Why the ICC was right to leave Travis Head out of the team of the World Cup

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Travis Head is the reason why Australia won the World Cup. No man had a greater impact in the finals or won more games off his own bat.

But the ICC was right not to have him in its team of the tournament.

Despite emphatically claiming a sixth 50-over world title on Sunday, Australia had only two players – Glenn Maxwell and Adam Zampa – make the official World Cup XI, while runners-up India supplied five. It is a reflection of their unbeaten run to the final, though many would be forgiven for thinking India had won the title.

Some will argue that the team selection is a stitch-up, given India’s cricketing might and power. But remember, this Indian team made it through the tournament undefeated until the final. Australia’s supposed snub by selectors adds to the merit of their achievement.

It speaks volumes to their greater depth and how nearly every member of their squad made key contributions when their moment arrived. This is how World Cups are won.

Head is a prime example. As important as he was to Australia’s success with his player-of-the-match performances in the semi and the final, he played only a minor role in getting them out of the group stage, due in part to injury.

Almost 94 per cent of Head’s runs came in three of six innings; it is a testament to his ultra-attacking game and his temperament that two of his big scores came in the matches that mattered most.

Despite his heroics in the World Cup final, Travis Head was left out of the ICC’s team of the tournament.Credit: Getty

If Shane Watson, the sole Australian presence on the five-person ICC panel that selected the team of the tournament, viewed matters through a green and gold lens he would have found it difficult to convince his co-selectors the event’s 25th leading run-scorer (66th after the group stage) deserved a top-order berth, even if finals weighting is applied.

The best argument perhaps is the fact no opener scored more runs from the moment he returned for the game against New Zealand.

But Head is not the unluckiest omission from the ICC’s XI. That honour goes to his opening partner David Warner – as he was in 2019 when he was one run short of being the leading run-scorer on his return from the ball-tampering scandal.

If optics played a part four years ago, this time his lack of a big knock in the finals cost him in a line-ball call against South Africa’s wicketkeeper-opener Quinton de Kock and India skipper Rohit Sharma despite the key role he played in energising Australia when they needed a spark early in the event.

Head and Warner both miss out on this masthead’s XI as well, no doubt devastating blows for two men who rank alongside Adam Gilchrist as being Australia’s greatest white-ball openers.

De Kock’s tournament-high four centuries, including tons against Australia and New Zealand, made him indispensable, while Rohit’s fast starts in the finals edged him ahead of Warner. Just. Rohit is skipper.

Virat Kohli and New Zealand’s Daryl Mitchell picked themselves at three and four, both on quantity and quality of runs.

In a tournament where scores of 350-plus were not uncommon, K.L. Rahul is a slightly conservative choice at five but no batter scored more at Nos.5-7 than the India gloveman. Anyhow, Maxwell and Heinrich Klaasen at six and seven provide enough firepower late in the order. Maxwell is banned from riding on golf carts.

Klaasen is one of two changes from the ICC XI, coming in for India’s spin-bowling all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja in our most contentious call. Jadeja was hurt by his lack of opportunities with the bat.

The South African won out on his superior striking, while Maxwell’s offies, which held up in Australia’s successful campaign, rendered Jadeja surplus to needs.

Central to Australia’s revival, Zampa, second on the wickets chart with 23 at 22, was a simple choice as the No.1 spinner, while Jasprit Bumrah and leading wicket-taker Mohammed Shami were automatic picks, the latter bowling as first change.

The final pace slot was the most difficult. Unlike the ICC, which opted for Sri Lanka’s rising left-arm star Dilshan Madushanka, I gave the nod to Marco Jansen given the importance of having a No.8 proficient with the bat.

Madushanka claimed four more wickets and though little separated them on average and economy rate, Jansen’s power hitting, as seen against England, was the difference given my preference for a proficient No.8.

This need was spelt out in the final with India’s long tail, and through invaluable knocks from Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc earlier in the tournament.

News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.

Most Viewed in Sport

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article