Stuart Wark

The next individual who could be considered India's first great batsman was also born in India, but also did not represent them at Test level. This man was KS (Kumar Shri) Ranjitsinhji, known by all supporters of the game simply as Ranji. He was born on September 10, 1872 to a minor nobleman in the Indian province of Kathiawar. However, in a stroke of great fortune for Ranji, Jam Sahib Vibhaji, who was the ruler of the local province, adopted Ranji as his heir. This allowed Ranji the opportunity to attend school in England, and his obvious skills with the bat were shaped by RS Goodchild, who was the headmaster of St Faith's College.

In fact, the first "black" cricketer to play for Australia was Sam Morris - born in Tasmania to West Indian parents - who made his Test debut on January 1, 1885, nearly 130 years ago. It is also worth noting that the first tour of England by players from Australia was the 1868 side composed of Aboriginal cricketers from Victoria. At the time of commencement of Test cricket in 1877, Australia was predominantly populated with people with British heritage, and as such, it is not surprising that historically players were "white".

However, since the time of Morris, Australian cricket has not featured many people of indigenous heritage other than Jason Gillespie and Dan Christian in recent years. This is in significant contrast to the representation of aboriginal players in the various football codes. For example, the Australian Football League (AFL) notes on its website that there are currently around 70 Aboriginal players featuring for the various top-line clubs. This means that around 10% of players have indigenous heritage. Similarly, 12% of all the National Rugby League players identify as being Aboriginal. This representation is very high, when considering that people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage make up around 2-3% of the total Australian population.

Back in the season of 1744, London played Slindon in a one-day match on June 2. This is one of the earliest recorded matches of which comprehensive records are available, however few details other than team and player scores are recorded, with Slindon winning by "55 notches".*

Pitches during this period of history were perhaps not quite as batsman-friendly as seen today, and it was entirely expected for matches to be completed within one day. The year 1744 was also an important one for cricket officials, as it was when the "Laws of Cricket" were formulated by a group of "Noblemen and Gentlemen" who played in London.

After nearly four decades of no new teams, it was less than two years before the fifth Test-playing nation arrived. It is often to many people's surprise that the next entrant to the international stage was New Zealand rather than India, who in turn did not play their first Test until a few years later. Yet again it was England who acted as the inductee for a new nation, having previously featured in the inaugural Tests of Australia, South Africa and West Indies. It was somewhat appropriate, as England and New Zealand shared a long cricketing history that went back to the mid-1800s.

The present Australian selectors were subjected to considerable criticism over their choices for the tour of India. Many of the more considered denunciations actually occurred prior to any matches commencing, and were largely based around the perceived premise that players were selected on the basis of their limited-overs performances rather than either their long-term achievements or current form in the first-class arena.

The art of selection has never been an easy one. A check on the internet shows that this recent critiquing of the national selection panel is not a new phenomenon; a quick search shows a total of around 100,000 hits for the terms "Inverarity", "Hilditch", or "Hohns" with the word "blunder". Former Australia selector John Benaud, who incidentally finished his career with a better Test batting and bowling average than his more famous brother Richie, nominated "form, a player's past record, temperament under pressure, enterprise, all-round flexibility, team balance, playing conditions and the opposition and the gameplay to try and win" as some of the factors involved in making selection decisions. The selectors have to balance the potential of young players with the experience of older heads. There is a very difficult line to be trod - tried and failed does not necessarily mean forever a failure. Matt Hayden, Justin Langer, Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke are merely some members of the Australian batting line-up who were dropped for poor performance and had to fight at the first-class level to deserve their chance again.

Nominating the best-ever team from a given country is a game that is often played amongst cricket enthusiasts when the rain is tumbling down. To do so with countries with long and rich histories such as Australia or England makes this process a fun discussion, if ultimately an impossible one to ever definitively agree upon. However, if the consideration falls instead on to a nation such as Zimbabwe, it would appear an easier exercise. They have only played a total of 87 Tests since their admittance as a Full Member in 1992. Selecting their best-ever team would therefore appear somewhat simpler due to the limited sample size. Furthermore, if we exclude matches against fellow international newcomers Bangladesh, Zimbabwe have only ever beaten one Test playing nation, Pakistan, in a full Test series (ie. with more than one scheduled Test), back in 1998. Therefore, it would appear obvious to pick that team as being the best ever to represent Zimbabwe. Indeed, this side did feature many very good players, including the Flower brothers, Murray Goodwin and Heath Streak. However, if we put aside the semantics of the name 'Zimbabwe' and instead look at the best team from that geographic area of Africa, other worthy options appear.

The history of cricket in what is now known as Zimbabwe extends back well prior to 1992, with international tours first occurring around a century earlier. This area of land was then known as 'Rhodesia' rather than Zimbabwe. Rhodesia had a long and complicated political history. The name was first officially coined in the mid 1890s to reflect the area that is now known as the separate nations of Zimbabwe and Zambia. By 1911, the land to the north of the Zambezi river was recognized as 'Northern Rhodesia', with the other half being, naturally enough, 'Southern Rhodesia'. Southern Rhodesia was granted the right to self-government in 1923, while Northern Rhodesia remained under British administration. When Northern Rhodesia gained independence in 1964 and changed its name to Zambia, Southern Rhodesia started to refer to itself as just Rhodesia. It used this name until formally becoming the independent nation of Zimbabwe in 1980, following a long and bitter civil war.

India had joined the family of international cricket nations in 1932, playing their inaugural Test against England at Lord's. This one-off game was followed by a further nine matches against England, spread spasmodically over the next fourteen years. The Australian Board of Control for International Cricket was clearly less enthusiastic about the role of encouraging and nurturing new Test countries than their English counterparts. Australia had played 74 consecutive Tests against England before they ventured into a match against South Africa in 1902. It was then another 28 years and 123 Tests before they played against a fourth team, West Indies. India had not played an official Test against a country other than England until 1947, when they were invited to tour Australia. India struggled to compete, and lost the five match series 4-0, with the one drawn game losing well over three entire days due to rain. It was almost a decade later before Australia finally agreed to a reciprocal tour of India, following the 1956 Ashes tour and a one-off Test against Pakistan.

An undercurrent of international politics and financial considerations appears to have played a significant role in the tour occurring. From 1947 to 1950, when its Constitution came into force, India was a self-governing Dominion in Britain's Commonwealth*. Australia had been closely involved in the development of the Commonwealth over many years, with the coining of the term "Commonwealth of Nations" being ascribed to Lord Rosebery during a visit to Australia back in 1884.