Relative merits, great South African Test bowlers

Dale Steyn's pretty damn good. And for a guy who I remember as really fast but didn't trouble Australia as much as his counterparts, Allan Donald fares especially well. As usual, qualifier is 200 Test wickets.

Relative merits, great Indian Test bowlers

As per the last three posts, this chart plots the relative effectiveness of the Indian bowlers to take 200 Test wickets. The size of the circle is their comparative wickets-per-innings (i.e. the larger the circle, the more average wickets the bowlers claims per innings).

The comparison between legspinners Chandrasekhar and Kumble is striking, while when choosing one of Bishen Bedi and Harbhajan Singh (personally, I'd opt for Erapalli Prasanna, who missed the cut by 11 wickets), one must decide on whether to value attack (Harbhajan) or defence (Bedi). The strike rates and averages are comparatively higher from the other charts in this series, which is presumably a reflection on low, slow subcontinental pitches.

Relative merits, great West Indian Test bowlers

Best West Indian fast bowler? Take your pick - and there have been some good ones. This chart tallies up the Calypso Kings' bowlers to have taken 200 Test wickets and shows that the 1970s and 1980s truly were an exceptional period for West Indian cricket.

Circle size represents the player's wickets-per-innings, which as you can make out is remarkably close (Walsh 2.14, Holding 2.20, Roberts 2.24, Ambrose 2.26, Garner 2.33, Marshall 2.49).

Relative merits, great Australian Test bowlers

Following on from our chart yesterday, here's one about Australia. It effectively demonstrates the quality of Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath as world-beaters while also establishing Mitchell Johnson as the wicket-taking phenom he has been over the past two years.

Given the different era in which he played, Ray Lindwall fared very well while the dearly departed Richie Benaud's (a strike-rate nearly 10% worse than any other Aussie bowler to take 200 wickets) perhaps comes out worst, despite his outstanding record.

Relative merits, great English bowlers

This chart details the relative details of some of England's finest Test match bowlers. The X-axis displays the player's Strike Rate, the Y-axis their Test average. The size of the circle represents the number of wickets per innings the player took (for reference, the lowest total listed here was Flintoff at 1.64 wickets per innings, while Sidney Barnes took 3.78 per).

The bowlers most likely to take cheap, quick wickets are therefore closer to the centre point of the chart.

The Decline and Fall of the Caribbean Empire

Throughout recorded human history, there exists a circular nature to the rise and fall of the great or powerful civilisations. This can be thought of as a series of stages, listed below, that describes the path each major power takes in their rise to supremacy and eventual ruin.

From bondage to spiritual faith

From spiritual faith to great courage

From great courage to strength

From strength to liberty

From liberty to abundance

From abundance to leisure

For leisure to selfishness

From selfishness to complacency

From complacency to apathy

From apathy to dependency

From dependency to weakness

From weakness to bondage

For the Roman Empire, the cycle took somewhere - if you use the same death rattle as Gibbon - a little over five hundred years. For the West Indies, a complete circle looks likely to be complete in less than fifty.

Cricket Australia contract list: more questions than answers

Yesterday, Moises Henriques – he of three recent Tests against India – was ignored by Cricket Australia in their list of twenty centrally-contracted players.  He was ostensibly passed over for young Tasmania all-rounder James Faulkner, who earned his first Australia contract at age 22.

Although this isn't to detract from Faulkner's joy (he probably deserves the position), Henriques can justifiably feel rather miffed.  Although he struggled for much of the Border-Gavaskar series, he performed admirably during his debut Test, scoring 149 across two innings and taking 1/48 from seventeen mid-standard overs with the ball.  Although he only managed a further seven runs on tour, but he deserves some credence as these fifties were two of only twelve half-century-plus scores by Australians for the tour.  (Five of which were by players on tour for their ability with the ball – two each by Siddle and Henriques, and Mitch Starc’s 99).

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the remarkable fact that CA breaks up their centrally contracted group of 20 players relatively evenly across three formats rather than focusing on the game’s highest form, Test cricket.  Let’s instead examine the message that this contract list sends.

It is yet another example of institutional flip-flopping by the Cricket Australia selection panel.  While Blind Freddy and his dog clamoured for the removal of Andrew Hilditch, the current National Selection Panel has been just as – if not more – inconsistent: players are called up only to be discarded one or two Tests later.  All that remains is to then be completely forgotten. 

With Australia’s Test cricket history stretching to 136 years, it’s damning that over 8 percent of all players ever to pull on a Baggy Green have debuted since 2007.

This is in polar contrast to the last three occasions in which Australia has had to build a team after debilitating setbacks.  On those three occasions (post-1984, in 1977-78 and in 1964), the hierarchy set about identifying players of talent enough to build a team around.  The players identified in that most recent down period – Dean Jones, Steve Waugh, Craig McDermott and Bruce Reid – ushered in those wonderful nineties.

This time, Australia has identified no-one around which they can build but Michael Clarke and a promising crop of fast bowlers.  Perhaps this is due to a lack of talent, but it’s more likely this is a consequence of an itchy trigger finger.

If the ultimate leadership of James Sutherland and the National Selection Panel are this inconsistent, the role of Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur and Pat Howard is suddenly thrust from team-building to constant team integration – and hence, discipline like that famously which was infamously dispensed in Mohali.  Given his role in team selection – and the rather Draconian methods they favour – Clarke and Arthur are hardly blameless, but with such a shifting player base any concept of a unified team identity is just that – a concept.

That the selectors can't - or won't - narrow their player pool down to a promising, deserving touring part is damning and leaves more questions for themselves, and for Cricket Australia.

Australia - lacking an identity

Despite two consecutive series wins in vastly different circumstances, the Australian cricket team still tricks the eye. In one Test, Ed Cowan resembles a doughty old-school opener, capable of withstanding the best attacks in world cricket; the following, he disappears into the sheds at 1/11. During one match, Shane Watson fights indomitably for a hard-earned 80; the next, he plays over and around a nothing-ball and departs meekly. In any one series Australia is likely to employ seven different bowlers.

With victories against India and the West Indies under his belt and a reasonable layoff before their next Test, it's time Michael Clarke examined his team. They aren't super talented, abounding with youthful promise or even stocked with journeymen. The Australian team, or even the thirty-man CA contract list, has no defining single characteristic which unifies them. And it shows.

Ed Cowan - (c) Balanced Sports

Australia are a team without an identity. Without that unifying factor and devoid of knowledge of who they are as a team, the country's Test players will continue to play inconsistent cricket.

The greatest teams in world cricket history have rocked an identity which was the personification of their most dominant collective character traits. The Australians of the first half of the last decade epitomised arrogance. The West Indians they replaced as ostensible World Champs exuded a fearsome, calculating vibe. For years, Pakistan has been content with being unknowable. Flower's England has committed to twin attitudes of professionalism and preparation. Look back at every great team in history and adjectives spring quickly to mind.

With the current Aussies, those adjectives are less defining and more descriptive. Inconsistent. Journeyman. They (mostly) try hard.

Short Pitch - The Revenge of "Peter Who?"

Revenge of the “Peter Who?”

It must've been a great week for Peter Nevill. Only a few days ago, he was selected as the wicket-keeper for this season's Australian Cricketers' Association All-Star team. Today, he was called up to cover the dauphin, Matthew Wade, in the West Indies, after Brad Haddin returned to Australia to attend some personal matters.

Nevill, a Victorian who had a fantastic season for New South Wales, was far and away the best candidate for the position. This is partly due to his excellent batsmanship and relative youth. Although fully deserving his airfare, the ease of his selection indicates an antipodean lack of wicket-keeping choice.

Examine quickly those 'keepers used this year in state cricket. Only Queensland's Chris Hartley played all ten Shield games; he did so boasting the sprightly batting average of 26. Although excellent behind the poles, Hartley's a throwback to the years before 1995: strictly a domestic backstop who occasionally contributes handy runs.

Looking Southwards only adds to the gall. Tim Paine is why we can't have nice things. Adam Crosthwaite managed only five games for a state that won only two points all season. Michael Johnston averaged 10.1 with the bat for Western Australia and his replacement, Luke “Not Dead Yet” Ronchi fared little better and now wants to play for New Zealand. Wade's understudy, Ryan Carters, lost his spot in the Victorian team for the last, most crucial, Shield match of the season to Peter Handscomb – who hasn't even kept in District cricket.

This must also be considered the final bell for Haddin's Test career. With the nature of the matters he has returned to closely guarded, no-one can know how much of the tour he will miss. Although receiving selector Rod Marsh's blessing, Haddin is unquestionably feeling the pinch.

One feels his position is now very much Wade's for the taking.

The future isn't so rosy: Australia's next batsmen

Although the first nation into the CB finals series and coming straight from a whitewash of India in the recent Test series, Australia has far from a settled lineup. Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey are the two oldest First Class cricketers in the nation, while the third was only recently sacked from the Australian team.  The youthful promise of Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja has tried the country's patience twice too often, while Shaun Marsh and Brad Haddin both endured form slumps which made Mark Taylor's 1996-97 look positively inspired.

With Marsh almost indubitably losing his spot for the tour to the West Indies, the quest begins for a true number 3 batsman.  That role is likely to at first go to Shane Watson, with perhaps Peter Forrest hijacking a spot on the tour bus with some good One Day International form.  Behind those two and the dubious credentials of Dan Christian, Australia simply doesn't have batsmen with the requisite body of First Class work pushing the national incumbents for selection.

How bad is Australia's batting talent drain?  The following chart displays how well Australia's batsmen have performed in First Class matches this season.  They are divided into four quadrants according to the mean age and First Class batting average.  Any First Class player with pretenses to batsmanship (ie. allrounders) are included.  Click on the chart to zoom in.

As you can see, very few young - or even average-aged - batsmen earned their keep, let alone a shot at the Australian team by virtue of their form.  That two of the best-performed young batsmen were wicket-keepers (Matthew Wade and Peter Nevill), stands as testament not only to their talent but to a relative dearth of "comers".

The graph becomes even more stark when narrowing it by appearances.  In the following chart, only players who played at least three Sheffield Shield/Test games were considered.  Based on form alone, we can suggest those players rising most above the average for their age are best placed to take over from the current older generation.  These include Forrest, Liam Davis, Tom Cooper - he of Netherlands' fame - and Christian.

 While Taylor (and Steve Waugh) so helpfully proved that form is hardly permanent, those players in the bottom right quadrant should be those most concerned.  It is a tried and tested premise of sport that fans and administrators alike - want one of two things: success, or hope for the future.  Based on this year's form, those in the bottom right quadrant are hardly likely to offer either.

My Favourite Cricketer: Shoaib Akhtar, by Assad Hasanain

Assad Hasanain, of the superb AssadHas, writes on that most amusing playboy fast bowler: Shoaib Akhtar.  Assad tweets @assad_hasanain.

There were drugs. There were women. There were rumors of sexually transmitted diseases. There were tantrums. There were smashed skulls.  There was always adrenaline.  

Shoaib Akhtar's is one of the most fascinating soap operas to have come out of Pakistan cricket. It is of a free-spirited, proud and sometimes arrogant boy from Rawalpindi, who found his dreams in the world of cricket, but found with them the rules, the politics and pain that hounded him till the day he left.

There are many sub-plots to the Akhtar story, each as fascinating as the next. There is Shoaib the typical Pakistani boy; raised by an adoring family that struggled to make ends meet. Also, his angry, ill-tempered youth; where he picked fights on the streets, proudly wore scars on his chest and even carried a gun to scare off his enemies.  He was a cocky young talent who was kicked off a youth tour for indiscipline. 

Finally there is Shoaib the success story; the youngster who supplanted Waqar Younis in the Pakistan side, who conquered Tendulkar, who became the fastest bowler in the world and terrorized the best batsmen in the game.

Shaun Marsh's Test Average

Any reason to doubt the return of Shane Watson to the Australian side?  After his excellent 141 on debut at Kandy and a subsequent 81 straight after, Shaun Marsh's form has hit the toilets.  Apart from 44 in his first innings in South Africa (after/during which he suffered a debilitating back injury), his scores have continued to plummet.  With another failure today, it looks increasingly like Shane Watson will return to the Test side and bat 3 while the burgeoning partnership of Ed Cowan and David Warner faces up to the new ball.

My Favourite Cricketer: Ray Bright, by Dan Lonergan of the ABC

In sport I’ve always admired the underdog. That’s probably why I follow the Western Bulldogs in the AFL, who will always be the underdogs. I will admit I do support Manchester United in the English Premier League, but I started following them in the mid-1980s when they weren’t the club they are today.

In cricket, Greg Chappell was a hero of mine. Growing up, my first real memory of the game was as a six and seven year old watching the 1975/76 West Indies series where he plundered 829 runs including 3 centuries. I loved the way he played.

I also liked left handed opener Alan Turner, who obviously wasn’t in the same league as Chappell but played some good innings in that series. However, a Test average of 29 isn’t going to put him in the "All-Time Great" category. I suppose I admired the fact he was limited, but playing a role in a strong team that contained some of the best cricketers Australia has produced.

But a left-arm spinner from the same era was my favourite cricketer growing up - Victoria and Australia tweaker Ray Bright. I will admit my interest in him almost got to fanatical levels. The reasons for it are not very clear, but again I admired the fact that he got the most out of himself; in fact in my opinion his bowling stats are an example of statistics and numbers lying. He was from Victoria, which helped, and played District Cricket with the Aussie Rules team I barracked for, Footscray. I was happy with that.

He took over 400 First Class wickets at more than 32 and played 25 Tests, picking up 53 wickets at over 40. The Test figures are not impressive, but if you break it down and look at the number of overs he bowled and how economical he was - generally conceding about 2 runs an over, while holding up an end "containing" greats like Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge and Sunil Gavaskar - he just about ranks as one of Australia's more effective spinners, an Ashley Giles prototype.

Courtesy: ESPN Cricinfo

I took a real shine to Bright in the 1976-77 season after the twin retirements of South Australian and Australian spinners Ashley Mallett and Terry Jenner. Bright took 5 wickets in an innings against a powerful WA team in Perth to put himself in contention to play in the Test series against Pakistan and I got really excited.

He wasn’t selected as Kerry O’Keeffe chosen after his fine start to that summer. Bright though was 12^th man for the Third test in Sydney and later went to New Zealand.  As an 8 year old, I was so impressed with him that I demanded his selection in the team for that two-Test series by writing a letter to selector Sam Loxton.

Incredibly, he replied and I still have it somewhere. He was actually candid and told me that Ray was close, but the New Zealand pitches didn’t really suit playing two spinners and O’Keeffe had cemented his spot with good performances. He was right, but I was still disappointed.

Before writing this article, I looked up the scorecards of the Tour matches of that New Zealand Tour and on performance, Bright should have been selected. He took wickets regularly and was handy as usual down the order with the bat.

Ironically, Alan Turner was out of form and should have been left out as Ian Davis and Rick McCosker could have opened and all-rounder Gary Gilmour was capable enough to bat at six. Anyway, it didn’t happen, but I saw my hero field as a sub in the Centenary Test after McCosker had his jaw broken, but sadly he didn’t touch the ball.

Bright finally made his Test debut in that disappointing Ashes series in 1977 and played three Tests before enhancing his growing reputation in World Series Cricket. Unfortunately these records are discounted, but he was a permanent member of the Australian team during those two seasons and took the second most Supertest wickets after Lilliee.

The great players he came up against during WSC learnt to sit on him, so when he returned to the establishment in 1979, he had become a containment bowler moreso than a wicket taker. Greg Chappell always rated him highly, saying his change of pace, flight and dip were impressive weapons.

There were some moments in the sun, when he was unexpectedly chosen on numerous tours after hardly playing a Test in that Australian summer. He took seven wickets in an innings in Pakistan in 1980 and five during that famous Ian Botham Ashes domination a year later.

He was sometimes described by fellow cricketers as an accidental tourist after his first tour as a teenager to New Zealand in 1974. On that tour was another of my underdog heroes, South Australian opening bat Ashley Woodcock, who played one Test.

However, anyone who makes his first class debut at 18 and keeps his spot for the next 16 years can play. I obviously thought he should have played more Test cricket and, despite thinking his international career was over in the early 1980s, he was chosen out of nowhere as Australia's Vice Captain against New Zealand and India.  He subsequently starred in the 1986 tied Test in India, taking
five wickets in India’s second Innings.

That year, he also captained his country in a One Day match in Sharjah. Not many players can say they achieved that honour.

After his retirement, I got to know Ray Bright and am pleased to say he's a lovely bloke; a guy who got the most out of his career. I still believe he was one of the greats. Not many agree, but as legendary Rugby League figure Arthur Beetson used to say, opinions are like backsides - we all have one!

He still remains my favourite player, but David Boon pushed him close. Like my beloved Western Bulldogs, I used to get when they would play poorly, but bask in the glory of their good moments.

Well Played Spotty!

Time-Lapse photostudy: The Ed Cowan leave

Whenever we get the chance, we try to put up (very short) photostudies of certain aspects of live sport.  Here, we feature the defining action of the first day of the Boxing Day Test: Test debutant Ed Cowan leaving a good ball.  This delivery also happened to be the first ball of the series, from Ishant Sharma, and the first time Cowan faced up in a Test match.

Cricket Australia: Sitting on the Fence

"The time is coming where you have to choose between what is easy, and what is right"

Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

It didn't take a rocket scientist - or a banking executive - to figure out that Australian cricket has both structural and talent issues. A 4-1 thumping in our last Ashes series, mediocre World Cup campaign and a captain with a positively Reiffel-esque batting average over the past three series (21.5) is proof enough for anyone with even half an eye and a tenth of a brain that Australian cricket has reached its lowest point since 1985.

While Ricky Ponting's tetchy leadership, Mitchell Johnson's latent outswinger, Greg Chappell's insistence on youth and Andrew Hilditch's residence in a fantasy world have contributed to this state of affairs, the root cause lies with James Sutherland and Cricket Australia. For too long they have tried to have their cake and eat it too by chasing the financial gains of Twenty20 and also lauding a the benefits of a competitive Australian Test squad.

By chasing both, they will achieve neither.

On one hand, commissioning Don Argus to report on their cricket management structures sounds good, even curative. But doing so while the other hand throws so many resources into the nascent Bigh Bash League (BBL), Cricket Australia is endorsing two policy decisions which negate the other. It is another curious leadership decision from CA whose actions indicate they are chasing the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs while paying only lip service to Test standards.

For much of the past twenty years as pitches become more standardised worldwide, cricket has degenerated into two groups: the "haves" and "have-nots". The "haves", fuelled by television revenue, good attendances and growth economies include the regular suspects: South Africa, England, India , Australia and perhaps even Sri Lanka. The second tier includes fallen powers West Indies and Pakistan, as well as New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

More accurately, these two groups could now be defined by the cricketers they produce. The West Indies' best now favour the shortest form, while the best of New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe often eschew their nations to tour the world as T20 guns-for-hire. The fundamentals of creating world-class players in both formats require player pathway systems so different that only the mega-wealthy institutions in world cricket can afford the time it takes to do so.

courtesy: telegraph.com.au

World cricket hasn't so much been divided along lines of Test quality, but on the type of cricket on whcih each nation has focused. If kids are developed where T20 is prioritised, it results in a bunch of individual talents and a poor Test team. Where a Test technique can occasioanlly benefit T20, the reverse is rarely, if ever, true. To acknowledge any speculation David Warner has what it takes to play Test cricket exists is to question the value of life itself - the man bears as much resemblance to a Test opener as my 94-year old grandmother.

By dividing it's attention between a Big Bash league with privately owned franchises (eeeugh - I hate that word in relation to cricket) and an Argus report recommending that the best 66 players play Sheffield Shield cricket at any one time, Cricket Australia is, dividing it's resources in an attempt to promote the game. By doing so, they've ignored the great rule: punters love success, and in Australia that means a strong Test team.

If Divide and Conquer still applies on the battlefield, so too is it effective in the marketplace. CA has already done the dividing, leaving it now open for conquest by a crowded Australian sports market which asks supporters to invest more than ever.

Let's not forget that private ownership as a model has only worked in Rugby League and never in the long term for any other sport. In fact, News Limited, after pioneering SuperLeague, now still owns the entirety of the Melbourne Storm and North Queensland Cowboys, as well as 69% of the powerhouse Brisbane Broncos. Rupert Murdoch, like Packer before him, got what he wanted out of setting up a rival competition. The hideous failures far outweigh that partial success as the names Christopher Skase, Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten, Eddie Palmer and his beloved Brisbane Bullets and the Victoria Titans weigh heavily on Aussie fans' consciousness.

courtesy: news4u.co.in

The heavily-publicised BBL, intent on chasing dollars, imports the likes of Kieron Pollard and new fans will involve suspending first-class cricket during December, Australia's busiest Test month. How can Australia rebuild with the best First Class talent they have when that talent is not receiving games?

Cricket Australia has been forced into a position that all cricketing countries now must face: chase dollars, or what you feel is important. It's a nice coincidence when those options are one and the same. In Australia's case, that is unfortunately not the case. While paying lip service to the importance of Tests, CA has done everything but say "we're here for the dollars" by instituting a flawed BBL model at the expense of First Class cricket.

courtesy: zimbio.com

Only four years ago Austrlaian domestic cricket was the strongest on the planet - now no more, as players chase the dollars (and no-one's blaming them). Australia simply can't follow the Indian model (IPL) because there isn't enough support - or money - to go around. That Australian domestic cricket - or more crucially, given how many eggs are in it's basket, the new BBL - can't get a look-in on free-to-air television is a damning indictment of what Australians think about the grass-roots. Cricket captures the imagination in the backyard, when Australia plays and never through the likes of Gary Putland and the Melbourne Stars.

CA, to use the most cliche of cliches, is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. Rather than committing - by dint of playing talent (like England has with Tests) or financial need (as the West Indians have done with T20), Australia continues not to choose its battles and try to succeed at everything.

The smaller countries of the world faced this challenge first, as New Zealand and Bangladesh have all but admitted for years that their best chance of attaining any success has been in the One-Day arena. Why else would players like Scott Styris choose to retire from Test cricket but not from the short format? Pakistan and the West Indies are already producing more guns for hire than good quality Test players. It's saddening to realise that the same is true of Australia.

As India wrestles with the impending doom brought about by Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman's respective entries into Valhalla, even that powerful nation will, in time, face the same challenge. While England will not remain immune forever, the structures in place around the game in it's birthplace may allow a defence against the irrepressible schism that threatens to divide cricket.

It's true of any business struggling in a crowded economy that you should choose either to expand your services, or focus on doing what you do best. For 125 years, Australia has produced the best Test cricketers in the world. Over the past decade, that trend has been reversed as players are seduced by the quick runs and quicker bucks available.

In a recent revealing podcast on Test Match Sofa, Australian cricket writer Gideon Haigh revealed that the first priority of the Australian cricket team wasn't to win matches but to publicise the sport in Australia. When it comes to branding - the honeypot into which Cricket Australia has fallen - it is a simple fact that Starbucks produces coffee, Asics produces quality running shoes, Sri Lanka will deliver turning pitches - and Test cricket has been elevated to its highest form by teams from the Great South Land.

For Cricket Australia to forget that would be shameful.

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?

Why they weren't picked

With the Australian side whittled down to thirteen as the first Test approaches, suddenly Callum Ferguson and (probably) Usman Khawaja have been left on the sidelines. The selectors have opted to stay with the same six batsmen who have led Australia to their current World ranking of fourth. The reason is simple: although the middle order has struggled mightily and watching Mike Hussey now reminds us all of David Boon's last, tedious, eyeball-stripping innings, neither the South Australian nor his younger New South Welsh counterpart have really made that final spot their own.

To look at Australia's last Test XI is to see mediocrity at several positions, namely in the middle order and the spin-bowling department. The team defeated in India will change, with Tasmanian Xavier Doherty replacing Nathan Hauritz on the strength of one good Sheffield Shield match and one outstanding ODI: his First Class figures aren't particularly impressive but he's performed well at the right time and thus has received the call.

The batsmen, however, are a different matter. Both Ferguson and Khawaja have had several chances recently to write their names in ink across the Aussie middle order yet have failed to do so; last week's paltry Australia A showings were the final nail in their collective coffins. Gone are the days of 1994-95 where Australia A were perhaps the second-best side in the World and this was proved emphatically at Bellerive as both "Next Best Things" surrendered their wickets to the English attack.

Khawaja or Ferguson would do well to heed the exploits of a young Damien Martyn. During the 1990s, an Australian had to force the selectors collective hands both with mountains of runs and with scores at the right time. The most striking example of this was in the early days of the West Indies 1992-93 tour. West Australian tyro Martyn was making runs for fun in the-then Mercantile Mutual Cup, in Shield matches and against a full-strength Windies pace battery in three separate matches. His front-foot slashes of Ambrose and Bishop to the extra cover boundary on a pacy WACA pitch were indelibly marked on my thirteen year-old brain as the most exciting cricket shots I'd ever seen. When the squad lists were submitted for the first Test at the 'Gabba, Martyn was there alongside an in-form Australian top six each of whom has claim to being an all-time great of the game. Martyn kept making runs and both popular and selector opinion was swayed immutably in his favour with a quickfire 36 against the tourists at Bellerive for the Australian XI. He made the team at the expense of Dean Jones.

It wasn't so much the weight of Martyn's runs that ensured his spot, nor the manner in which he scored them although his four-day Strike Rate nearing 100 was undoubtedly impressive. Damien Martyn was selected because he'd showed his readiness for the big time by making crucial runs in the right spots. When needing runs to cement his position, that one innings for Australian XI made not picking him a popular impossibility. The same stories apply with Matthew Elliott in 1997, Adam Gilchrist in 1999 and even Phil Hughes' 2008-09 domestic season: they made so many runs at the right time that Michael Slater, Ian Healy and Matthew Hayden were dumped so that Australia could progress. With mediocre recent form, neither Khawaja nor Ferguson have shown their mettle, posing the question: are they really ready? Are they ready to make the step up to Test match level?

As it happens, Usman Khawaja has been called up as an emergency replacement for a struggling Michael Clarke so we may well find out if he is ready anyway. Should Mike Hussey fail in Brisbane, we may find out how good a training-ground the Sheffield Shield really is. With many puzzling selections (and non-selections) over the past two years, it appears that Australia's selection panel has decided to award caps to guys they hope can do the job rather than to players they know can do the job. That's not their fault as there are more question marks over the strength of the Australian domestic competition than at any time since Packer - there isn't the same quality that inspires complete confidence in their delivering, so the next best thing is to plump for hope and call it development. What they can be pilloried for is the inconsistency with which they've applied this policy.

Neither Khawaja, Ferguson, Cameron White, Peter George, Mitch Starc or even Golden Child Steve Smith has forced the selection panel's to pick them even though Australia cries out for young talent to replace their ageing and tired top guns, now less howitzers and more derringers. Perhaps now we see more clearly why throughout the noughties so many Australian debutants have been aged in their late-20s and early-30s - the younger players just haven't had the responsibility that creates personal growth from an early age and so haven't taken it upon themselves to ensure their selection.

Definite, Probable, Maybe ... Definitely Not.

When looking down the list at the Australian team that recently surrendered almost without whimper to India in Bangalore, it became apparent that Marcus North has an incredible ability to make runs when the pressure is on him but never scores when the pressure's on his team. His recent high-score of 128 brought his average up from 33 to 37. When taken in context, that's on a par with such luminaries as Neil McKenzie, Nathan Astle and Sanjay Manjrekar. On form – and on reputation, given his unpopularity with Australian fans – that seems about fair for a player who convinces no-one that he's about to usher in the next era of Australian greatness.

So drop him. The Australian team is unquestionably rebuilding – with Ricky Ponting, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich, Brad Haddin and North all the wrong side of 30 and unlikely to be present for Australian cricket's next period of sustained success, it's time to remove those players who won't be present in five years time and replace them with players who will be.

During the last major Aussie cricket remodelling, coach Bob Simpson and captain Allan Border identified early which players had the talent and application to be part of a winning system. Upon Simpson's hiring, the “definites” were Border, Steve Waugh, David Boon and Craig McDermott. Dean Jones and Geoff Marsh were listed as “probables”. On deciding who had the stones to stick, they then set about building a side around those players, trying a number of players in different positions in the XI – for instance it took three different wicketkeepers before chancing on Ian Healy and five spinners before Shane Warne was found. The great Australians of 1991-2007 slowly began to emerge.

When looking back, is it surprising that those listed first – Waugh, Boon, McDermott – had the longest and most productive Test careers? The probables weren't failures by any stretch as both Jones and Marsh played over 50 Tests as well, but the “definites” now rank among Australia's all-time greats.

The parallels between the two eras aren't so clear cut yet only because this batch of ageing Aussies haven't yet walked off into the sunset. But as each player from that Golden Era goes, the Australian selectors have tried to replace almost like-for-like rather than with vision. Brad Hogg was replaced by Beau Casson, Jason Krezja, Nathan Hauritz, Bryce McGain and then Hauritz again. Ditto Glenn McGrath, who passed on the torch to Stuart Clark and then Doug Bollinger. Australia has to pick players according to where they will be in three-to-four years and not for their immediate benefits. Although Australia was blessed with a remarkable number of great cricketers born between 1968 and 1978, the cricket revival our country saw in the 90s didn't come about simply as the result of a Golden Generation but of the foresight of Bob Simpson and Allan Border.

Cycling through the Australian lineup you see several players who couldn't be listed as “definites” or even “probables” for an Ashes series in 2014-15. These guys slide between the categories “Maybe”, like Nathan Hauritz or an outright “No” a la Simon Katich, if only because of his age. It's time to selectively breed out these “maybe” and “no” players and replace them not with a player who replaces what they do but with players who have a chance to be great.

To give an example of the mindset required, please take the following example plucked from my own day to day life. My wife and I are in the process of moving across the continent. On the weekend we set aside time to work out what clothes we needed or wanted, and which clothes we should give away. After half an hour of back-and-forth I worked out why the process was taking so long – I had gone into the exercise looking for reasons to discard clothes, whereas she had begun looking for reasons to keep them. The Australian selectors need to take the “What can we discard?” attitude to the current crop of Test players. They've done so before – Brad Hodge being omitted two Tests after a double-hundred springs immediately to mind – and they should do so again. Given their current run of poor results, the incumbents aren't making a convincing case to stay.

The time has come for the pressure not to be placed on underperforming Australian players but on the underperforming selectors. It's the job of Messrs Hilditch, Boon, Cox and Hughes to make the choices that don't just benefit us with an Ashes series win, but with another reign at the top of international cricket.

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!