Re: ICC Super series. Rest of the world Squads named
Once again Osman Samiuddin nails the argument with his excellent comments.
Balancing the hype with competitiveness](http://content.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/216878.html)
Who would want to be a selector? If you’re lucky you please some of the people some of the time. If you’re dreaming you please all the people all the time. If your constituency is slightly larger than that of the average national selector, as was the case for the selectors of the World XI squad then, well, good luck.
A glance at both the squads announced by the ICC selectors and the criterion they laid out for selections suggests that, try as they might to convince the world that theirs was an exercise dictated only by on-field endeavour and considerations, it was clearly accompanied by no little commercial nous.
It’s not that the squads are weak, far from it in fact. By and large, they are a comprehensive representation of players acknowledged as the best in the world over the last year. But within the squads there are some selections - and some omissions - which only enhance the suspicion that the selectors were swayed at least as much by star value as they were by form and performance.
Inzamam-ul-Haq: stunning form, but hardly a man who revels in hype
It could explain Inzamam-ul-Haq’s absence from either squad; a Test average of nearly 60 and an ODI average of 45 since the beginning of 2004 is cancelled out by a personality cocooned from hype and celebrity. Undoubtedly it doesn’t help that his record against Australia is poor and popular misconceptions about his comical running (it has actually improved) and his fielding (inside the circle and at slip, he is still more than competent) persist. But a poor record against Australia hasn’t harmed the prospects of Jacques Kallis.
Sachin Tendulkar lacks nothing in star value, but he does lack form, runs and match fitness. In ODIs, he averages 36.80 since the beginning of 2004. And lest the more zealous among us think it is a nationality bias, it isn’t; Tendulkar’s team-mate Rahul Dravid has figures to compare to Inzamam’s, and in fact anyone in the world, yet finds himself only in the Test squad.
Dravid’s omission from the ODI squad hints at the selectors’ predilection for the superficial, for following fashion over form; despite his growth as an ODI player, Dravid doesn’t astonish a crowd - or selectors - with his daring and bravado as does a Tendulkar. But currently, he is more likely to score runs and that too against Australia. But it seems a World XI without Tendulkar, in or out of form, is still near-blasphemous.
However, if Inzamam and Dravid’s cases are marginal, then the exclusion of Chaminda Vaas from the ODI squad is shocking, and highlights best the central dilemma that plagued the selectors. Vaas is not quick and he doesn’t take the breath away with speed as Shoaib Akhtar does; neither is he an admirable product of a controversial, much-discussed and far-reaching social policy as Makhaya Ntini is. But as an opening and closing bowler with rare intelligence and rarer gifts of control, seam and cut, he is almost unparalleled in ODIs, a successor to the original left-arm of God. To boot, he has a robust record against the Australians.
Chaminda Vaas: his omission from the one-day squad is a travesty © Getty Images
With Shoaib at least, there is no comparison, statistically, spiritually or in practice - Vaas has taken 40 wickets in 23 ODIs (Shoaib has 37 from 28) at nearly ten runs less per wicket (19.75) and with an economy rate almost a whole run better (3.95 per over) since January 2004. And, an Afro-Asian Cup apart, Shoaib has played no international cricket since January, although that hasn’t precipitated lesser media coverage.
Many more debates, borne perhaps from a skewed sense of national identity and pride, are likely to emerge over coming days. Daniel Vettori possesses a decent record against Australia and burgeoning batting skills additionally, but can he really bowl the side out to win a game, as Anil Kumble (in particular) and Harbhajan Singh (to a lesser extent) have done? Does Ntini’s legendary fitness, stamina and increasing incisiveness not deserve a place in the Test side too? Has Steve Harmison developed enough ODI cunning and confidence to warrant a place? And is his captain Michael Vaughan not in possession of a supreme record against the Australians, as well as a fondness for Australian tracks, to manage a place in the top order?
The most pertinent of those debates, however, will remain. To ensure the success of the Super Series, the ICC selectors are in need of hype just as they are in need of a competitive contest, and they have picked the personnel best suited to achieve that aim.
Its so funny that both of these are not evan able to make it to their national teams (not on the basis of talent or something but on the basis of fitness or lack of it) oh but then there is a commercial side of the game which has nothing to do with form, talent and recent records!