I hate tamashas. Most of the time anyway. So I am wary of hype and glittering award nights, whether AFL, Oscars, Idols or Whatever. There must be a touch of the Calvinist in me. Or maybe the ascetic threads of Theravada Buddhism in the world around me in Sri Lanka seeped through into my skin.

When it comes to choosing mythical teams for mythical games, this distaste deepens. The best twentieth century team seems so much twaddle, a juvenile pastime on a par with the game called "book cricket" that some of us played so assiduously in our childhood. Teams, after all, are chosen for specific sites, that is, pitches. One plays two spinners in Sydney usually, et cetera et cetera.

Okay, I grant that this perspective on my part is rank prejudice. There is surely a case for recognising the best Test and ODI players in any one year by selecting the BEST of the BEST? Without fear of favour, and without prejudice and what not, of course? Maybe.

Responding from within this framework of prejudice, both the selections at the ICC Award Night, and the responses to Murali's omission from the Best Test Eleven in 2003-04, led me to the conclusion that the cricket world was in urgent need of a dose of Roy and HG. What a need for them! What a great subject for their style of tease, play and parody!

For those who are not familiar with these two comedians, let me note that these are two Aussie blokes who take the mickey out of . well, most everything. It is a kind of Aussie-style humour. Some -- especially those of stiff, upper-lip British temperament -- simply hate the two of them. Others love them. Yet others can take them in small doses. I am in the last cluster.

So, I say: "This is the moment for Roy and HG. WHEN THE GOING GETS SERIOUS, SEND FOR ROY & HG."

Roy and HG, of course, would also turn their attentions to my own intervention in this "field of serious debate." Nothing is sacred. Not even the urbane, silver-haired doyen of cricket commentators, Richie Benaud, would be exempt from their scrutiny. As, indeed, he should not be. No favours are allowed.

Becoming serious myself, as a cricket analyst of sorts, the selection of the best Test Eleven did puzzle me on at least two counts. One is that which has alarmed many commentators, both Sri Lankan patriot and, fortunately, others less subjectively engaged in Sri Lankan affairs as well. I refer, of course, to the choice of Warne over Muralitharan as spinner in the team. Over the year 2003-04 Murali took " a remarkable 68 wickets, more than any other bowler, at an average of just 17.47 from only eight Tests" (Crutcher in Herald Sun ). His scalps included 28 Australian 26 English, 5 South African and 4 Zimbabwean according to one estimate that counts nine tests (Skanda Kumar in Daily Mirror, 11 Sept 2004). His bowling average was (is) superior to that of Warne and he took four wickets or more in twelve of the 16 innings he bowled in - an amazing statistic really. The contrast with Warne is stark. It should have been an open and shut case.

Forgotten Dimensions: Four Pacemen?

There is a second cricketing failure, however, that has not drawn comment. Selecting a side for a pitch deemed to be a "fair pitch," the five selectors opted for a bowling attack with one spinner and four pacemen of various types, including one allrounder in Kallis.

Kallis is a top allrounder, able to compete with both batsmen and fast bowlers for a spot in that capacity in most sides. Likewise with Gilchrist in the side as wicket-keeper the selectors had seven quality batsmen, thereby gaining leeway in selecting bowlers who could not bat well. They opted for Warne as spinner and three more pacemen: Vaas, Gillespie and Harmison.

That is my criticism: a World XI must be capable of taking 22 wickets over five days. A balanced attack is called for. in my book that means two spinners of two different types and three pacemen of different types. Murali and Warne, in that order, should have been pencilled in as off spinner and leg spinner respectively, and with Kallis already in the side as allrounder the last two spots should have been a battle between Harmison, Gillespie and Vaas.

The latter are different types of pacemen. Harmison is genuinely quick, has a wicked short ball and angles the ball in. Gillespie's bowling virtues are line, length, guile and consistency. Vaas is left-arm medium pace and brings yet another angle to the attack, besides being a master of swing, with guile and consistency.

It is presumably on this ground that their four choices are all different types of bowlers that the selectors opted for all of them. I insist, however, that two spinners provide more variety especially when there are some batsmen in any side who are less comfortable against spin. Let me be arrogant here: in MY TEAM one of Vaas, Harmison and Gillespie would have been the unlucky one.

If this line of criticism is valid, then the question arises: why did the five wise men opt for four pace bowlers? Let's speculate. One obvious answer is that Botham and Holding are pacemen. If only one was a fly on the wall of the council chambers and could see what the response was if, say, Benaud or Gavaskar, raised this line of possibility. Or maybe the idea never emerged?

To me, then, the ICC Award Night is not significant per se. It is noteworthy in revealing a whole array of prejudices in operation. Michael Crutcher has already concluded that Muralitharan's pariah status as an alleged chucker was the ground on which the horrendous decision to exclude him was taken. May I suggest other possible influences at play?

One is the role of Botham as a personality who is, so to speak, a chip from the Warne block. Well, since he is older, I should put it the other way: Warne is Botham personified. In their youthful playing days both emerged as brash, confident, even arrogant, young men with a yen for frolic, women and beer. They had something of the lout in them, with an occasional leer or two thrown in. So, LIKE flocks to LIKE? Right?

Then there is Benaud. Master leg spinner. Maybe also a sturdy figure of the old school? From the same stock as Colin Egar, Robin Bailhache, Barry Jarman, Bishen Bedi? Very diplomatic and polished old school however. Having heard him call Sri Lanka 's 1995-96 series in Australia , indeed, I would go further and ... But self-preservation demands self-censorship.

May there be more ICC Award Nights then! They are so enlightening: they reveal to one and all, simple souls and wise alike, the ways of the world - without fear or favour, prejudice or leaning.