Australian captain Ricky Ponting and paceman Mitchell Johnson have been have been named Wisden’s first Test match Dream XI on Wednesday.
Ponting has been named in the pivotal No.3 spot while left-armer Johnson features in a bowling attack with India’s Harbhajan Singh and Zaheer Khan and South African quick Dale Steyn.
English star Kevin Pietersen was the only player to be named by the sport’s annual of record from Australia’s Ashes rivals.
South Africa-born Pietersen finds his place at number five in the team with which also features an opening pair of Indian Virender Sehwag and South Africa captain Graeme Smith.
Indian legend Sachin Tendulkar has been named at No.4 below Ponting while Indian skipper and wicketkeeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni completes the sub-continent nation’s dominance in the line-up.
West Indies lynchpin Shivnarine Chanderpaul is the sole representative from the Caribbean team.
Sehwag is not only number one by virtue of his position in the batting order but for good measure is identified as the sixth player to be recognised as the Leading Cricketer in the World.
It is an annual accolade previously bestowed on the likes of Shane Warne, Andrew Flintoff and Muttiah Muralitharan.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
I feel I should also comment here on Virender Sehwag being named the world's leading cricketer by Wisden. First awarded to Ricky Ponting in 2004, this honour has subsequently gone (in order) to Shane Warne, Andrew Flintoff, Muttiah Muralitharan and Jacques Kallis. There is a clear downward trend in excellence here, perhaps reaching a nadir with the bland, selfish, uninfluentional Kallis last year. At least with Sehwag the Wisden panel have come up with an interesting choice, along the lines of Flintoff in 2006. There is no doubt that Sehwag is exceptionally influential in the Indian team. Watching him here in NZ recently, it was clear that even when he only scored 30 in a test innings, he did so in such a way that he still set up the Indian innings: by catapulting them to 60 off 10 overs, the innings had so much momentum that even The Wall coming in at 3 could keep it going. One might say that Sehwag does for India what Gilchrist formerly did for Australia: he has good statistics but his influence extends far beyond those numbers (i.e., the reverse of Kallis: outstanding statistics but no influence). But therein lies the nub: on top of his innings-defining batting, Gilchrist also kept wickets, whereas Sehwag's only other contribution is occasional but deceptively good off-spinners. So if Gilchrist never received the honour of world's leading cricketer, why should Viru? Who then? Having watched India and South Africa closely over the last 9 months, I feel there is no doubt that Graeme Smith and MS Dhoni are the two leading cricketers in the world. Both their teams rely on them immensely for their leadership, and on top of this they bring enormous character and skill to the table. Just look at how India were boxed around in Napier by puny NZ to see the immense influence of Dhoni, who missed that match (further emphasizing my point about Sehwag, he was India's clueless captain in that match). South Africa do not rely quite so much on Smith, but in general terms he has become a real colussus of world cricket after attending the Shane Warne finishing school at Rajasthan in the IPL. Because India are the best team in world cricket, I would be tempted to name Dhoni as world's leading cricketer. However because of Smith's unusual political power, I feel he cannot be separated from Dhoni. Let me explain. Did anyone else notice last year how the cancellation of the Champion's Trophy hinged on Smith's word? Even though all the player unions of the white countries were saying that it was too dangerous to go to Pakistan, the authorities continued to dig in and insist that the Champion's Trophy would be played. Then Smith said that he would not be taking his players to Pakistan, and overnight the whole thing folded. Put this down to South Africa's kingmaking position in cricket politics: with mostly white players but with mostly coloured politics, they stand between the white bloc and the Asian bloc, holding the balance of power. So both on and off the field, Smith leads the world's players in cricket.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Rather than relying on statistics, Wisden "selected" this XI in the conventional way: they assembled a selection panel of three, with the Wisden editor having a casting vote in the event of a 1-1-1 split, which there was for 2 positions (those of Harbhajan and Zaheer). What I particularly like is that Wisden have published the reasoning of the selectors for all positions (e.g. see the cricinfo or Wisden sites). I find the reasoning strong in all cases. My only quibbles would be that neither Ponting nor Pietersen were particularly good in 2008 - both seem to owe their selections more to past glories and to a lack of other contenders (e.g. the determined but modest Hashim Amla is the only other candidate mentioned for no. 3). And it seems incredible to me that after a year in which he caused so much trouble in English cricket, KP could be selected in a team like this. I know the team is meant to be based on 2008 form only, but Gambhir averaged 70 in 2008, and since then his form has got even better (the just completed tour of New Zealand). He should definitely be in a team like this, as he is arguably the form batsman in world cricket over the last 12 months (he has made runs under much harder circumstances than Chanderpaul). Perhaps he should have been chosen at 3 instead of Ponting? Finally, the team seems to be at odds with the world rankings, which have Australia (2 players) at 1, South Africa (2) at 2, and India with 5 players but ranked only 3. I find this more to show the rankings in a poor light.