Catching up with Australia

UMPIRE'S POST

Is trading players, as in soccer, a good idea in international cricket?

Clearly, John Buchanan is not content to be remembered as the coach of the most successful Test team in history. He wants to change world cricket. However, his suggestion that players should be allowed to play for any country will do little more than steer some diatribe towards him. More so after certain patches of play in the Sydney Test that ends today.

Even in his coaching days, Buchanan liked to stir things up every once in a while. So there would be the occasional slip of paper pushed under the doors of players' hotel rooms, or a vitriolic email. Strangely, they always found their way to journalists.

Apparently, his suggestion is designed to narrow the gap between Australia and the others. So those Australians who cannot make it to the national 11, can go and represent other countries.

The sporting world is not new to people playing for a team just because they are paid to do it. Many soccer leagues "" Italy, Spain, England "" thrive on this system. However, for any match or tournament involving national teams, the rich players go and represent their countries for far less remuneration.

In cricket, we have had some matches involving Rest of the World teams. There was England versus Rest of the World when South Africa did not tour England in 1969. There was Australia versus Rest of the World in 1971-72 when South Africa's tour was banned. There was another Rest of the World against Australia, soon after it lost the Ashes. The common threat binding these matches was lack of spectator enthusiasm. According to Ian Chappell, even in Packer's World Series Cricket, the Australia versus West Indies matches were much better received than the ones involving Rest of the World.

But the bigger question is: how will Australia's discards help other countries catch up with their mother country? If they were that good, they would be in the playing 11.

Australia is the number one team in world cricket, but that may change. The thing Ricky Ponting's team does best, especially in Tests, is that it gets ahead quickly and stays ahead. When it comes to doing a come-from-behind job, the team makes a mess of it and looks brittle.

Even if you dismiss Australia's past defeats, it is difficult to ignore that its bowling attack looked clueless under the Sachin-Sourav onslaught in Melbourne, Laxman's symphony in Sydney and the Sachin-Sourav encore after Laxman was out in Sydney. Whatever the outcome of the Sydney Test, it has made Australia's attack resemble India's when on the run from Symonds.

Dominance in the game anyway seems to be cyclical. For confirmation, ask the West Indies.