What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

World XI concept - has this series killed it?

choc_soldier

Coach
Messages
10,387
Three one dayers and a test match, with Australia convincing winners in all four matches.

The question is - will this series make a return? Or has the results killed it off for now?

Personally, the idea was good in theory, but the execution... well... the results speak for themselves.

If it is to return next time, here's some thoughts:
* More warm up games for the World XI, to allow them to gel as a team (I realise that the packed international schedule would make it a bit difficult)
* Team picked on form, not reputation
* A core squad of say 15, of which the test and one day teams get selected from (as raised by Peter Roebuck on ABC yesterday).

I open the floor... interested to see your thoughts...
 

aussies1st

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
28,154
I definitely agree with the 1st two.
Don't fully get how that core squad works. Didn't they have that currently?
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,266
needs better preparation and a few warm up games for the world XI
 

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,272
What it needs, is to be included into the ICC 5 year schedule, and have it scheduled in the heart of the home teams summer, and have it not clash with other international series, so it can be a full tour, with multiple tests and ODI's, with a series of lead up games.

Otherwise dont bother.
 
Messages
3,986
It will work if a couple of things are done. The team is picked on form and not reputation.

Vaughan should have been here.
Kumble or Singh should have been here for Vettori.
Pollock should never have been included.
Boucher was the worst decision ever. Sangakarra miles better.

Strange selections.

Warm up matches are vital.
 
Messages
33,280
they're main problem was they picked the team on name and reputation, not on current form, yeah more people wanna go see lara,smith and co but iunno, it wont be back for a while, and it'll never be a full tour, which is the only way it can work, with like a 5test series so they can recover and not hav a bad day and be punished
 

choc_soldier

Coach
Messages
10,387
Timbo said:
What it needs, is to be included into the ICC 5 year schedule, and have it scheduled in the heart of the home teams summer, and have it not clash with other international series, so it can be a full tour, with multiple tests and ODI's, with a series of lead up games.

Otherwise dont bother.

I agree.

To me, this series was almost a warm up for the summer ahead for the Australians, whilst for the World XI, it was a deviation from their individual schedules - although I'm sure the players from both sides didn't approach it that way.
 

Eelementary

Post Whore
Messages
56,379
I think the Australia verus the Rest of the World concept should stand.

Think about it - what better way to even up the ledgers in terms of International cricket than by the best players from non-Australia playing the very best team in the world?

Some critics say that Australia is past its prime - as evidenced by their recent Ashes failure.

But what I remember from the 2005 Ashes series is: England losing game one by a fair few runs (it was a thrashing); England barely beating Australia in the second Test; a draw in the third; a small victory for England in the 4th; and a draw in the 5th. Hardly a smashing victory.

Combine that with the recent demolition of the World XI, and I believe it proves that, when on song, Australia is the best team bar none.

So in order to improve the quality of world cricket, I think it's a must. I am reminded of the recent 2003 World Cricket Cup, where Namibia opted to come out and play Australia instead of forfeiting the match, citing the reason, "If we don't play the best, how will we ever imrpove?"

Plus it's an entertaining and novel concept.
 

blackfriday

Juniors
Messages
769
maybe the players they picked needed to be looked at, not just their name but their aptitude for commitment when playing for a team other than their own country. guys like murali and vettori gave 100% while it was obvious that the batsman were here on holiday. maybe guys like fleming or vaughan should have got the nod because they are disciplined individuals who put a high price on their wicket whatever the circumstances.
 

Tommy Smith

Referee
Messages
21,344
Eelementary said:
I think the Australia verus the Rest of the World concept should stand.

Think about it - what better way to even up the ledgers in terms of International cricket than by the best players from non-Australia playing the very best team in the world?

Some critics say that Australia is past its prime - as evidenced by their recent Ashes failure.

But what I remember from the 2005 Ashes series is: England losing game one by a fair few runs (it was a thrashing); England barely beating Australia in the second Test; a draw in the third; a small victory for England in the 4th; and a draw in the 5th. Hardly a smashing victory.

Combine that with the recent demolition of the World XI, and I believe it proves that, when on song, Australia is the best team bar none.

So in order to improve the quality of world cricket, I think it's a must. I am reminded of the recent 2003 World Cricket Cup, where Namibia opted to come out and play Australia instead of forfeiting the match, citing the reason, "If we don't play the best, how will we ever imrpove?"

Plus it's an entertaining and novel concept.
England would have thrashed Australia in the 3rd Test had it not been for the rain. But who cares about the margin...you dont fluke a 5-test series win. Yes Australia still deserve to be considered the best i the world, but only just. England have been winning for 2 years now all over the world. They win their series' on the sub-continent (Pakistan and India) and then IMO its Australia who will be fighting to regain the title as best in the world in 2006 on home soil.

As for the World XI concept, people are being slightly mislead by the belief that the team was picked on reputation and not form. As far as the test team goes only Pollock was picked on reputation (and Akhtar but he didnt make the XII). Boucher's selection should be considered as a mind-boggling embarrassment.

The others were all picked on form. Sehwag has been awesome. Smith also in good form lately , although i would argue Vaughan should still have been selected ahead of him sue to captaincy. Dravid, Kallis and Lara are the top 3 ranked bats in the world. Lara has been the form batsmen this year scoring 733 runs in just 5 tests at 80. Kallis has also averaged 80 this year and Dravid not far behind.

Inzy has been in great form, too. We all know about Flintoff. Boucher was a joke we know. Murali was an obvious choice. Vettori should never have been selected ahead of Kumble. That wasnt so much as a reputation issue as it was an issue of having a player from all regular test nations in the team. Kumble took 10 wickets in his last appearance at the SCG. Harmison although not devastating during the Ashes more than justified his selection in the match.

So for me, in the Test it wasnt an issue of players being picked on reputation rather than form. It's just a simple lack of match practice (case in point Inzy and the Windies/RSA players who hadnt played for a couple of months) and then theres the England players who have just stopped partying and have a tour of Pakistan to think about. So thats also a scheduling issue for me as well. Also, Australia were DESPERATE to win. They had alot more to play for.

The only changes i would have made in the Test team were Vaughan for Smith, Sanga for Boucher and Kumble for Vettori. The rest was spot on as far as selection goes IMO. Simon Jones would have had a case but he was injured.

The ODI team is another matter however. Pollock and Akhtar were picked purely on reputation. Vaas not being selected was a disgrace and Bond should have almost been included late on as well. Hell, even Rana Naved ul-Hasan should have been picked ahead of Akhtar based on form. Sehwag was also picked on rep. Trescothick for one would have been a much better choice. And Kallis/Dravid were marginal selections. Infact they were both worthy its just that the situation (chasing 300+) never suited them.

So yes the ODI team was picked on reputation, but the test team was nearly right IMO. They just need to organise more practice matches and schedule the match more appropriately (which isnt easy these days considering all the cricket played).
 

stuke

Bench
Messages
3,727
i think the display by the World XI has killed off this concept for the time being. they really needed to step up and make it competitive, and were unable to do so. these players had little to actually play for, and it showed barring a few exceptions. the guys in Australias XI had far more to prove and play for.

as well we would need to have a team dominate the world scene again for a lengthy period of time for the idea to be of any value. this was conceived due to the Australian teams dominating for so long, but by the time it came around the gloss of the games had well and truly rubbed off.
 

Tommy Smith

Referee
Messages
21,344
Just one more point, some people have been saying that the World XI not being a real team/nation is no excuse. But just to use another example, imagine bringing together the best Union players from England/France/RSA/Australia to merge into a team over a couple of weeks and then asking them to defeat the All Blacks in Christchurch. They would get murded. More star players maybe, only just though, but ultimately they would be nothing resembling a united team/nation.

Didnt a "World" team just get mauled earlier this year in NZ? It contained Warne, Murali and co so surely they had to beat the Kiwis even if it was on their soil, right? Well obviously not, because they treated it as an exhibition and werent a team and hence got flogged.
 

Big_Bad_Shark_Fan

First Grade
Messages
8,279
the one thing which took away from this series was the fact we lost the ashes in my opinion. i was pumped up for this series since january last year and got my tickets asap, however when it was time to go i coudlnt of cared less really. i think if wed beating england we could of said we conqoured everything, now this is our greatest challenge.

on selections, its all opinion on whose picked, ure never gonna satisfy everyone. people are questioning Vettoris selection. thats fine, thats there opinion. to me its stupid to question him, i think hes all class.

i mean forget the selections, a world xi shouldnt have to pick the very best side and they should do better than they did. but meh i think its a good concept and hope it gets kept in the future somehow
 

aussies1st

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
28,154
Speed quick to give Super Series out

By Will Swanton
October 18, 2005

Waiting for another Super Series? Don't hold your breath. ICC boss Malcolm Speed has done a backflip over the concept in the aftermath to the hopelessly lopsided contests between a resurgent Australian team and the badly misfiring Rest of the World. In all likelihood, this is the end of the World XI as we know it.

Speed was bitterly disappointed by their efforts in three limited-overs defeats and a shellacking in the Test. The ineptitude of the World XI's batting in their ill-fated trek to Australia was highlighted by the fact that they lasted 50 overs, exactly 50 overs, just once: in the second innings of the Test.

The ICC had planned to stage the Super Series every four years, but those plans have been shelved. Part of the reason is that there may not be a clear-cut No.1 team in future years. The major reason, though, is the failure of the World XI to fight while on these shores to make the project work. A possible solution is to hold a one-off clash every four years between the first- and second-ranked Test nations. Otherwise, the idea is heading for the scrap heap.

"As far as the Rest of the World team is concerned, we share the players' disappointment in their performance," Speed said. "It's not something we will put in on a regular basis. It's not something where we're going to say we'll play this every two years, every four years or every six years. I would have liked the World XI to make more runs. We all would have liked that. The performance of the team is not under our control and, as I say, we share the players' disappointment.
"What we had hoped was by bringing a team of champions together, a team spirit would come from the two weeks they've been together. I'm not sure whether that happened."

World XI coach John Wright said the missing ingredient was that indefinable last little skerrick of commitment that can make such a difference to a cricketer's performance - the type of commitment Wright was only able to quantify by placing his index finger just inches from his thumb, grimacing, shaking his head and saying: "That much." In other words, not much at all.

Wright said the players' intensity was less than it would have been for their countries. He refused to point the finger but the villains were there for all to see. Andrew Flintoff, for example, seemed eager to hit as many balls as possible out of the stadium and onto Bondi Beach, whereas he would have been far more selective with his shotmaking if wearing an England cap.

"That's been the hardest bit for me to grapple with - getting that last … whatever that extra bit is that seems to come more to the fore for your country," Wright said. "That was always going to be the challenge for us all.

"Some of the shots we saw in certain situations, you'd probably want more. That's where I look at myself and say, well, could I have gotten something else out of them that I didn't?" World XI captain





Graeme Smith, who made 12 and nought, agreed. "You grow up in your country and dream of playing for your country …" he said. "You come here, where you don't know the guys you are playing with and playing for.

"That all adds up to an environment where you maybe lose that 20 per cent. For your country it is do or die. Maybe this isn't do or die for every individual that is here."

It might not have been do or die for the players, but it was for the concept. No need to go to the video umpire. It's out.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/speed-quick-to-give-super-series-out/2005/10/17/1129401198557.html

Good bye Super Series it seems.
 

IanG

Coach
Messages
17,807
I also heard suggestions as to how seriously the World XI too the series. Yes it should be form not reputation. As we know the only win the World XI had all tour was their warm up match against Victoria
 

PARRA_FAN

Coach
Messages
17,180
The only South African that shouldve been included was Kallis, I dont know who they beat to get 4 players in a squad. I agree Vaughan shouldve been there, Inzaman was useless last summer and was again useless in the test match. Harmison being the only full time fast bowler really wasnt the go, but it mainly the batting that let the World Side down. If Tendulkar was fit, no doubt he wouldve been picked. You cant really blame the players, the selectors picked a strange squad.

The crowds were down because:

* The World XI were thrashed in the ODI's.
* Too much money
* A lot of people are still in their football mode, not switched on to cricket yet

Look I hope they have it again, and I hope they do it right next time. The reason it was so successful in 1971/72 was cause the World XI was the only cricketing nation to tour Australia that summer, and the likes of G Pollock, Sobers were scoring runs.
 
Top