Sports : life magnified

The allowing of limited overs international status for more teams is the way to go. This means more matches between comparable stature teams and less of tri nation series involving two top nations and a Banladesh or a Zimbabwe. It also means financial rewards for the teams which the ICC has specified. This more than any thing is the biggest plus point.

But test cricket is a different ball game. In an excellent article in the August issue of Wisden Asia Cricket on why Bangladesh should not be allowed to play test cricket, Ramachandra Guha – one of the best modern Indian writers, conveys with conviction my firm beliefs.

26 out of 26 test defeats if tests versus a depleted Zimbabwe and West Indies are excluded. Many of them innings defeats. As Guha goes through the emergence of star players, results of other teams like New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, the situation was never so pathetic. And Kenya should have got the status before Bangladesh if based purely on results. Known points all of these and many others but after the one off vctory versus Australia, people have taken it as justification of the test status.

Guha recommends an 8 team structure – top 7 plus one from the second tire promoted every three years; the last of the 8 after 3 relegated. I recommend the last of the 8 and the top of the second tire play a test or a three test series or 2 tests in each country or any such play off to decide the 8th team or a way to include a new test team.

A common argument is how will the second tire improve. The depression and negativity which sets in with constant losses is definitely not the answer. Play versus A teams of the top countries, play in the domestic tournaments like Kenya did a few years back. The improvement will gradually come.

As the Ashes draw near, the first XIs of England and Australia are not clear yet. Specifically one place for both
teams.

First Australia

The batting is settled but for the 3rd seamer spot its a close call between Gillespie, Kasporwicz and underdog but fast gaining in ground because of poor form of Gillespie - Shaun Tait. I would hope Gillespie can gain back his form and play the first test match. Otherwise my feeling is the Australians will play it safe and opt for Kasporwicz and if Kasporwicz or Lee performs poorly in the first test, Tait may come in the second/third test. It would be too much of a risk to go for Tait in the opening test of the series.

The dilemna is amazing for the fact that not many were giving Lee a chance 2 months ago. I have always backed him to play because Australia needs a strike bowler to perform rather than a stock Kasporwicz kind of bowler to fill in the overs like in India.

For England

The remaining batting spot has a battle between Pieterson and Thorpe as indicated lucidly by the selectors some days back. Bell has been confirmed to play for now atleast. Thorpe is dependable, Thorpe is consistent. Yet he finds himself with a possibility of being omitted. This shows England players are in form more than any thing else. Its the first test and I put that argument again to play Thorpe despite a possible good showing by untested Pieterson in the remaining two one dayers because of it being the first test and risks in selection not the best thing to do at this point of time.

Coming to the West Indies

Its a question of who is available and not whom can we omit. West Indies cricket is doomed as they dont realise such tussles only mean the public - from whom the money comes (the real shareholders of a sport) lose interest. If they go, the sponsors go (Digicel is showing apprehensions already) and then there is no money to dispute any thing over!

Ambrose presents a very interesting view point. How can the players demand more money if they dont perform? Every one has been jumping the gun on blaming the WICB but it may be the player’s fault as well. For me, it doesn’t matter whose ault it is. It is like a company suffers if there is a trade dispute. In this case the company is the West Indies Cricket.