There are two clear ways to approach the Chris Gayle/West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) situation. One is to judge him based on his apparent preference to make money playing for franchises rather than represent the country he once captained. However, the other less popular stance is to see him as a banished pariah who has finally taken a stand against a system that is beyond reproach. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between, but given that option one has been given so much airplay, I want to discuss in detail the merits of the latter.

I guess the idea for this article first germinated in my skull when I saw Gayle cheer on and then embrace his former teammates at Sabina Park in a game against India. It was clear then that whilst Gayle was certainly having a dig at the administrators, he was also still passionate about his team, as were his teammates upon noticing him being there. Since then Gayle has been plying his trade for the Royal Challengers Bangalore and will soon travel to Australia to play in the Big Bash League. Meanwhile, his national teammates are playing a series in Bangladesh, which may sound inconsequential, but actually pits seventh against ninth in the ICC rankings. As such, it is quite an important series.

So, with this firmly in the back of my brain, I was shocked into action today when I read the following headline on Cricinfo: ‘Gayle to be considered if he retracts statements’. The following is an excerpt from the first paragraph:

Chris Gayle will only be considered for selection for the West Indies if he retracts statement he has made about the West Indies board and its officers

Now, the last time I heard about a player not getting picked because he hadn’t said ‘sorry’ was in the schoolyard! What a joke! The only conclusion to draw from this absurd situation is that the WICB is so offended that they’d prefer their team to not have it’s best player who is quite possibly at the peak of his considerable powers.

Clive Lloyd, the director of the WICB, has at least commented that he believes Gayle can still ‘contribute meaningfully’ to the team, but only if he retracts his criticisms of the Board. I think anyone who has seen Gayle in action of late could probably attest to the fact that Gayle could contribute a damn site more than just ‘meaningfully’. As such, the WICB are biting off their nose despite their face, particularly given anyone with half a brain would criticise the WICB. I mean you would hardly call them the envy of all cricketing boards. They serve up rotten stadiums with unplayable pitches and seem to provoke player strikes every second year. So, if a player who has been treated like dirt by his own board choses to speak out, what do they do? Tell him he can’t play until he grovels on his knees. Now that’s leadership.

While it may appear otherwise, I don’t want to seem that I am completely on Gayle’s side. I do think that he probably likes the easy money of T20 a bit too much. However, I think that his penchant for ease is based on a situation with his national side that is simply too hard, and as such, until the WICB change their attitude I’ll be happy to woop and scream when he’s smashing sixes in the Big Bash this summer.

If there were ever a sure way of proving that cricket’s administrators are panicking, the incessant backflips and bungles by the ICC would be it. At a time when the sport most needs its leaders to show unity and strength, they are instead portraying themselves as head-less chooks with no real plan. Whilst the game is experiencing a moment of confusion, the fundamentals are still strong, and as such, the ICC should be reinforcing this strength through clear and concise leadership. Some chance!

In his excellent book Sphere of Influence, Gideon Haigh talks at length about the shift in power to the BCCI, and the drastically poor leadership provided by the ICC. There is no doubt that with stronger leadership from above, the crises effecting the once strong cricketing administrations in Australia, Pakistan and the West Indies, would have been diminished. Instead we are left with a game, which has no central base and is not capitalising on the still evident popularity of all three formats.

The latest incarnation of this disastrous progression of events, which includes, but is not limited to the test championship and betting corruption, is the backflip by the ICC regarding the 2015 50 over world cup in Australia and New Zealand. Originally, the governing body had decided that they would reduce the competition to the ten test-playing countries. Various groups had a fuss, and as a result, the ICC has again backed down and delivered a ‘compromise’. One would imagine that Zimbabwe’s strong connection with India must have had an influence, so again it would seem that the ICC might well have ceded to the BCCI.

The outcome is a new 50-over league, which will serve as a qualifying for the cup itself. This system will work by awarding the top two teams from the qualifiers automatically getting into the cup, whilst the rest will have to battle it out in another league, which will decide the participants…unbelievable. The real kicker is that this overly complicated process will only last until the 2015 competition. Yes, the 2019 World Cup will be a ten-team event! In sum then, the complicated process of qualification, which will effectively change the meaning of ODI matches played before the 2015 Cup will be scrapped after just one competition.

This returns us nicely to my initial point. Cricket has strong fundamentals but is suffering at the moment from a perceived lack of connection with the public. Some poor crowds and confusion regarding three different formats have been seized upon to suggest that cricket is in some way on the wane. In any logical state of affairs, the ICC would be flooding the marketplace with strongly worded and cohesive messages that represented the stability of the sport. Further, they would issue considered edicts on their flagship competitions, which were supported by member countries and were not subject to continuous change. Until these steps are taken, and the ICC projects some kind of authority, the doubters will continue to doubt and cricket will be all the worse for it.

More World Cricket Stories

• My Favourite Cricketer…. Anil Kumble
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 62
• Book Review: Miller’s Luck, by Roland Perry
• The Pacific Pull Shot Episode 4
• Relationships in Cricket are Funny Things
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 61
• Nathan Lyon Signals a Post-Warne Era for Australian Cricket
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 60
• My Favourite Cricketer…. Chris Pringle
• What Would Hell Be Like for a Pakistani Cricket Fan?

Throughout this summer of cricket and beyond, Balanced Sports and World Cricket Watch are inviting cricket writers from around the globe to wax lyrical on who they consider their “favourite cricketer”. Today Blaise Murphet talks about his favourite cricketer Wasim Akram.

I think when you’re asked to consider your ‘favourite cricketer’ you don’t really think about statistics, you think of a player’s swagger, his style, and of amazing performances that you have witnessed either on television or first hand.

So, when thinking of the ultimate fast bowler, a natural checklist emerges in one’s mind. Does he have searing pace? Can he make the ball ‘talk’? Does he have long hair that flows in the wind? What about the maniacal smile that is the trademark of all the greats? Well, in my mind there is only one man who fits the bill and that is the greatest Pakistani player of all time, Wasim Akram.

In an international career that spanned almost twenty years, Akram tormented batsmen right across the globe. But, before I talk more about the unbelievable greatness of the man, let’s cast a quick eye over his outstanding career statistics.

Currently placed ninth on the all-time test wicket list, Wasim’s 414 test wickets obviously rank him right up there with the greats. These wickets, I might add, came at an average of 23, and I’d confidently suggest that his almost 3000 test runs at 22 would be far better than any others at the top of the bowling lists. If his test record isn’t enough, then just consider his ODI record. World Cup winner, 502 wickets at 23 and a powerful lower-order batsman, Wasim had it all. However, as I’ve argued before, averages and statistics only tell a very small part of a cricketer’s story, and in the case of Wasim Akram, this couldn’t be truer.

If you will allow me then to return to the checklist I mentioned earlier, we can further consider the greatness of Wasim.

There is no doubt that Wasim’s partners in crime, Imran Kahn and Waqar Younis, had more pace, however Wasim just appeared quick. Batsmen often talk of a bowler seeming quicker than they are, and Wasim always seemed to rush even the best. Wasim also had amazing long flowing hair, which some might argue has nothing to do with bowling ability.  I beg to differ.  Fast bowling is as much about style and presence as it is skill and precision. You just knew certain bowlers had batsmen beaten before a ball was bowled. For Curtly Ambrose his height and gold pendants positioned him as a higher being. Dennis Lillee had the flowing hair, bushy moustache and chest hair/revealing shirt combination which made him seem like a wild man. Glenn McGrath on the other hand, always appeared symmetrical, precise and well groomed, which conveyed his meticulous bowling prowess.

Dennis Lillee

Wasim had whippy jet black hair that suited his bowling action and a maniacal smile which gave him incredible presence. He always seemed very personable, but could switch in an instant, meaning that batsmen never knew when he would blow up. He also had an amazing approach to the crease which seemed slow, but exploded at the crease so Wasim could send down thunderbolts.

His pace and presence aside though, Wasim’s greatest asset was his ability to make the ball ‘talk’. I’ve actually heard it said that Wasim could make the one delivery swing both ways before arriving at the batsman and although I never saw this, I can say with certainty that I’ve never seen a bowler who could swing the ball so dramatically late. There really is something special about left-arm swing bowlers and Wasim was able to not only push the ball across right-handers, but swing it even further away and of course produce inswingers banned by the Geneva convention. This was perhaps most in evidence in Pakistan’s famous 1992 World Cup victory when Wasim was probably at his peak. Granted, his time as captain wasn’t greatly successful, but even later in his career, once he had shortened his run-up, Wasim still had the guile and intellect to dismiss even the best.

So, Wasim was a bowler of great skill, but there’s another important reason why I have chosen him to be my favourite cricketer. As a kid growing up I remember Pakistan as a very talented and successful cricketing nation. Players such as Wasim, Imran, Waqar, Aamir Sohail, Saqlain Mushtaq and Moin Kahn were standout players and – most importantly – played the game in the right spirit. Teams toured and played in fantastic cricketing cathedrals at Lahore and Karachi; whilst touring the sub-continent is always a challenging experience for teams, it was so because of the passion of the crowd and the talent of the home teams.

Things are very different now. No international teams have toured there since the Sri Lankan debacle and it seems highly unlikely we’ll see anything like Mark Taylor’s extraordinary 334* in 1998, or the thrilling series between England and Pakistan in 2000 where England knocked the winning runs in virtual darkness much to the chagrin of Pakistan’s captain, Moin Kahn. The state of Pakstani cricket – and, more generally the country – is an absolute shame, as has been evidenced by continual player and administration corruption.

As such, it is with great pleasure that I look back to Wasim as a player who represents a great era for not only Pakistan’s cricket team, but also the country itself. Even if he was from a country that hadn’t had these terrible troubles I’d still judge him as one of the greatest ever; but to me he represents a shining light in a situation filled with darkness, a truly memorable figure. When I think of Pakistani cricket, I don’t want to think of corrupt managers, crooked players, and terrorist attacks. I want to think of searing pace, swinging Yorkers, fiery passion, and most of all the long swinging hair and dangerous smile of my favourite cricketer, Wasim Akram.

Previous Favourite Cricketers

Brian Lara by David Siddall

Allan Border by Ben Roberts

Douglas Jardine by David Green

Curtly Ambrose by Matthew Wood

Sachin Tendulkar by Subash Jayaraman

Ian Botham by Jonathan Kilroy

Shane Warne by Murray Middleton

Rahul Dravid by Sujith Krishnan

It’s certainly odd these days to have a week when no international cricket has been played, but there is still much to discuss, including the upcoming super series between England and India and the ICC test dream team.

India in England

As I write this column the anticipation for this super contest is at fever pitch; the number one test team travelling to England to face the pretenders to the throne. Throw in the fact that it just happens to be the 2000^th test match played, the 100^th between England and India, and of course the little master might just hit his 100^th hundred, and you’ve got the recipe for a ripper! Sheesh, did I even mention that it’s at Lords, the home of cricket??

So, with all that in mind, let’s have a look at the squads named for the first test. Not many surprises for the home team, with the only intrigue really centred around the Bresnan or Broad decision. The smart money would be on Broad to get a go first, but with the forecast suggesting swing-friendly conditions, England would be crazy not to pick Bresnan. I was there at the MCG when he ripped through Australia with a wicked spell of swing bowling, and the fact is that Broad was not involved in a victory in the Ashes. Furthermore, he’s been in rotten form, and I think England should bite the bullet and use Bresnan in the first test.

For India there are a couple of areas worth discussing. Sehwag won’t be fit until at least the next test, so India must decide whether to go with Abhinav Mukund, who hardly knocked our socks off against the West Indies, or perinnial test-trier Yuvraj Singh. Yuvraj is a fine limited overs player, but he’s had a fair go in tests (34 tests with an average of 35), so my choice would be Mukund. Gambhir will be there with him this time to help him through, and if he fails, well at least he’s got Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar to back him up!

The final choice, as discussed in the last One Hand One Bounce podcast, is between Praveen Kumar and Sreesanth. As I mentioned on the pod, I think they will go with Kumar at Lords, as he can really swing a ball, and will provide a good foil to the bounce of Ishant and the guile of Zaheer. Furthermore, Sreesanth is just the perfect squad bowler, as his feisty nature ensures that if he is called upon later in the series he’ll be able to step up and perform.

It should be a cracker!!

ICC test dream team

Before we discuss the whinging poms, let’s have a look at the squad selected by fans in the ICC poll for the 2000^th test celebrations.

1. Virender Sehwag
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Donald Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Kapil Dev
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Wasim Akram
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath

Ok, so as you look at that squad two major themes stand out. The first is that it is obviously a very modern team. There is no room for the likes of Sobers, Harvey, Laker, Grace etc etc. Now, that may well be fair enough, given those voting wouldn’t have seen the majority of those players play the game. Bradman being there is really due to his canonisation as a cricketing messiah. That all said, it does seem strange to see a all-time team without those greats. Not to mention the likes of Viv Richards, Michael Holding, Malcom Marshall, Imran Kahn…the list goes on.

Imran Khan

The second issue is the inclusion of four Indians and four Australians. This relates directly to the first point, as these teams have been dominant over the last few decades, however the selection of Virender Sehwag and Kapil Dev do need to be questioned. Sehwag is an extraordinary talent and perhaps does deserve a place in this team, but what of Greenidge and Haynes? Similarly, Dev took a lot of wickets, but you can’t honestly say he’s the best all-rounder in test history. There is no doubt that their inclusion is based on the liklihood that many more Indians would have voted on this squad, and that is fine, but the fact that those greats missed out, and that no-one from South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand (as well as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) made the squad makes this a bit of a mockery.

Of the countries left out, Richard Hadlee from New Zealand would probably be the most likely inclusion. But, you could make a good case for Murali! South Africa is an interesting one, because some of their greats, including Barry Richards, didn’t play much test cricket because of apartheid. Of the players representing the Proteas since their return, you may be able to argue for Allan Donald or Jacques Kallis, but probably not ahead of anyone in that team.

So, a very interesting exercise, and other than the obvious bias, it is a great team. More than anything, it just gives us an excuse to again debate the greatest players in history.

More World Cricket Stories

• My Favourite Cricketer…. Anil Kumble
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 62
• Book Review: Miller’s Luck, by Roland Perry
• The Pacific Pull Shot Episode 4
• Relationships in Cricket are Funny Things
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 61
• Nathan Lyon Signals a Post-Warne Era for Australian Cricket
• One Hand One Bounce Weekly Cricket Podcast 60
• My Favourite Cricketer…. Chris Pringle
• What Would Hell Be Like for a Pakistani Cricket Fan?