Sports
|
||||
| ICC
overlooks Murali for drug taker Shane Muralitharan who came into the last four of the cricketer of the year award, but failed to find a place in the final 22 of the two World elevens (Test and ODI) selected by the ICC-picked five-man panel which comprised the names of Richie Benaud (Australia), Ian Botham (England), Sunil Gavaskar (India) Michael Holding (West Indies) and Barry Richards (South Africa). At the same time the past records say that at least two in the above list have come out with anti-Murali statements more than once. So why can't they fish the support of another or two to drive their wishes home? Michael Donaldson/AAP writing on the ICC awards said "The ICC's inaugural awards ceremony confirmed Muralitharan's status as a pariah of world cricket. How else can his exclusion from their Test team of the year be explained? Naturally, Australia dominated the world Test XI, with five players named: Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne. There was one Sri Lankan: the ever-deserving Chaminda Vaas. But how the voting panel can justify Warne's inclusion ahead of Muralitharan is beyond comprehension. What was the criteria for selection? If it's the performance of the player during that given year, how can Shane Warne pip Murali at the post? The plain and simple reason is that during the better part of the season Warne was dumped in shame serving a one-year ban after he was found positive for the usage of a banned substance. For this reason alone, he should have been overlooked for an accolade of this nature, especially when you have to displace the highest wicket taker in the history of the game of cricket. It's true that Warne took 36 wickets in five matches since his comeback, but, during the given period Muralitharan had done even better. Muralitharan who was not shamed with such an accusation as Warne took 76 wickets during that period. After the selections, Benaud said "As is always the case with only 11 positions to be filled, there will be disappointments. Shane Warne came back and made an immediate impact with 36 wickets in just five games, and deserved his place as the first spinner; leading wicket-taker Muttiah Muralitharan was unlucky." What a lame excuse from a man of that calibre. But a quick look at the performance by Muralitharan reveals the panel ignored the statistics given in black and white and the strength of the opposition. In the qualifying period - August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 - Murali played nine Tests, taking 73 wickets at an average of 18.56. He took his wickets against Australia (28), England (26), South Africa (5) and Zimbabwe (14). The conspiracy against the Sri Lankan off spinner did not start with this injustice. It started in Australia in 1994 with the Hair affair. Then in recent times the sudden drafting in of Chris Broad as match referee for the Australia-Sri Lanka series. The 'sweeping under carpet' of ICC's Dave Richardson’s tolerance report for bowlers come in as a few to the mind. Anyone who has some knowledge of the game of cricket can say what an ideal team should consist of. Generally, it should read as five batsmen, a wicket keeper three seam bowlers and two good spinners. If it is a off-spin and leg-spin combination what more can you ask for? However, the five so-called experts who sat there on behalf of the ICC made a mockery of that norm. Why? Just to keep Murali out. For the ODI's the selectors have gone without a single spinner and for the Test team they have gone with six specialist batsmen plus Adam Gilchrist as wicket keeper with three seamers and a spinner. What a poor selection! How amateurish! World
one-day XI World
Test XI |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
