Beyond Boundaries

It’s the eve of the final day’s play of the third Test between Australiaand West Indies. Presumptuous and premature as it might sound, but by the timethe day is through, Steve Waugh should catch up with Clive Lloyd as thewinningest captain in the history of Test cricket, with 36 wins apiece.Remarkably, Waugh has achieved this landmark in 26 fewer Tests than Lloyd (48compared to 74, or a winning rate of 75 per cent). And, in all likelihood, atthe expense of sounding presumptuous again, Waugh should be standing alone atthe summit a Test later.

It’s fitting that Waugh should take over from Lloyd, for this Australianbunch is the first team since the fearsome Windies side of the late-seventiesand early-eighties to stake a claim to being one of sport’s all-time greatestdynasties. Few will question their right to share a stage with the likes ofLloyd’s Windies in cricket, Red Auerbach’s Boston Celtics of the 1950s and1960s and Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls in the nineties in basketball, theAustralian Davis Cup team of the fifties, the current Ferrari outfit in Formula1, to name a few.

Winning has a heady feel to it. As an athlete, once you have felt it, you don’twant to let go. More so when you have been deep down in the dumps, spat on anddismissed as good for nothing. Waugh should know the feeling, as he’s endureda period in Australian cricket during the late eighties when hope was itsbiggest ally. But what of some of the new players, the ones who have broken intothe side, or played most of their cricket, during the golden period of the pastfour years?

Like Adam Gilchrist, who has won 33 of the 41 Test matches he had played in(till the second Test against the Windies, which has been taken as the cut-offdate for all subsequent statistics in this piece), losing just five and drawingthe other three. In other words, Gilchrist has ended up on the victorious sidein four of every five Test matches. Or, to look at it another way, he has tasteddefeat just once in every eight Tests.

Meanwhile, despite coming in with one top-order bat and a handful oftailenders for company, he has racked up 2,793 runs at an enviable Ttest averageof 60.71 -- the fifth highest among all batters who have scored more than 2,000runs and within striking distance of second-placed Graeme Pollock (60.97).

Or, take Matthew Hayden. In his first stint, he played seven Test matches,averaging just 21.75 and ending up on the losing side on four of thoseoccasions. Since making a comeback to the side in 2000, Hayden has played 33Tests, winning 25 and losing just three. During this time, he has amassed 2,994runs at a prolific average of 58.7, bumping up his career average to a more thanrespectable 51.6.

Brett Lee, Andy Bichel, Stuart MacGill… they all have enviable Testrecords.

Never having faced the humiliation or the humbling experience of constantdrubbing at the game’s highest level, can these guys understand fully theagony of a loss? Perhaps, it’s some explanation of why, on the rare occasionthat they have faced defeat, their behaviour starts to break down. They turnuncouth and ungracious, and leave behind a trail of broken glass panes indressing rooms or verbal skirmishes on the field.

Watching them pound the Windies in their backyard, probably to anotherwhitewash, contrasting thoughts come to mind.

On the one hand, the Australian brand of cricket enthrals and captivates. It’ssport as it should be played: fearlessly and to win. So, they don’t fret muchabout which way the coin falls on the opening day. The batters look to scorebriskly all along. Instead of batting the opposition out of the game, Waughdeclares so as to bait the opposition into going for a win while giving hisbowlers ample time to do the job.

On the other hand, it’s also getting monotonous to watch Australiamanhandle all other teams. Where is the opposition? Where are the rivalries, thecontests? When will we see a side subject the Australians to relentless pressureand send them on a leather hunt? Sport thrives on rivalries. Sadly, for cricket,the roots for today’s rivalries can be attributed more to political and socialhangovers from the past than a vibrant cricketing present.

In the past four years, Australia has hardly been stretched. At home, theyhave beaten every side hollow. Away from home, they have stumbled just twice, toSri Lanka and to India. And let’s face it, even in those series, they had onefoot in the door, but they just couldn’t close it. South Africa was expectedto run close, but even they were hammered 5-1, in back-to-back three-matchseries, home and away.

Today, probably, the only match-up involving Australia that promises a closefare is India, in the heat, grime and dustbowl tracks of the sub-continent. Andthat’s a good 18 months away. Till then, expect the Australia juggernaut toroll on. Unless the ICC (International Cricket Council), in a rare show ofboldness and imagination, borrow a trick or two from Kerry Packer.

Around 25 years ago, in 1977, Australian media baron Kerry Packer, miffed atbeing refused television rights by his country’s board despite being thehighest bidder, signed up 50 of the world’s best cricketers to play in aparallel tour. The World Series Cricket was a watershed moment for the game, asplayers and boards clashed. And in came night cricket, coloured clothes, whiteballs and big money.

Australian cricketers squared up against the West Indies and a World XI(which also included players from the Windies side) in one-day and five-daymatches, with the latter being appropriately billed as ‘supertests’. Thiswasn’t the first time an Australian side was taking on a crack world team. In1971-72, a similar match-up was cobbled together by the Australian Cricket Boardafter a tour by South Africa fell through because of issues relating toapartheid. But let it also not be the last.

Cricket has evolved much since those turbulent times. There are no politicalor financial compulsions to look outside the conventional cricket calendar.South Africa is back in the international fold, Packer’s interests inAustralian cricket are secure with Channel Nine, the players are paid handsomelyand don’t have any reason to steer in another direction, and cricket boardsand marketers have never had it this good.

Still, if cricket was ever crying for a match-up cutting across geographicalboundaries, it is now. Australia versus a World XI. Let the ICC revive theconcept of ‘supertests’, just for this one time. There’s a compellingmatch-up staring us in the face, waiting to be given shape and released inbeautiful cricket grounds across the world. Do it in the name of sport andcricket, for the sheer love of the game.

On one side, there’s one of the best cricket sides of all time, whosesupremacy is unchallenged. On the other, there are some extraordinarycricketers, who have had individual success against this Australian side invarying measures, but have never quite known team success. Bring them together.

Who wouldn’t want to see 22 of the world’s best cricketers of their eraface-off, not in some meaningless exhibition match, but in a competitive testseries? Imagine Lara and Tendulkar at the wicket together, squaring off againstMcGrath and Warne. Or Bond, with his fiery pace, and Akram, with his bag oftricks, bowling in tandem to Hayden and Langer. Does it get better than that?

Here’s something for the ICC to chew upon: two series, of three matcheseach, one played in Australia (suggested venues: Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, tobring in a sense of history and varying pitches) and the other elsewhere (Mumbai,Lord’s and Johannesburg). And, since I’m dispensing uncalled-for advice tocricket administrators on how to rev up the game, let me also turn selector andpresent my squad of fourteen players to pit their skills and wits -- andvocabulary -- against the Aussies.

1. Herschelle Gibbs

2. Michael Vaughan

3. Rahul Dravid

4. Sachin Tendulkar

5. Brian Lara

6. Jacques Kallis

7. Mark Boucher (wicket keeper)

8. Wasim Akram (captain)

9. Shane Bond

10. Javagal Srinath

11. Muthiah Muralitharan

Reserves: Harbhajan Singh, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Anil Kumble

It’s been an unenviable task, such is the sweep of talent on offer. Andlike all team selections, there are bound to be preferences and differences inopinion. For the record, the broad considerations that have gone into pickingthis squad are team balance (for instance, Harbhajan and Murali can’t playtogether), faithfulness to their current roles and positions (the two exceptionsare Lara being pushed to number five and Kallis, who gives the extra bowlingoption, batting at six), record against the Aussies and current form.

Some purists might scoff at the suggestion of such 'supertests', dismissingit as a populist move that tampers with the game’s traditions. Then again,change can be bad, or it can be progress and therefore good. Unlike most otherteam sports, top-flight cricket still revolves around the concept ofnations  -- and it should stay that way. There are some sacred spaces wheremoney should never be allowed to rule. Still, for the good of the game, there’sa case for making exceptions and bending the rules.

History has shown that cricket has gained whenever it has respondedimaginatively to cricketing ideas. One-day cricket, day-night matches, colouredclothing were all ideas that were greeted with scepticism. They haven’t donetoo badly.

Conceived with imagination and handled with care by administrators, amatch-up like this can arouse great passion among the players, stoke interestamong fans and throw uncomfortable -- but immensely challenging -- questions atthe Australians. The key is to infuse a competitive spirit in the match-up, sothat the tests shape up as professional contests, not exhibition games. It’s aflight of fancy, which has as much chance of taking off as Bangladesh winning aTest series.

Even if it all came together, the million-dollar question would be: would aWorld XI beat Australia? It’s a close call. Player for player, the World XI isstreets ahead in the batting department, but if Warne plays, it’s fairlyneck-and-neck in bowling. But just superior talent can’t ensure victory in ateam sport. You can’t just bring together a disparate group of exceptionallytalented cricketers, whose single commonality is they have been at the receivingend of an Aussie demolition job, and expect them to rally as a unit. Indeed,that could prove to be the undoing for a World XI.

To delve into history is an interesting academic exercise, but isn’t ofmuch value to gain insights into how this futuristic match-up might shape up. Ofthe six 'supertests' played between Australia and a World XI between 1977-79,the latter won five. It must be emphasised that the World XI then comprised ofthe cream of West Indies, who were the best side in the game then, and topplayers from other countries. The dynamics of the 2003 version of this match-upare very different. The Australians are the invincibles and the other countriesare playing catch up.

It’s a tough call to make. The only way to find out -- and surely, scoresof fans out there would love to find out -- is to make it a reality. Mr MalcolmSpeed and Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya, are you listening?