less impetus to develop youth both in their locality and in general. Why invest time and expense in a kid from the bush when you can, via global scouting networks, secure an uncontracted slightly-proven quanitity from Zimbabwe, Ireland or Pakistan? With franchises, their primary responsibility is not to the game, but to themselves and their owners, prompting far fewer locals rising through the ranks.

No, the best way to continue First Class cricket is with provincial sides. First-class cricket is what it is - a sport for the fanatic with minimal broadcast revenues, serving primarily to develop youngsters. While crowds may increase at the notion of two all-star sides meeting, they could also drop considering the lack of global televisual interest in First Class cricket. Such a drop would be almost catastrophic for the sport - a franchise-based landscape would mean paying "import" players more to represent you than local talent would demand, presenting an almost insoluble problem for owners. It's far-fetched but possible that deserving fans are robbed of any first-class cricket by poor administration and the Adelaide Redbacks end up as the Kochi Elephants or Dublin Terriers.

Change is good. But change for its own sake brings with it entirely new responsibilities. Before endorsing any franchise-based feeder system to International cricket, the ICC must understand the ramifications of such a decision. For it a choice from which there is no turning back.

Image of IPL "faces of the franchise" courtesy squidoo.com

An Alternative to Exclusion: The Statistical Basis for an ICC World Cup Qualifying Tournament

The ICC have announced that affiliate nations are to be excluded from the World Cup in 2015, only to be reinstated from 2019 after a mooted ODI League begins. As well as manifestly defending without consequence the full member nations Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at the expense of the affiliates, there are several flaws in the ICC's logic. Their thinking is that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe deserve protection as developing cricket nations. Perhaps the ICC, when considering the following analysis, should expand their vista somewhat.

Over the last two World Cups, perhaps the most startling comparison is each team's success rate. Ireland have recorded four wins, one tie and eleven losses, Bangladesh went 6-10 and Zimbabwe managing two wins and a tie from nine matches. In fact if you take into account every ODI each nation has played since June 2006 (Ireland's first ever ODI), records are even more enlightening.

Nation	Games	Wins	Losses	Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	67	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	66	1	0
Ireland	64	30	30	1	3

Although Irish results don't quite measure up to those of Bangladesh, these tables don't take into account a decline in Bangladesh's form since their Super-8 appearance in the 2007 Cup in the West Indies. Comparing last decade to this, Irish cricket appears well in advance of their third-world neighbours in development:

Nation	Games	Wins		Losses		Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	43.7	67	56.3	0	0
2006-2009	86	40	46.51	46	53.49	0	0
2010-2011	33	12	36.36	21	63.64	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	29.47	66	70.53	1	0
2006-2009	69	19	27.54	49	71.01	1	0
2010-2011	26	9	34.62	17	65.38	0	0
Ireland	64	30	46.88	30	46.88	1	3
2006-2009	41	17	41.46	20	48.78	1	3
2010-2011	23	13	56.52	10	43.48	0	0

Given that many of Ireland's ODIs have been against ICC-trophy opposition, this is hardly conclusive proof that Ireland are a comparable side to either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. However, what must be remembered is that while they may face weaker opposition more often, almost all of their matches are played "away". The same can't be said of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Every nation uses Key Performance Indicators in their overall analysis of performance. Since Ireland entered the ODI arena, theirs compare well with their subcontinental and African cousins:

	Statistic	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Bowling KPI	Runs conceded p/wkt	26	25.08	27.05
	Runs conceded p/over	4.56	4.54	4.68
Batting KPI	Highest Score	320	351	329
	Lowest Score	58	44	77
	Average Total Score	217.96	205.42	240.53

Let's examine both individual performances in both the last two World Cups to see how, on a per-match basis, the Irish stack up.

	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Game 1	191	221	221
Game 2	318	204	132
Game 3	94	349	190
Game 4	106	262	266
Game 5	178	123	165
Game 6	184	166	263
Game 7	147	327	92
Game 8	243	164	169
Game 9	230	147	81
Game 10	370		205
Game 11	178		327
Game 12	59		210
Game 13	225		275
Game 14	160		272
Game 15	284		306
Average runs conceded	197.8	218.11	211.6
Total wickets taken	95	58	103
Average p/wkt	31.23	33.84	30.82
Adjusted Avg runs conc.	207.71
Adjusted avg/p/wkt	30.94

In this analysis, "Adjusted" removes the influence of any low totals made by the team while batting first - ie. Bangladesh's record-low 58 is not considered in the "Adjusted runs conceded". This has the happy benefit of decreasing their average per wicket (Adjusted avg/p/wkt) as they only took one West Indies scalp when attempting to defend their meagre total.

With batting, the story is very similar.

World Cup	Bangladesh		Zimbabwe		Ireland
	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts Lost
2007	1372	72	522	30	1452	79
2011	1017	51	1276	52	1393	51
Totals	2389	123	1798	82	2845	130
Average p/wkt	19.42		21.93		21.88

Perhaps rather than automatic ascension to ODI status, it would be best to enforce qualification rules upon the weakest two Full ICC Members - a simple, round-robin tournament evaluated by wins, losses and run-rate. It could be there that Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Kenya - perpetually the strongest four affiliate nations - could compete against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for entry rights.

Such a setup may also strengthen those full members as it would provide another focal point at which things need to be "going right" in order to avoid the humiliation of failing to qualify. It only needs to be for one (two at most) World Cup and could easily be superseded by an ODI League.

Any suggestions the Bangladeshis or Zimbabweans would crush the competition in a qualifying tournament is fatuous in the extreme. To throw in one final statistic, in the past two Cups three Irish batsmen have scored hundreds. None have from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (though one of each has come close). Ireland's batsmen seem to fire after playing themselves in - they have only eight unconverted 50s to their credit, while Bangladesh have managed nine half-centuries and Zimbabwe have eleven.

In all the statistics put together today, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that Irish, Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean cricket is relatively well-matched. Indeed, it's eminently possible to throw a blanket over the differences in each nation's stats. All statistical indicators point to a very even three-cornered series.

As with any developing cricketing nation, no-one is really sure who is going to step up on any given day to play a key hand. What it does seem however, is that Ireland are fully capable of upsetting bigger opponents, and their form is only improving rather than the cul-de-sac into which Bangladeshi cricket seems to have turned. The only fair way to ensure the development of cricket across the globe is to give the affiliate nations something to strive for, and Full member nations something to fear. That should take the form of World Cup qualifying.

ICC turns back on affiliate nations' World Cup hopes

By excluding Ireland, the Netherlands and other affiliate nations from the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, the ICC could well have signed the death warrant for International 50-over cricket. A format which could well have been revitalized by one of - if not THE - best World Cups ever, now stands on the precipice of becoming an elitist tournament with no second division. Any league around the world needs a feeder system. By robbing themselves of that at ODI level, cricket's head honchos have announced that Twenty20 is the way of the future.

The ICC has decided that a ten-team format is the best for the ODI World Cup. That much is clear and, probably, fair. To compensate for their brutality, the Twenty20 World Cup will be expanded in a clear message to the world's 95 associate nations: T20 is the future. Notwithstanding the perilous effects this is likely to have on player techniques, this also cements the notion that no affiliate nation has any hope of ascending to Test level within twenty-five years.

Without a strong One-Day program, Test cricket is weaker. The fifty-over form is the best way of choosing a World Champion and, to the delight of the non-baseball crowd, demands batting and bowling technique, thought and tactics rather than an abrupt slog-a-thon. A nation can wean players on ODIs in preparation for Test matches; the same cannot be said of Twenty20. If countries like Ireland and Afghanistan aren't able to expose their men to the best in the world, there remains no hope for growth in the Test world. The step up from ODI to Test is often too great, let alone from T20.

Should, as is rumoured, the mooted ODI League - complete with promotion and relegation - come into effect after the 2019 tournament in England, the affiliates will be again able to attempt qualification for the World Cup, play regular matches and attempt to improve both grass-roots and elite talent pathways to full International level, a process likely to take at least 10 years. But with an eight-year gap between Cups, there exists the chance that the fifty-over game will have fallen into irreparable decline or even been eradicated completely.

Without question, Ireland are the team closest to making the step to the next level - and may have surpassed both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe already. They are the archetypal Big Fish in a Small Pond, identified by the ICC not as "too good for affiliate" but "too small for the Big Time". Sadly, Ireland are in a category all of their own and stand as the nation shafted by Haroon Lorgat's arbitrary nature. As they produce quality cricketers, (faint) hope grew for an Irish Test team. It is all now gone.

The debate isn't whether Cup is suited best to a ten- or fourteen-team format, the big picture is that the ICC has made a sweeping reform to the game's Showpiece to benefit smaller "Full" members at the expense of growth. Globally, cricket is far from being in a safe position and thus growth is required to ensure that cricket doesn't become confined to its heartland - now, proudly the subcontinent. When growth is required, it behoves administrators to focus most on strengthening their weaker elements. Here, the opposite has happened and more revenue has been funnelled into wealthy coffers.

To exclude Ireland, a team whose performances everyone has admired, simply because they haven't yet broken into the big time is wrong. If their displays at the last two Cups and ICC trophy dominance aren't reason enough to include them in the planning for 2015, then surely their administration is: there's good reason to think that the Cricket Ireland is more transparent and better administered than counterpart organisations in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies.

The exciting new ODI League may have been initialised to save the fifty-over format. That comes as cold comfort for players like Kevin O'Brien and William Porterfield, who though young now, probably won't get a chance to strut the big stage again. The ODI revolution may come years too late for the smaller nations in world cricket.

Cricket: Jane Austen's World Cup

by Ben Roberts

For Anita, a Jane Austen lover and wife of a cricket tragic.

It is often said that sporting teams will take on individual characteristics that differentiate them from others. Describing these characteristics need not be limited merely to the mundanely clichéd terms of sport; they can come from the literary world.

Lying in bed thinking of how best to describe each of our World Cup challengers I realised how each of them fit seamlessly (in my own mind) into Jane Austen’s Victorian tale of Pride & Prejudice. See below, team’s are in alphabetical order.

Australia – Lydia Bennett: Gets what they desire in the end, however do not please others with the manner in which they do so, including their own ‘family’.

Bangladesh – Mr Bennett: Have some talent within them but are rarely taken seriously.

Canada & Kenya – The Bingley Sisters: Serve no purpose in the tournament except to ruin the future ambitions of Ireland.

England – Elizabeth Bennett: Like Lizzy, the English supporter lives a life of undue frustration and complication.

Ireland – Jane Bennett: With their coloured hair and pure joy in victory they are the simple souls of this competition.

India – Mr Wickham: Describe their motives as being pure however are believed by many to just be in it for the money.

Netherlands – Mr Collins: Existence is based purely on the patronage of one individual.

New Zealand – Mary Bennett: The poorer sibling of many, they have little talent but try hard.

Pakistan – Mrs Bennett: Can hold it together for short periods of time but likely to collapse into tantrum at any moment.

South Africa – Mr Darcy: The look and resource of a champion team however regularly cock it up at inappropriate moments.

Sri Lanka – Mr Bingley: Talent and riches and a zest for the game.

West Indies – Charlotte Lucas: Well past their glory years now, will settle for anything resembling success.

Zimbabwe – Lady Catherine de Burgh: More a reflection on the administrative leader of Zimbabwean cricket, a dictatorial and manipulative individual only concerned about their own end.

Like Austen’s tale we already seen the Netherlands bother England with more attention than one would feel comfortable about, and seemingly Ireland have a greater ability to woo victory than the English.

Do these undoubted parallels mean that England and South Africa or Ireland and Sri Lanka will be tied together at the end of the story...I mean tournament? Or will Australia and India elope in the final act of debauchery? This story is still to be written.

Make Ponting's punishment fit the crime

Ricky Ponting is Australia's least effective captain since Kim Hughes. He's in charge of a team finding it hard to match the achievements of his fallen comrades. He also is facing one of the worst form slumps of his career. As a leader of men he's mastered the art of using the right words with the wrong body language; his history is littered with animated - and public - disagreements with umpires and opposition. He is, quite simply, a bad loser.

But for the ICC to threaten to suspend him for damaging a television set after being dismissed against Zimbabwe is not a bridge, but a channel tunnel too far. Reports have the ICC charging the Australia captain with "abuse of ... ground equipment, fixtures or fittings during an international match". Allegedly, he threw his box when arriving back in the Australia dressing room after being dismissed by an outstanding direct hit from Chris Mpofu. It hit a television set, and damaged the picture control. There was no incident involving him smashing a television set with his bat despite earlier reports and his actions immediately after included volunteering to pay for any damage as well as notifying the Gujarat board of the incident.

Helen Keller knows that Ponting has a temper and struggles to control it, but we're hardly talking criminal offences here. Unlike past cases, where Ian Healy threw his bat into the change rooms, Hansie Cronje attacking an umpire's door with a stump or - apocryphally, anyway - Alan Border destroyed a change room after getting out, this was a private expression of frustration. And Ponting has tacitly admitted responsibility by offering payment for damages. That's also an expression of remorse.

You can't go around damaging fixtures, so some punishment should be doled out, but it's time for the ICC to act more like a responsible parent than a petty dictator: as the governing body proved when judging the accused Pakistani Spot-Fixers, each case should be judged on its own merits and in this case a suspension would be almost unbelievably harsh. In a climate of fear, perhaps Ponting would be punished harshly. In a climate of teaching the result should be simple reparations to the damaged property subtracted from his match fees. Because he has past offences also shouldn't register: although his lack of on-field restraint and this incident both stem from an apparent lack of maturity or self-control, they are completely different issues. And even though he's perhaps cricket's first modern-day recidivist captain, a suspension would be like jailing a person for their first speeding offence simply because they already have a rap for armed robbery.

If the ICC is the caring, sharing father figure it purports to be, justice will prevail and Ponting will be compelled to repay the costs of any damage done. If, as many suspect, the ICC bends to the whim of sensationalism, then Ponting will miss Australia's matches against New Zealand and Sri Lanka. It will be an interesting test case for the ICC.

Guilty and Gone: Pakistani spot-fixers suspended

An ICC tribunal has announced that the three Pakistani cricketers accused of spot-fixing during their tour of England last year have been suspended for lengthy stretches. Then-captain Salman Butt received the heaviest ban, a 10-year suspension of which five years are suspended. 28-year old fast bowler Mohammed Asif was sanctioned for seven years including two suspended; the brightest young thing in world bowling circles, Mohammed Amir, received a five year ban.

Though spot-fixing is not as harmful to the game as match-fixing, it still remains an open lesion where players can earn money for sabotaging their own performances, which by extension detracts from their team's displays. The ICC needed to send a message that accepting bribes for any poor performance is unacceptable in the extreme and by removing those individuals from the game for what equates to five years, it has ensured that all three will feel financial and public pressure as a result of their misbehaviour.

Given the state of Pakistan cricket and that nation's variegated selection policy of past years, the bans probably aren't quite strong enough. Butt and Amir particularly will almost certainly return to represent their country at the highest level. By the time he returns, Amir - for whom there has been the most public sympathy and who has said that he will appeal the sentence - will only be twenty-three and entering his peak years as a bowler. His appeal will likely be based on his stance that he was just "following orders". Butt, whose heavier sentence confirms suspicions he was the ringleader, will be 31 in five years and liable still to be the best opener in Pakistan.

Though probably generous, five years seems close to the mark when Hansie Cronje and Salim Malik were dealt life bans for rigging the outcomes of matches. There is a strong body of opinion that any acceptance of bribes on-field should be an automatic expulsion from the game - that valuing financial reward more than the sport's virtue is enough to earn you the lifelong scorn of your peers and public. When I first heard about the "incidents" in August, that was my first reaction.

But what that doesn't take into account is a Western judicial tendency to allow second chances. Should Amir, Asif and Butt have been expelled from the game for life, others may have learnt from their idiocy but would the trio get a chance to reform? To rehabilitate? It's unlikely; they would be sent back to Pakistan to live the rest of their lives in admonishment. Punitive action must hurt the offenders no doubt; but any government should at least allow offenders the chance for remorse at a later date - if not, they risk becoming a dictatorship, something the ICC is loath to appear. When taking into account Amir's testimony, life-bans became increasingly more unlikely as small doubts grew as to whether the bowling pair were acting under captain's instruction. That suspended penalties have been assigned is the most ludicrous part of this sentence: the players knew their actions were illegal and ban-worthy: so having the threat of another ban around their necks is unlikely to stop them offending a second time. Perhaps a greater deterrent would have been to combine the years: Salman Butt could be reinstated at 35 and Asif at 35. That way each player has the slim chance of righting their wrongs at international level.

That only five years was meted out after the life bans were mooted may however be a decision which encourages burgeoning spot-fixers. If the remuneration is lucrative enough, a player may make the cost/benefit analysis that five years of their career is a price worth paying for millions of dollars. As a deterrent, a five-year ban only barely registers. The ICC has delved into the same muddy waters of the debate about capital punishment: is the deterrent effect worth the human cost?

Though guilty of Herschelle Gibbs-style dropping the ball on many occasion, the ICC has employed the right selection of tribunal panellists and the Pakistani trio have been found guilty after having evidence presented from all sides and the opportunity to defend themselves. Both the process and the verdict were arrived at fairly, and though sanctions took time to administer the process was (by ICC standards) transparent. The Pakistani Three's will have to live with their sanctions. The International Cricket Council will have to live with the precedent they've set.

Tough as ... err... Balsa? Australian World Cup side needs variety

While Australia demolishes England in a meaningless seven match post-Ashes One-Day series, unexpected hope rises in a cricketing public. The World Cup is approaching and our boys - missing half the starters - are dismantling guys who embarrassed us in the Tests. Perhaps Australia really are a show to defend their World Cup honours? I mean, surely it could be worse? Absolutely it could - Beau Casson could wear a Baggy Green again. Or Chris Matthews. Or cricket's perpetual punchline Scott Muller.

But the World Cup squad of fifteen (link) doesn't exactly say "locked in", does it?

The team currently decimating the Englishmen comprises the bulk of the World Cup squad. What's concerning is it's attack, which offers about as much variety as a monk's dinner. By relying on One-Day luminaries Lee, Tait, Bollinger and Zoolander Johnson, the team has opted for pace over spin. The supporting all-round roles are filled the the team's hirsuteness bookends, man-beast John Hastings and waxer extraordinaire Shane Watson. Steve Smith also gets a guernsey but his spin bowling is on par with Cameron White's for penetration so is likely to be employed mostly as a low order pinch-hitter.

The incumbent spinner is Nathan Hauritz, the patient girlfriend to which CA selectors always return after stupid flings with the new blondes on the Domestic scene with big knockers: this time, Tasmanian Spin Bimbo Xavier Doherty. Without Hauritz - which due to injury may happen - Australia is likely to field a lineup of spinners as imposing as an mouse's member on the spin-friendly subcontinental pitches.

The pace attack looks threatening, boasting three of the world's fastest bowlers, each of whom is more - sorry - only effective in the shorter formats. Leaving behind versatility, what's most concerning is the fragility of the squad. At least five serious injury risks project as first-choice, as all of Lee, Tait, Bollinger, Hauritz, Ponting and Mike Hussey are either extremely injury-prone or under a cloud going into the tournament. The spearheads, Tait and Lee, despite being walk up starts for all or most of Australia's 115 ODIs since 2007, have a combined seventy appearances, due mostly to injury (Tait 26, Lee 44). While Johnson's physical capability is apparent, "Doug the Rug" has struggled with injury and form for the better part of six months now. Though none resemble Bruce Reid in height, ability or movement in the air, the Curse which struck him down appears to have targeted the Aussie fast men.

This World Cup is in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh which by default means the toughest conditions in which cricket can be played. Lee's history of meltdowns in India and Bollinger's last six months don't inspire confidence in the attack; Tait remains unable to bowl more than sixty deliveries a year without his body crumbling into dust like at the end of an Indiana Jones movie. To preserve their spearheads, the spear-handle is going to have to bowl quite a bit, meaning Watson, Hastings, David Hussey and Michael Clarke can all expect to roll the arm over quite a bit, an each-way bet as to what comes out: flowers or fertilizer.

Apart from Hastings, Australia doesn't really sport too many genuine all-rounders but just batsmen who can bowl if needed. And their ability with the six-stitcher may just determine how successful Australia's World Cup will be.

Debate: Is the BCCI the root of all evil?

Today's post features Matthew Wood of Balanced Sports and Subash Jayaraman of the cricket couch and concerns a few issues around the upcoming India vs. Australia Test series.

Matt: A transitional period for the Australian Test team has left them with a series of underwhelming performances and less expectations of a win in India since, arguably, the infamous 1986 series. In many ways, the teams sent by Australia are similar: some grizzled veterans and some players just finding their feet in Test cricket. The rise in political prominence of India in world cricket has not necessarily mirrored the fortunes of their Test team, even though the Indians hold the world number 1 Test ranking. It's no secret that the ICC has bent over backwards in recent times to ensure the happiness of the Indian cricket establishment, meaning that it's only now that their match performances are of the same level of clout that their board for control wields. Simply put though, India's performances have not been those of a World Number 1 and they hold the position more because of the failings of the other elite cricket nations rather than through any particular form of their own. Sure they haven't lost many matches of late, but it's very difficult to lose or win when groundsmen keep serving up pitches with all the variable bounce of an airport runway. The major question is whether Australia are able to get through this series unscathed by injuries and without uproar generated by the machinations of a rabid Indian media and some of the under-stimulated, over-arrogant prima donna-style Indian cricketers.

Subash: Whoa, slow down mate. You began with the resemblance of the current Australia Test team to those from the 1980s and seamlessly led into a tirade against the BCCI and India's seemingly undeserved Number One ranking. Let me try to respond one at a time.

Listen, the system is set up in such a way that a team that has not won a Test series in Australia or South Africa can be Number One. It's not India's fault. India can only play the teams wherever and whenever they are scheduled to. If Sri Lanka wants to lay out a road of a pitch, how is that India's fault? While talking on flat pitches, let's not forget Sydney and Adelaide. They may not be an airport runway, but they are certainly at least interstate highways. If you take out the Australian team from the early part of this decade, India has been a real consistent performer winning Test series in the West India, England, Pakistan and New Zealand. They gave Australia a run for their money in 2003-04 and if not for Blind Bucknor, the 2008-09 series Down Under could have been different too. The success of India has been due largely to its middle order, Anil Kumble and seam bowlers stepping up here and there. Yeah, the Indian team may not be as dominant as the Australia team of the 2007 Ashes but it certainly (when healthy) is the best of the lot in any playing condition.

Matt: As you say mate, one at a time - let's start with the World Number 1 ranking. There's no question in my mind that Australia aren't worthy of the Test No. 1 ranking. In fact, given the paucity of elite talent in world cricket today I think it's fair to say that none of the major teams bar South Africa are as strong as they were five years ago. India has the ranking due to the current ratings system - the only system of judgment we have - but they've hardly had to wrest the title from the cold, dead hands of the previous title holders (South Africa) and before that, Australia. I'm not accusing India (or the arch-nemesis of World Cricketing Commonsense, the BCCI) of rigging the system at all, more that they have the rating but haven't had to dethrone a King like Australia did in the Windies in 1995, who in turn did the same to Australia in 1978. With regards to No. 1 teams, I'm actually not a big fan of official rankings - everyone knew the Windies in the 80s were the best side and the ratings done since say the Kiwis were second best because Pakistan didn't play enough, which is laughable - and India can only play the teams on their schedule, but it just doesn't feel right that they've taken the belt without beating the champ - or in this case assumed a vacant belt after beating a legitimate No. 1 contender.

Subash: You got that straight. Once the giants like Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist retired, the quality in the Aussie Test side dropped precipitously and became only a matter of time before they lost #1 status. In all fairness, India did beat them 2-0 in a 4 match series in 2009, didn't they? Sure, they have not won a series in Australia but the Indians have performed pretty admirably over the last 5-7 years.

As to your point of India not dethroning a reigning world champion - you have a point. However, they have been the closest and most consistently competitive team to the great Aussie teams of '90s and 2000s. Surely that has to amount to something?

It has become an easy play for any administrator/writer from England or Australia to blame BCCI for anything and everything that's wrong with Cricket. Get over it already. I am not saying BCCI is a perfectly professionally run outfit, but can any cricket board make a claim to that? As you may have noticed, once India became the "official" #1 Test side, the BCCI scrambled around to schedule more Test matches - even going as far as converting a 7 match ODI series in to a 2-Test + 3 ODI tour and scheduling the Test series in South Africa. Sure, BCCI flex their muscles from time to time but Australia and England have been doing that for ages. Consider it a little payback.

Matt: So we both agree India hasn't wrested the cup from a reigning champ but simply waltzed into the No. 1 spot through a lack of better options? Then it seems we agree - that's what I consider unworthy. Yep, just like Australia's current government, assuming power simply because everyone can't decide who's better leads to a hollowness of that title on a par to "You're the best looking person - in Boston" or "You're an International footballer - for American Samoa".

The power however that the BCCI has gained over the ICC - though justified due to their coffers - has become a millstone for the International Cricket community's neck. That a board can decide to boycott matches when they dislike the decision of a Match Referee is completely opposite any tendencies of ECB & CA-swayed councils of the past. Perhaps it is true that those two nations have held more sway than most over the initial history of cricket but under their watch the cricketing world expanded from two countries to nine and they never forwent the responsibility of building the game.

It seems from the outside that because of their TV rights, the BCCI has an "I brought the bat & ball, if you don't play by my rules I will go home" attitude. The BCCI has been crass in its handling of so many issues recently - from their blockade of the candidacy of John Howard for ICC Vice-President going back as far even as the mess around Harbhajan Singh & Andrew Symonds - meaning that although cricket fans worldwide acknowledge their power, they do so in a similar manner to Pakistanis acknowledging the power of their government - at metaphorical gunpoint.

Subash: It is very true that India have become the top ranked team (without beating the top ranked team in their own backyard in a series) based on a system and without any dominant team around. Its possibly a case of "In a country of blind, the one-eyed man is king" but that should not take away India's due credits.

The BCCI may function in mysterious and crass ways in dealing with some issues. Let's take the case of Steve Bucknor. I commend the BCCI for twisting the ICC's arm in getting Bucknor out of that series in Australia. It was long overdue. I understand umpires are human and they make mistakes. But there is one distinction when it comes to Bucknor: he was a pinball wizard, deaf, dumb and blind. He needed to go. You remember the farce in the world cup final in Barbados 2007, don't you? In the case of John Howard, the BCCI may have influenced other boards but we are not completely sure so let's now throw muck around like Ijaz Butt without concrete proof. However, several boards had legitimate beef with Howard's selection as the ICC's VP including Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. However, as an Australian, you know very well his past as a politician and I, for one, am happy that Howard was not selected. Wrong means to the right end. Let's call it justice.

Listen - there have been several instances in the past where in an on-field incident involving a player from England/Australia and a player from the sub-continent, the former almost always got away with lighter punishment. Too many instances to quote here. With the Harbhajan/Symonds "monkey" incident, why wasn't it that Harbhajan said "Maa ki" and Symonds misheard? Oh, how can we trust what anyone from the subcontinent says, right? Of course, the Aussies were bathed in the ocean of self-righteousness when they were born and they could never lie or do anything contrary to the spirit of the game, right? Come on. It was, at best, a case of "he said, she said" and you cannot prove one story or the other. If the BCCI had not intervened, it would have resulted in Harbhajan being suspended and nothing more. So I am completely alright with what the BCCI did here.

Matt: Hang about a bit. You're suggesting that because the result was "needed" - and that's a separate debate entirely - then the means justifies the ends? I'm sorry but that's a viewpoint I can never agree with. I think that's it's a mistake to simplify the game down to the level of: Bucknor needed to go so it's good that he went, no matter how it was done. I was not Bucknor's biggest fan, but to threaten and twist arms because of umpiring decisions is a sign of the board's immaturity. In any cricket match, both sides will walk away feeling hard done by the umpires. You can write that down in stone alongside death, taxes and Sri Lankan pitches favouring batsmen. And the home team will almost always get the benefit of the doubt more so than the touring side - it's human nature and occurs in every single sporting contest the world over. No question his infamy for making slow, allegedly "well thought out" decisions cost him here as it allowed him more time to be influenced by a home crowd, but for a control board to complain, cajole and threaten enough to lead to one umpire's dismissal is plain and simple bullying. You can say the same for the Harbhajan/Symonds clash - to threaten to walk away summarily from a Test series because of what essentially amounted to an umpiring decision is again a case of unripe vine fruit. Of course it was he said/she said - the adjudicator ruled in one direction because he felt he had enough evidence to do so; it's just a pity that the issue became so cloudy due to ICC red tape and the self-righteousness of every single cricketer involved in that incident save perhaps Tendulkar. And to say "If BCCI had not intervened, it would have resulted in Harbhajan being suspended and nothing more" - and surely that's the point? A suspension and nothing more?

Subash: Look at this "arm twisting by BCCI" from an average Indian fan's point of view. We see it as long-overdue justice. The Anglo-Australian axis has been running the show for too long and many of the decisions seemingly have gone against teams/players from the sub-continent. Aussies have been getting away with their boorish on-field behaviour in the name of "hard nosed gamesmanship" and "That's how the Aussies play their cricket" for a long time. It was about time someone drew a line in the sand and said "Enough is enough". It may seem crass and even look like the rich kid taking away his bat and ball after a wrong decision, but it needed to be done. We, the sub-continental fans, have felt aggrieved with the biased decision making of match referees but haven't been able to do much about it.

My saying that the Harbhajan episode would've led to "a suspension and nothing more" if the BCCI had not intervened was to point out the fact that Symonds instigated that event and would have gotten away without any punishment. I am not saying Harbhajan is a saint, but Aussies are known as instigators and pretending they did nothing wrong. Once again, too many instances to quote here.

This attitude of Aussie fans/writers/board to paint the BCCI as the Satan is a little too much. If you have such misgivings, why not just cut off the relations? Wait, they need the money. Let's get one thing straight: no cricket board is holier than any other. They are all run by power hungry, money grabbing, self-pretentious, holier than thou pricks. Usually, the fans get screwed by one thing or the other yet we try to defend them due to misplaced jingoism. As Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that."

Matt: Surely if you feel that you have been wronged, then the worst thing to do when you obtain power is to punish those who did similar to you? If you applied that to life in the world, then we're going to be faced with an ongoing "War on Terrorism" for the rest of our lives simply because the attitude of "I've been wronged, so when I get big enough and strong enough I will punish you", creates a never-ending cycle of vengeance. In my opinion, that simply does not wash and the boards are the ones who should be responsible for the sanctity and health of the game and not for partisan politics - which as you point out, all are. However, given it's unusual power the BCCI plays the political game with more verve and relish than anyone else.

I also reject that decisions have consistently gone against cricketers from the subcontinent. I'm sure everyone's favourite umpire Bucknor, Mike Gatting, Johan Botha and perhaps even Darrell Hair would disagree. In all four cases these men were punished for crossing subcontinental "authorities", whether their actions justified it or not. There's also a case to see things from their point of view not just that of subcontinental cricket fans. Botha could perhaps be the unluckiest of the lot - when there were serious question marks about Muralitharan's action (another debate for another time, that one!), due subcontinental uproar the ICC changed the laws of the game to allow him to continue bowling. Did Botha, Henry Olonga, Grant Flower, Jermaine Lawson or even Ian Meckiff receive the same treatment? I'm afraid your argument that the subcontinent has copped the brunt of the ICC's wrath really doesn't hold water for mine.

But - and this is what makes cricket such a wonderful talking point - that is a matter of opinion. Your experiences and those of the subcontinental cricket fan make for a cricketing world without which International Cricket would be much poorer.

Subash: Match referees have handed down punishments harsher to subcontinental players than to Aussie or English players. Stuart Broad, Ricky Ponting and everyone have gotten away with murder. I do not condone the fact that the BCCI at times has chosen to flex its muscles in a very unsubtle way but I think in some cases, it is fine by me because it had to be done. One thing you must note however is that although the BCCI is the richest board, other boards have actually made money off it as well. The same cannot be said for the time England and Australia had the game in their grasp and monopolized it. At any rate, I do agree that BCCI needs to polish off its politicking ways, you know, have the cake and eat it too!