Picking a top cricketer’s no Rash decision

CRICKET pundits love nothing more than a high horse and there are plenty clambering on one after the selection of Adil Rashid in the England squad for the first Test match against India.

Earlier this year, Rashid (below) decided not to play red-ball cricket for Yorkshire, who are also majorly affronted at his call-up.

The general question being asked is what does this say about the county game?

It says Rashid – no longer a young player learning his trade – has had a very good grounding of 166 firstclass matches, in which he took 490 wickets. It says the County Championship fixturescheduling is lousy and Rashid had to make a decision that he considered was best for prolonging his career.

In fact, the ECB have offered a sop to the many critics of the decision by insisting the leg spinner will have to commit to red-ball county cricket next season if he wants to remain eligible for the Test team.

Why?

Imposing regulations on selection for a national team should be an anathema.

In English rugby union, for example, the rule that prevents players representing their nation because they work abroad is ridiculous. That not playing four-day cricket for his county should debar Rashid from the Test team is equally ridiculous.

When it comes to representing England at ANY sport, there should be only two stipulations.

You are English and you are good enough.

TIGER WOODS provided some great moments and memories from a fantastic Open at Carnoustie, not least of which was the best euphemism for being drunk you are likely to hear.

“He may have been a little overserved,” Tiger said of the chap who shouted at the top of his backswing on his 72nd hole. Over-served as a newt, probably.