Frankly Speaking

1. Test teams, it is reasonable to expect , should consist of the best available talent;

2. The best team is consistent with the needs of the team, judged in the context of the opposition and prevailing conditions.

Please note, in this framework, there is no space for irrelevant considerations, it is a pretty dispassionate, clinical, objective, performance-related exercise. Hence, should Azhar be kept out (if he was, that is) on the basis of some flimsy popularity poll in the Indian dressing room? Also, should Jadeja be tossed around on the basis of some spurious injury theory, which rules him unfit for Australia but allows him to play (even bowl!) in domestic cricket?

That selection is a matter of profound expertise became evident when I saw past greats choose players for the ICC commemorative tie in Dhaka .They started by deciding team composition (2 openers, 3 specialist batsmen, 1 keeper and an allrounder, 2 slow bowlers and 2 pacers), after which it was a simple matter of filling in the blanks. The selectors also agreed on the yardsticks for judging players – ability to deliver in adversity, the quality of opposition and big game temperament. Stats? Nobody was bothered.

The actual debate was incisive, indicative of hard nosed cricket pragmatism on part of the experts. SMG (Sunil Manohar Gavaskar) for instance argued forcibly for a right hand/left hand combination at the top to disrupt the line of the bowlers, not merely to induce loose balls but to invite wide balls from umpires. He even suggested a flexible batting order to ensure a left/ right combination stayed in the middle.

Predictibly, fielding abilities weighed heavily but even here there was a neat twist to the discussion. Fielding positions were minutely discussed, the advantage of a slip fielder compared to an alert point or short midwicket fielder. Ian Chappell was extremely forceful about athleticism in the field, he strongly favoured the inclusion of what he described a runout fielder in the team, for him this was as important as a specialist batsman.

Often the exchanges between experts were sharp, no words were minced, the discussion was always (to borrow a phrase from diplomats) free and frank An occasional biting comment, a quick cut, was employed but at no point were deliberations superficial, ordinary or short on solid cricket. Experts behaved like experts.

Not surprisingly, their choices were unbiased. On the contrary, when Mike Procter suggested Greame Hick, Tony Greig shot the suggestion downdismissing the player for his consistent failures in the top league.Chappell rooted openly for Herschelle Gibbs, Gavaskar for Nasser Hussain.