Asif, the political scapegoat | Thebigtip

Sir Donald Bradman once said "funny game, that cricket". He may have been talking to Merv Hughes at the time about his innings with Dean Jones, but if cricket's greatest name was alive today he could easily add 'administration' to the end of the sentence and he would not be far wrong.

Over the last decade the power base in cricket administration has shifted from Lords to Mumbai and for the most part this change is a welcome achievement. The Indians have not only the money to engage in such a task they also have a vision for the game that makes it sustainable long term. They are interested in exploring new ideas, in developing the game and have a clear mandate on how the game should be played on the field.

Unfortunately at times there is a murkiness that leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. You see there is an unhealthy link between running cricket in India and running the country.

As Australians we do not understand the seriousness of the game in India. We think it is nice that John Howard can sit in a commentary box for 20 minutes every Sydney Test Match, but if Julia Gillard ever told Ricky Ponitng how to captain she would quite rightly be told where to go.

Indian politicans constently interfere with the BCCI, conducting inquiries, leading investigations into bad performances and debating in parliament the future of the game. BCCI board members are invariably members of parliament or have strong links with government. With this extremely close relationship with Indian cricket, the Indian political culture is thus transfered, which includes the stiff hatred of Pakistan.

It is only a small degree of separation to transfer this attitude to the ICC. It could simply be a conspiracy theory, but the governing body seems to take everything that is negative about Pakistani cricket extremely serious yet on the flip side any chance to fix problems are handed down with two-faced lackadaisicalness.

The big issues need not be discussed here because this is about the small things. The individuals who at the end get hurt by this game-playing political stance. And I am concerned here about one individual in particular.

Reading through the recently announced ICC Test Team of the Year I found it strange the ommitance of the 3rd ranked bowler in the world. Mohammad Asif is not in the bowling line up that includes James Anderson and Doug Bollinger. I hope beyond hope that this is not politics rearing its ugly head into an arena it should not be in. Surely not that a Pakistani player has been deliberately left out?

The excuse may be made that Asif is currently suspended awaiting (ICC) trial over match fixing charges. Unfortunately for those that espouse this argument, he has not been found guilty, neither has he even had a chance to disprove his accusers! (As an aside, the fact that the heavily resourced Scotland Yard investigative team has not yet laid charges make it unlikely these three players can be found guilty by an under-resourced ICC panel.)

Others may say that Asif is a bad egg and bad for the game.

And it is true that he has the match-fixing slur hanging over his head; and that he has been suspended for drugs in the past; and that he has a less than flattering private life.

Yet Shane Warne ticks all of these boxes and he is adored in India, respected in England and put on a pedestal in Australia.

Surely not that being a controversial Pakistani the ICC are trying to dodge a bullet by not selecting him? Because it has nothing to do with performance.

Dale Steyn and Graeme Swann both are head and shoulders above other bowlers in the world and deserve their spots in this illustrious team. But Asif has had as good, if not better year, than Anderson and Bollinger.

My arguement for Asif to be in place of Bollinger is based on oppostion and conditions. The Pakistani has had to play 5 tests against Australia, 4 against England and 3 against New Zealand. These are hard tasks. Whilst New Zealand are minnows, bowling in Australia has proven to be a foreigner's graveyard (Anderson averages over 80) and England, it can be argued, are in the top three batting sides in the world in their own conditions.

Bollinger had a better record over the full year in terms of average (22.7 compared to 25.5) but he averaged less wickets per game and played his against New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies - three of the four worst batting sides in the world. I argue that Asif's record is better than Bollinger's because of the opposition he played.

In my mind there is no comparison between him and Anderson. The English fast man toured South Africa early in the year and produced 18 wickets at 30.4. This means that his selection in the world's best test team is based on his home summer.

If this is the case , that a player can be selected on half a year's performance. then Asif's opening partner Mohammad Amir should be in the side.

It could not be that Amir is a controversial Pakistan player?

Amir's English summer produced 30 wickets at 19 a piece, against Australia and England. This is hands down much better than Anderson's 32 wickets at 16.8 against Bangladesh and Pakistan.

But the Test Team of the Year should be judged over a full year and the opposition played. And to include Bollinger and Anderson, or to leave out the mastery of Asif means that the selectors have erred.

Jason Gillespie will forever be judged less on his double century as night watchman because he scored it against Bangladesh. The same should have been done for Bollinger and Anderson.

Cricket is indeed a funny game; politics is a more sinister one. Combine the two and scapegoats are falsely and wrongly made. Mohammad Asif is one of these.