World XI Squads Named

[Maranello]

Not so sure Rachael; picking an all-rounder as a super-sub weakens both the batting and the bowling! Much better to go for a specialist, as Fletcher does with Solanki (and that was one super-sub that did pay off handsomely!).

if Australia are bowling first he can try and make do without Afridi... and substitute him in for Dravid or Pietersen when Australia bowl...

Not sure what you mean there, perhaps there should have a bat instead of bowl in the last word of that phrase?

Regardless of who is batting or bowling first, you would want the likes of Afridi, Flintoff and Gayle to be on the field and available for the entire duration of the match, as they could change the course of the game with the bat, the ball or in the field.

The super-sub would in effect only be around for one half of the game, either as a batsman or as a bowler, unless he is substituted very early (which would indicate something has gone wrong). However, selecting Afridi purely as a batsmen or purely as a bowler is a waste of a selection; there are many better bowlers and quite a few better batsmen around, and many fielders of equal agility and prowess; it is the combination of all three that makes Afridi a World XI player, not his particular expertise at any one.

[Rachael]

Sorry about the typo... but you answer your own query: Afridi's a better batsman than Akhtar and Muralitharan,,, and a better bowler than Dravid or Pietersen... but not actually good enough at anything to be a player you want on the field throughout the game.

There's so much batting in this team that you'd not consider Afridi anything other than a bonus player: you don't start the game with him... but if you've bowled first (without him) and can bring him on for Akhtar you've a bonus player who can go out and slog at the top of the order knowing it doesn't matter one bit if he gets out as Sangakkara, Dravid, Kallis, and the rest to follow.

There's so much bowling in this team that you'd not consider Afridi anything other than a bonus player: you don't start a game with him... but if you've batted first (without him) you can bring him on for Dravid or Pietersen and have an extra bowler.

You can't do the same with Flintoff because he clearly has to bowl, bat and field and needs to be on throughout... but that's simply not true of Afridi: there's no top order bat that you'd risk having as supersub instead because you'd not risk not having him available if you lost the toss. Same with the speciaist bowlers.

[Maranello]

According to cricinfo's selective statistical analysis (link), Afridi's compelling stats against the current Australian team suggest that he "should be a shoo-in for all three games".

He has a better batting average than all of Lara, Gayle, Flintoff and Sehwag, and unsurprisingly, the best strike-rate of all: a scarcely believable 163, when the next best SR is Flintoff's 89.

In addition, he also has a better bowling average than Vettori, Murali, Flintoff and Pollock... and a better economy rate than Flintoff, Akhtar and Ntini too. His ten wickets have included both Ponting and Martyn four times each, both of whom have obviously struggled against him, even to score at a decent rate.

[dextrous]

You need to look at career averages. Surely, you don't expect a real top-order batsman to make way for Afridi, who is at his best like to score a quick 20-30.