Famous five

Ian Bell? Ian-frigging-Bell? Scyld Berry has a lot to answer for in part two of the Times Online special podcast to mark the publication of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack after the little yellow book's editor chose the little ginger batsman as one of his five cricketers of last year. Ryan Sidebottom, Shiv Chanderpaul, Ottis Gibson and Zaheer Khan are the more defensible selections, with Jacques Kallis earning the nod as the Leading Cricketer in the World.

Of course, it is the editor's decision and Scyld makes a strong case for Bell, largely on the basis of his one-day form. Our panel, which also features Simon Barnes, Christopher Martin-Jenkins and your humble blogger, then discuss some of the burning issues facing world cricket, such as the IPL, expensive tickets and why it won't be long before violence breaks out on the field of play. So click the link, download and enjoy. And let us know what you think.

[By the way, to those who asked, Scyld is pronounced "Shild". It's Anglo-Saxon and the name of Beowulf's father, who was a useful fast-medium left-armer in his day.]

Comments

[Peter McGuinness]

I agree with Jackie.

Please continue to select Ian Bell. In fact, could you please see your way clear to select him twice?

[Jackie Litherland]

How I disagree. Ian Bell is a great choice. The media seem to have a bit of a down on Bell at the moment. probably because he keeps getting better and proving them wrong. Never mind. Top batsman overall in Tests this winter. So why the curses? Just remember that ginger hair comes from Viking stock. He's upped his game and his run rate but he still bats divinely.

[Patrick Kidd]

Rusty, you're missing out in Australia not being able to follow English domestic cricket! I should stress, the awards are for performances in the English summer, not just the domestic game, so there have been plenty of overseas winners for their achievements in the summer Tests.

Was away from my computer yesterday so didn't get the full Ottis Gibson facts for you: he took 80 wickets in 15 first-class matches at an average of 20.75 and a strike-rate (of a wicket every 36 balls) that was five better than the next best. He also took 34 one-day matches at an average of 20 and took wickets with the first two balls of the cup final, adding Pietersen's wicket later and scoring 15 off seven balls as Durham won their first ever title. And all this at the astounding age of 38! As clear-cut a winner of the award as any Warne, Ramprakash or Bradman in previous years.

[Rusty]

Thanks, Patrick,

I wasn't aware til now the Wisden awards were local. Not being a follower of others' domestic seasons (don't follow what I can't see, in cricket, anyway) explains why I haven't heard of Gibson.

[Peter McGuinness]

To all those people who have read this article and are at present dialing their optometrist for an emergency appointment:

This Wisden appraisal relates exclusively to the English summer, clearly. It must, because otherwise you would need to consult an anthropo-astro-physicist rather than an optometrist, as you would be hurtling through space at 18.55 miles per second upon the WRONG PLANET.

If per some miracle, this is indeed a list of Wisden's 'best players in the world in all matches', please ask the aforementioned scientist how to stop the earth.

Some of us would like to exit in an orderly fashion at the next stop.

[Homer]

Patrick,

No issues with the discussion per se, just that I get a feeling in everything I read that it is taken as an article of faith that the Indian public will lap it up because it is cricket.

The games are being played in summer - the wickets could play low and slow, the ball may not come up to the bat, we may have disasters like the India Oz game at Melbourne.

Good luck drawing the Indian crowds in then. :)

Cheers

[Patrick Kidd]

Rusty - the awards are predominanty, but not exclusively, for performances during the English summer and you can't win it more than once (hence Ramprakash, who averaged 100 in domestic cricket for the second year, didn't get the nod as he won it last year). Check Cricinfo for the full statistics or read the extracts on Times Online but basically these guys were chosen because 1) Ottis Gibson was second leading wicket-taker last season, behind Mushtaq Ahmed, took a ten-for, an eight-for and two seven-fors for Durham who had a great season and bowled them to victory in the cup; 2) Chanderpaul went 1000 minutes without being dismissed in the Tests against England and was far and away the best WIndies batsman; 3) Zaheer was the leading India bowler in the Tests with 24 wickets (I think) in three Tests at a low average and was the reason India won and 4) Er... Bell averaged 70-odd in seven ODIs against India. I don't agree with that last one. Hope that clears it up.

Homer - yes, the Indian audience matters most, but just because none of the panel was Indian is not a reason for us not to discuss the IPL, I hope. Personally I'm not taking it for granted that it will be a success. I hope the Indian public hate it and demand a return to Test cricket.

[Rusty]

What actually did Gibson, Chanderpaul, Bell and Khan actually do to earn this accolade? Kallis, I suppose for being Kallis, but i must have had my head in a hole all year to have missed their overwhelming prominence.

[Homer]

Patrick,

A quite interesting discussion except for when the panel got talking IPL.

What I don't seem to understand is why is it difficult for all and sundry to understand that the success or failure of the IPL is hinged on the Indian public and the Indian public alone.

How much the Indian public buys into the concept of franchises and is willing to devote time and money or both cheering foreign players over their own will determine the fate of the IPL.

That, and the quality of cricket on display.

So why is it taken as an article of faith that the IPL will become a success no matter what?

I think it is a travesty that the Indian public are taken for granted in all of the discussions I have heard or read about the IPL.

Cheers