A hypothetical clash of the cricketing hemispheres

Scotland and Wales have devolved legislatures which deal with local affairs. The Irish Republic is an independent nation-state, and as such is not part of the UK. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and has a somewhat wobbly local assembly in which its fractious politicians berate each other daily. People outside the UK sometimes make the mistake of assuming that the Celtic nations are poor downtrodden folk held against their will by the horrid English, but it's not really like that. Support for independence in Scotland runs at about 35%, and much less in Wales. Wales has a genuine cricket tradition. Glamorgan have fallen on hard times, but there remains much affection for the game in the south of the country. Ireland never had much of a cricket tradition, but that seems to be changing. For a long time it was frowned upon to play "foreign" (i.e. English) games in Ireland, but they are so good at them that they seem to have decided it would be silly not to play them! Cricket has very limited penetration in Scotland. Football dominates the landscape there more than it does any other part of the UK. Here is a link to a whimsical article on Scottish cricket: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/19/england-cricket-team-scotland

My point,Milord was that Ireland and Scotland(along with Wales) are devolved legislatures and as such are equally dependent and Independent. The English would say they have an inordinately high representation in the House of Commons and on England's affairs. I understand that the majority of Scots want to maintain the status quo but there is a significant portion that want more autonomy. And Cricket may just be the avenue. Without being facetious I would love to know more about the relationship between England and Scotland. I fear that Politics and Cricket(sport in general) are irretrievably linked. Pakistan/India,West Indies,with their different countries. South Africa/Zimbabwe,Sri Lanka...... Australia,England and NZ seem relatively free of the political baggage.

There are somewhat muddled thoughts here. First, Freud, I think you're a bit off beam with your suggestion about Ireland. I don't think England particularly desires a cricketing "neighbour". After all, England's cricketing rivals have always been, and always will be, Australia. I don't think anyone is too bothered about creating new rivalries. There is scarcely enough interest in cricket outside the Ashes as it is. However, the ECB, like most cricket lovers around the world, wants to see cricket grow - so if Ireland reach the required standard, then I'm sure England will be supportive. Perhaps in time, a new rivalry will kick off, but it will take a very long time. Vinay, England certainly did try to colonise Ireland without success, but that process came to an end about a century ago. The case of Scotland is rather different. Scotland is a free and equal partner in the United Kingdom, over which it exerts enormous influence. It is quite wrong to suggest that the English have sought to "colonise" Scotland. In fact, you will meet plenty of Englishmen who believe themselves to be a de facto colony of Scotland. As for cricket in both countries, it is very much seen as an English sport and consequently an Anglophobic Scotsman or Irishman would be exceedingly unlikely to play cricket in the first place. I do not doubt that both the Irish and Scots wish to preserve their cricketing independence, but it is for practical and administrative reasons - not for political reasons.

Wouldnt play it in India if it was a Test match ;)

I was just getting ready to post exactly this JW, which is a lesson in reading all the way to the bottom! Completely agree, and this would be a much better match-up than any World XI contest. Love Brian's teams above, though I might switch Hussey and Duminy for de Villiers and Clarke respectively. NH team seems pretty right. Forget theoreticals Kersi, send this straight to Dubai!!

Spoken like a true cricket lover,jw17.

instead of the icc organising world XI v Australia this idea would be a fantastic idea to play in india, raise some money for cricket in west indies, bangladesh, zimbabwe, etc...

I'd have Smith or Kirsten ahead of Langer and Lee as 12th man a bit of a joke. I'n unclear if the players had to play after 2000 or perform after 2000. M Waugh & Donald were both nearly spent by the time 2000 came around but then C Walsh didn't make your squad and he played in 2000. Still a fun exercise. As I'm unclear on the criteria I'll pick the teams for a Nov 2009 clash NH - Sehwag, Strauus, Sangakarra, Tendulker, Jayawardene, Yousouf, Dhoni, Bravo, Sharma, Anderson, Muralitharan SH - Smith, Katich, Ponting, Kallis, De Williers, Clarke, McCullum, Johnson, Vettori, Steyn, Bond

Roar selectors, I keep picking unusual teams to make me realise how difficult a selector's job is. My teams do not please me a day after I pick it!! On retrospect, I should have chosen Shaun Pollock ahead of Chris Cairns. Would love to have Dhoni as skipper-'keeper but to me Sangakkara is a superior bat. But then Dhoni is a better leader than Atherton. (That's why they have four selectors and not one!) Ambrose just makes it as he played in 2000 and marginally satisfies the selection criteria. I wanted a tearaway quickie and Curtly just made the cut.

Without wanting to go off thread my take is that England for long have tried to "colonise" Ireland and Scotland but have not succeeded. Both are fiercely independent and having a National Cricket Team is more to do with asserting Independence. The advantage Ireland and Scotland have is that they have access to a resonable cricket structure in England. Can only be good for the game. I believe the ICC should be diverting more funds into "culturally receptive" countries like Ireland and Scotland,than trying to expand into China and the USA. More infrastructure is needed in the Windies and Bangladesh. I must admit ,though,that the ICC is at least trying to broaden the base. We'' leave the Immigration for another day but ,yes,I am in broad agreement.

Vinay, some interesting thoughts there but I was just pondering something the other day while reading about Ireland wanting to become a test nation. Firstly, how "dominant" southern hemisphere cricket teams have become. When one considers that of the top nations, only 3 are from the SH with a combined population of far less than 100 Mill and you see the quality available to pick a Best XI then it is quite amazing how "lopsided" the talent seems. Secondly, England, the home of cricket doesn't really have a "neighbour" and I was wondering if that was why Ireland is being considered for admission? Cricket obviously expanded along colonial lines and colonisation took place in "areas", as such we have Aus/NZ - SAF/Zimb - Pak/Ind etc so only England stands alone (obviously they couldn't "colonise" Germany, Holland etc.), The West Indian nations battle it out amongst one another but England have to settle on playing with other Englishmen. Surely something as pedantic as that couldn't be a reason behind including a nation into the cricket family, or could it? I see you're bringing some politics in here. Be careful that might get moderated, the editors have been cracking down lately. I can only agree in part. I am open to immigration, Australia is so huge and sparsely populated that being against population is ridiculous, not to mention the fact that Aus needs immigrants with a negative birth rate and skills shortage. That being said, I've seen some pretty "bad immigration". The Turks here in Germany are in a terrible situation. They are an inferior class and they have set-up a large sub culture here and not properly integrated themselves but the blame lies with the government who obviously had no long term strategy on how to deal with the large numbers coming in. So yes, open the borders but do it smartly. Plan it somewhat like the American Green Card system (just with a lot more places) and allow a certain amount in each year, don't put them into little pockets, encourage integration and diversification rather than just immigration for the sake of immigration.

Forward this on to the ICC and you'll have a round-robin exhibition series every yer, they'd love the idea. Firstly, on your teams Kersi. I realise you have to reduce the selection criteria but I can't fathom your choice of Ambrose, particularly as his last test was in 2000. Surely Gough or Vaas have performed better in the 00's than the few tests the Windian played? Regarding the Southern Hemisphere - I think you're pretty close, but I'd swap Kallis and Ponting's positions in the batting lineup as I think Kallis is more suited at 3 and Ponting is more flexible and I think it must be an oversight, otherwise I'd love to hear your reasoning behind not including Pollock?

Sheek,Kersi With deference,Iwould have Strauss and Sehwag as my openers and bring in Dravid for Pietersen. You need Dravid at three to balance Sehwag going cheaply. The Laras and Tendulkars can come in at 4 and 5 and to insure against another stumble Sangakkara at 6 and Dhoni at 7 Flintoff at 8 followed by Akram at 9 then Murali and Ambrose. Dhoni's keeping is improving and his catch to get rid of the Sri Lankan Opener was top drawer. My Captain would be Dhoni The SH team must have Smith and Hayden as openers. And when you have Kallis and Gilchrist in the side you dont need a third allrounder like Chris Cairns. I would replace him with Shane Bond who shakes and stirs batsmen like 007 would a martini. And as a footnote if the Northern Hemisphere wins they can settle 200000 Sri Lankans in Australia and NZ. And if the Southern H wins India will abolish visas for Australians and NZ and England will only buy Australian and SAF wines in the future.

Kersi, Love this stuff! In your NH team, I would replace Atherton with Virender Sehwag. I would also bring Dhoni in for Sangakkarar, since Dhoni is a specialist keeper, while Sanga was basically a part-timer in the role, but still damn good. Picking two from Sanga, Pietersen & Yousef is tough, very tough. Not to mention Dravid. But I think you are right leaving him out of the XI. Dravid will save you many tests, but he won't win too many on the basis his batting is oftewn too slow. Can't complain about the NH bowling. In your SH team, no Shaun Pollock anywhere? I guess i'm a fan of the name Pollock in SA cricket. Nor any Gaeme Smith, but hard to quibble with the XI given. I must confess I've never been a huge fan of Brett Lee. He could bowl fast, but he is not top drawer. Yes, it would be fascinating to see something like this, although we need extra tests like a hole in the head. Then again, what we DO NEED are more QUALITY matches, not meaningless chaff.