The perils of selective selection

The greatest show on cricketing earth turned out to be as even a contest as a crippled antelope being hunted down by a pack of hungry cheetahs. The World XI weren't just beaten, they were eviscerated, and several lofty reputations buried under the puffs of dust that Shane Warne and Stuart MacGill raised each time their lethal deliveries hit a fissure on the SCG surface. It was always going to be thus, especially once Australia lost the Ashes.

Had they not, they too might have treated this jamboree as a testimonial as many of the World stars appeared to. Short on match practice, bereft of inspiration and with little of the collective zeal that permeates a successful team, they sleepwalked their way to humiliation. There were a couple of exceptions, most notably Muttiah Muralitharan who, as a colleague archly pointed out, would take soft-ball cricket in a ten-foot-long office corridor seriously.

How different it might have been had Australia taken on England - ranked second in the ICC Test table after their Ashes conquest - or India, the only team to match Australia blow-for-blow over the past decade, excepting for one disastrous series in Australia in 1999-2000. John Wright, who enjoyed considerable success against his trans-Tasman rivals while coaching India, oversaw the World XI debacle and afterwards, he was inclined to agree when asked what would constitute a truly Super Series. "From a personal point of view, sometimes finals are attractive," he said, "where the winner takes all, one and two [in the Test-match table] over the four years." Such a match-up might conceivably have replicated the red-blooded intensity of the Ashes, or pretty much every India-Australia Test dating back to 2001.

Some of the World stars shouldn't even have played, and the squads picked were rightly criticised by those who knew the nature of the challenge. Shaun Pollock, who captained the one-day side, was once a terrific opening bowler, but since he led South Africa to an ignominious exit on home turf at the 2003 World Cup, he has managed just 55 wickets from 53 games at 31.92, in stark contrast to 268 wickets at 22.83 in 186 preceding outings.

Reputation, marketability and stats alone don't a winning team make. The selectors were aware months ago that the opposition would be Australia, and that the amphitheatre would be the SCG. Yet, there was no attempt to select VVS Laxman - that innings, and scores of 167 and 148 in his two Sydney outings - or Michael Vaughan, four centuries in two Ashes campaigns.

Even Laxman in bad nick - despite being in the doldrums, he stroked a sparkling 68 to win India a Test against Australia in Mumbai last winter - would have been a better investment than some of the batsmen who disgraced themselves over the past fortnight. Likewise, Vaughan, along with Sourav Ganguly, remains the only leader to have taken on the Australians and survived to tell the tale. Graeme Smith, for all the promise that he has shown, simply doesn't have the same tactical nous.

Most embarrassing was the case of Inzamam-ul-Haq. After throwing the toys from the pram following his initial exclusion from the squad, Inzi did himself no favours by scoring in binary and continuing a wretched run against the best that the game has to offer. And given the venue, Anil Kumble's exclusion was also perplexing. If 12 wickets in Steve Waugh's final Test was not commendation enough, then 51 Aussie scalps at 27.35 in seven Tests going back to Adelaide 2003 should have booked his ticket.

Those, though, are the borderline calls, where hindsight comes to the fore. But you didn't need to be a soothsayer to predict that selecting Mark Boucher ahead of the in-form Kumar Sangakkara would have disastrous repercussions. Apart from being in supreme touch with the bat, Sangakkara has also been exemplary behind the stumps, handling Murali's square turn with aplomb, but instead of picking someone in his prime, the cap was handed out to another has-been.

Given that the intention was to promote the game and concept globally, the player-net should have been cast wider too. Tatenda Taibu might have sneaked in on merit alone, and an enthusiastic and talented Bangladesh or Kenyan would have busted a gut on such a big stage, unlike several ageing stalwarts who shuffled around the outfield with hands in pockets and minds a million miles away.

Mark Nicholas and Simon O'Donnell need to be congratulated for talking of "terrific contests" with a straight face and not a snigger in sight. But those unfortunate enough to watch a team walk all over cricket's Harlem Globetrotters had little stomach for a laugh. Mr Bean aside, contrived humour can be painful at the best of times.