From S Giridhar and VJ Raghunath, India

Roy Fredericks packed enormous angst in his shots © AllSport UK Ltd

Indians of our generation grew up listening to tales of Mushtaq Ali, the cavalier opening batsman of the 1930s and 40s. Forty years later, when Kris Srikkanth made it to the Indian team, Mushtaq was remembered. When Virender Sehwag began blazing away, Mushtaq was still being remembered. The allure of the dasher as a Test match opener is simply eternal.

Should not the Test opener play sensibly, see off the new ball, take the spite out of the wicket, tire the fast bowlers, and set up a platform for the batsmen to follow? Not for the dashing opener! Seventy for no loss at lunch may be alright for normal openers but for the dasher, it is better to be 123 for 1 at lunch! He stirs the senses like nobody else can. And that alone is reason enough to celebrate this priceless gift to cricket.

The vision is intoxicating; of a knight on a steed, rapier in hand, cutting a swathe for the batsmen to follow. The pitch might be green, the ball swinging prodigiously or bouncing sharply. But these blithe spirits - they see the ball, their eyes light up and they go for it. Audacity, instinct, hand-eye coordination certainly but most important, technique is their servant and not the other way round. Because they bring off outrageous shots, people tend to think they have a loose technique. Far from it. Sehwag brings down his bat as straight as any “technically sound batsman”. The dasher often fails because he chooses to attack a ball that should not have been so belligerently addressed. Their very vulnerability adds to their irresistible charm.

Here is our list of the glory buccaneers among Test openers. Our list begins with Victor Trumper, the first and most endearing of these wonderful batsmen and ends with Sehwag, the greatest torchbearer of the tribe. The rest is in random order. Figures against the names pertain only to those Tests they played as opening batsmen.

1. Victor Trumper: 1901-12; 32 tests; 1650 runs; average: 33

This is written in sheer yearning for Trumper, who played his cricket 100 years ago. Our school boy impressions are from the stories of Trumper by Cardus, Fingleton and Robinson. The pictures that accompanied the prose always showed Trumper jumping out of his crease, and finishing a straight hit. Trumper was one in a million. Take your pick from these glorious run-a-minute centuries: Against England: in Manchester, 1902, 104 runs in just 115 minutes; Sydney in 1908, 166 runs in 241 minutes; Against South Africa: Melbourne in 1910, 159 runs off 158 balls and then 214 off 247 balls in Adelaide in the same series. Trumper died tragically young at 38.

2. Kris Srikkanth: 1981- 92; 43 Tests, 2062 runs, average 29.88

In January 1986, on the first morning of the Sydney Test, the authors left home around 7am for a nets session in preparation for a city tournament. Srikkanth was 27 not out when we set off. By 7.30am when we reached the ground, Srikkanth was 10 runs away from his century. The man had gone berserk. His fans will feel cheated if we do not mention how he belted Imran Khan and company out of Chepauk in January 1987, hitting 123 runs of just 147 balls. He had many bumbling dismissals but his square drive on a bent knee off Andy Roberts was the shot of the 1983 World Cup.

3. Farokh Engineer: 1965-1975; 26 Tests; 1577 runs; average 32.85.

For thousands of cricket-crazy spectators in Chennai, on the first morning of the Test match against West Indies in January 1967, it was excruciating to watch Dilip Sardesai sedately play out all six balls of the last over before lunch. It prevented Engineer from recording a century before the break. Engineer had already hit 97 runs that morning against Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith, Garry Sobers and Lance Gibbs, an innings that even now gives goose-bumps. He was the “Suicide pilot” opener for Lancashire in their Gillette cup matches.

4. Budhi Kunderan: 1960-67; 12 Tests; 782 runs; average: 41.15

In his second test, some mastermind promoted him to open for India against Alan Davidson and Ian Meckiff in Chennai. The first over he faced went for 14 runs - four hits and two misses. Kunderan continued in the same vein to score 71. Called in to replace the injured Engineer for the 1964 Test match in Chennai against England, he blasted nearly 200 runs on the opening day. There was minimum movement of feet, amazing hand-eye coordination and a flashing blade.

5. Colin Milburn: 1966-69; 7 Tests; 500 runs; average: 41.66

There was a rare cheerfulness to English batting during Milburn’s days, a combination of his bulk and attacking style. Given his build, Milburn sensibly preferred boundaries to running his singles. England may have lost the Old Trafford Test to West Indies in 1966, but Milburn, with a belligerent 94, made sure the ship went down with guns blazing. His stop-start Test career ended when he lost an eye in a car crash.

6. Roy Fredericks: 1968 – 77; 58 Tests, 4329 runs, average: 42.86

An abiding memory of the winter break in December 1975 was listening to the peerless Mcgilvray over radio bring alive Fredericks’ incandescent innings in Perth against Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Gary Gilmour and Max Walker. A small-made man, Fredericks packed enormous angst in his shots. His 169 runs of just 144 balls with 27 fours was sheer violence.

7. Shahid Afridi: 1998-2005; 15 Tests; 892 runs; average: 37.16.

In at least three Tests against India in India, Afridi opened the Pakistan innings at a blistering pace. Two (Chennai 1999 and Bangalore 2005) of those set up the platform for Pakistan wins. Although he stopped opening for Pakistan and became even more erratic down the order, Afridi is clearly the most bludgeoning batsman to ever open for Pakistan. The fact that his strike rate as a Test opener is over 86 runs per 100 balls says it all.

8. Keith Stackpole: 1969-74; 33 Tests, 2390 runs; average: 40.5

Stackpole became an opening batsman for Australia only after a few years in the middle order. But once he became the dour Bill Lawry’s opening partner he opened up great options for Australia. An attacking captain like Ian Chappell relished a belligerent opener who took the attack to opposing bowlers. On his only tour to India in 1969, he carved a century at the Brabourne Stadium but was rather quiet by his standards in the other matches.

9. Charlie Barnett: 1934-38; 12 Tests; 793 runs. average: 39.65

A prolific county player, Barnett is best remembered for his knock of 126 in the Nottingham Test against Australia when he narrowly missed a century before lunch. Barnett was a punishing batsman feared for his ferocious cuts and scorching drives played on the up. In many a county game, he hit the first ball he faced for six.

10. Virender Sehwag: 71 Tests; 6312 runs; average: 54.88

There has never been an opener like him and it is difficult to think there will be another in a lifetime. The stats are astounding: 19 centuries, of which two are triple centuries, four are double centuries and most are big centuries. His average of 54.88 is only below illustrious, classical openers like Jack Hobbs, Bert Sutcliffe and Len Hutton and above other all time greats. Add to that the number of wins he has set up through his explosive opening. To achieve such amazingly high yields at a strike rate of 80.87 puts him at a peak that nobody has scaled. His recent centuries have only got faster! Has anybody thrilled our senses like him?

And there are still Sanath Jayasuriya, Chris Gayle, Michael Slater, Mushtaq Ali, Matthew Hayden and many others to write about. Young Tamim Iqbal of Bangladesh is starting to put together rapid-fire centuries that may see him join this pantheon. But we must halt somewhere. Maybe another time and another place we will do justice to the other trailblazers.

From Arno Boerman, The Netherlands

Cricket hit the headlines in the Netherlands during the World Twenty20 last year, as there wasn't much else happening © Associated Press

Last week, the World Cricket League Division One started in the Netherlands. A week and twelve games later not many Dutchmen have noticed. No wonder really, with the national football team reaching the World Cup final in South Africa and the immensely popular Tour de France starting in Rotterdam.

If the Netherlands board (KNCB) and ICC want to broaden interest in cricket in the Netherlands, they will have to get the sport under the attention of the public. It is great that we got to host the WCL division I, but to get into the public's eye, you need media coverage. And cricket will not get any coverage in the Netherlands when there is World Cup football going on.

Last year, when Netherlands played the World Twenty20 and famously beat England in the opening game, cricket made the sports headlines. With not much else going on, cricket was an entertaining alternative and the surprise victory of 'our boys' sparked more interest than ever. The WCL is obviously not as sexy as beating England at the World Twenty20, but the latter would also not have gotten as much media coverage as it did had there been a World Cup football to compete with.

The point is, planning international matches for the 'lesser' countries should include making sure there are no major sport events at the same time. It will not always be possible to avoid an overlap, but surely more effort could be made? Was there no way the tournament could have started a week earlier? Cricket's governing bodies understand the role of the media perfectly, but seem to have missed the trick when planning these fixtures.

From Imran Coomaraswamy, United Kingdom

The world's greatest match-winner? © AFP

Earlier this year, a 60-strong panel of experts took part in a poll to select Cricinfo’s Cricketer of the 2000s. Ricky Ponting’s list of accomplishments as leader of the dominant Test and ODI team of the era justifiably earned him the top spot.

If separate prizes were awarded for each of the game’s formats, however, I would have given the trophy for champion Test cricketer to Muttiah Muralitharan. The “Milestone Man” took one and a half times as many wickets as Makhaya Ntini, the next highest wicket-taker in the Noughties, at a McGrath-like average and Waqar-esque strike rate. As Cricinfo pointed out, he remains top of the pile even if “cheap” wickets taken against Zimbabwe* and Bangladesh are excluded. His astonishing 20 ten-wicket hauls in 84 matches include at least one against every Test-playing nation. He won more Man-of-the-Match and Man-of-the-Series awards than any other player and propelled Sri Lanka from close to the bottom of the Test rankings to within a series win of top spot. What’s more, he achieved all this in the "Age of the Bat." If 55 is the new 50 as far as batting averages are concerned, just how good is a bowling average of 23.48 against the top eight teams? To my mind, Murali was the decade’s greatest match-winner by some distance, as well as its “greatest joy-giver.”

Murali does not play for one of the three nations – India, England and Australia – that dominate cricket’s money-making and its mass media. He has not had the advantage of the stage provided by a “marquee series” like the Ashes or India-Australia to help him grab the world’s attention. In fact, he has never even been afforded a five Test series in which to showcase his mastery: the majority of Sri Lanka’s series since 2000 have been just two Tests long, and none in their history more than three. As such, his moments of magic – just as important as statistics and records when it comes to achieving sporting immortality – perhaps do not get as much attention as they should.

Described below are the six moments that I believe were “Murali’s Greatest Hits of the Noughties.” On all these occasions – three at home and three away, each against a different opponent – Murali took ten wickets, won a Man-of-the-Match/Series award and ensured Sri Lanka emerged victorious.

Two in two in the twilight: 10 for 148 v Pakistan, Peshawar, 2000

One over of play left on the fourth day at Peshawar and a low-scoring match was delicately poised. A fiery Shoaib Akhtar had restricted Sri Lanka to 268 in their first innings and Pakistan had then slipped from 137 for 2 to 199 all out, with Murali the wrecker-in-chief. Thanks to Russell Arnold’s battling 99, Sri Lanka had set Pakistan a stiff victory target of 294, but at 220 for 6, the home side were very much in the game. Saeed Anwar was back at the crease after retiring hurt earlier in the innings and alongside him was Mohammad Yousuf (then Yousuf Youhana), who had counterattacked brilliantly, smashing three sixes and eight fours on his way to 88.

Enter Murali. Flighting the ball invitingly and generating massive turn off a slowing wicket, he trapped Yousuf leg before, before getting Waqar Younis to prod the very next ball to silly point. It took Sri Lanka just ten balls to finish off proceedings the next morning. Murali missed out on a hat-trick but did pick up the last wicket, sealing the match and the series.

Bat first, bat big, and let Murali do the rest: 13 for 171 v South Africa, Galle, 2000

Sri Lanka have won 31 of 53 home Tests since the turn of the millennium. In most of those matches, they have relied on a simple formula: bat first, bat big, and let Murali do the rest. This plan has never worked better than in the first Test against Shaun Pollock’s South Africa in 2000. A trademark onslaught from Sanath Jayasuriya and a big hundred from Mahela Jayawardene took Sri Lanka to 522 all out. Spectators watched from the ramparts of the Galle Fort as Sri Lanka then employed their siege engine. Two days later, Murali had taken 13 for 171 from 76 overs and the tourists had been bowled out twice. Jayasuriya summed things up nicely: “Murali bowled very well and everything else just fell into place.”

These days captains often turn down the chance to enforce the follow on as they are worried about tiring out their bowlers. Sri Lankan captains have had no such worries, even when temperatures on the island exceeded 35 degrees celsius. A spinner he may be, but Murali’s stamina – both physical and mental – is pretty much unprecedented.

Four in four: 10 for 135 v West Indies, Kandy, 2001

For most bowlers, a ten-for is a career-defining moment. Murali, on the other hand, has dealt in multiples of ten. At Kandy in 2001, he completed his fourth consecutive ten-wicket haul. Many people remember this particular tour as “Brian Lara v Sri Lanka,” as Lara scored 688 runs in six innings and yet failed to stop Sri Lanka winning 3-0. In this, the decisive second Test, Lara fell to Murali in the first innings and an umpiring blunder in the second. Life after Brian was not pleasant for the visitors. Murali took 4 for 9 in 14 balls to clinch Sri Lanka’s first ever series win over the West Indies.

A duel won and a devastating dose of déjà vu: 11 for 132 v England, Trent Bridge, 2006

Kevin Pietersen took the attack to Murali at Lord’s in 2006, famously switch-hitting him for six on the way to a superb century. Pietersen scored another crucial ton as England went 1-0 up at Edgbaston, though Murali gave the home side plenty of jitters as they chased down a small fourth innings target.

At Trent Bridge, Sri Lanka’s batsmen finally produced decent showings in both innings and set England 325 to win. Murali had taken already taken the first three wickets to fall when he ripped the heart out of England’s resistance in one sublime over. First, he won his personal duel with Pietersen, foxing him with a topspinner as he tried to charge down the track; KP found himself in quite a tangle and the ball bobbled up off pad and glove to Tillakaratne Dilshan at short leg. Next up was England’s acting captain Andrew Flintoff, who lasted just four balls. Murali ripped a doosra past the outside edge of the bat before tossing up an off-break that found the inside edge and lobbed straight to Dilshan once again.

Thereafter, the only question was whether Murali could take all ten wickets in the innings. In the end, he had to make do with 8 for 70, still the best ever figures at Trent Bridge. For England, it was a case of déjà vu. Their second loss to Sri Lanka on home soil had come in a similar manner to the first (at the Oval in 1998), courtesy of a Murali masterclass.

Filling his boots in Wellington: 10 for 118 v New Zealand, Wellington, 2006

Sri Lanka’s batsmen had struggled on a green-top in Christchurch but coped much better with similar seamer-friendly conditions at Basin Reserve. Kumar Sangakkara scored an unbeaten 150 in their first innings before Chamara Silva repeated the feat in their second. In between, Lasith Malinga terrorised the Kiwis with a lethal mixture of bouncers and yorkers. By the third and fourth days, however, the pitch had slowed down, leaving it up to Murali to finish the job. That he did, and in some style. His 6 for 87 levelled the series and completed an incredible sequence of performances in the second half of 2006. He had taken 60 wickets in six matches, all against major opposition (England away, South Africa at home, New Zealand away), including another set of four consecutive ten-fors.

Bamboozling the best: 11 for 110 v India, Sinhalese Sports Club, 2008

In the last 30 years, few spinners have genuinely troubled India’s batsmen, with the likes of Warne, Qadir, MacGill and Vettori all conceding around 50 runs per wicket against them. Murali has had to bowl more than 1100 overs at Indian batsmen in his career, 30% more than anyone else in history (60% more than Warne), and has averaged a very respectable 33.34. One of his very best spells came in a defeat at the Feroz Shah Kotla in 2005. His 5 for 23 on the second morning included the wickets of Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dhoni (to go with those of Dravid and Laxman, collected the previous day) and he single-handedly brought Sri Lanka back into that game. However, Sri Lanka failed to capitalise on Murali’s first innings heroics, just as they had done against Australia at Galle a year earlier.

At the S.S.C. in 2008, things were different, as Murali had top quality support** in the form of “mystery spinner” Ajantha Mendis. Far from feeling threatened by the hype surrounding Mendis’ debut, Murali rose to the occasion magnificently. When India followed on, they promoted Laxman to number three, no doubt hoping for a repeat of Eden Gardens in 2001. Murali had other ideas. He followed up his five-for in the first innings with a magical 6 for 26 in the second. Perhaps the sweetest moment was the dismissal of Gautam Gambhir, who was stumped smartly by Prasanna Jayawardene when a fizzing off-break dipped late and darted past his attempted off-drive. India lost by the mammoth margin of an innings and 239 runs. While his apprentice stole the show later in the series, Murali had certainly made his mark.

* It is debatable whether the wickets Murali took against a Flower-powered Zimbabwe pre 2003 were really any cheaper than those harvested by Warne and McGrath in a succession of one-sided Ashes contests. It’s seldom mentioned that Murali has bagged 112 wickets in just 16 matches against England – seven per Test – while no other bowler has managed even six per Test against them over more than a couple of series. Had Murali been given the chance to take part in a biennial England bonanza, he might well have passed the 900-wicket mark by now…

** It is unlikely that Murali would have bagged so many ten-fors if he had had to queue up to bowl after Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding and Joel Garner. On the other hand, who is to say he would not have been even more prolific had he lined up alongside Glenn McGrath and a solid support cast that helped pile the pressure on opposition batsmen? After all, Murali’s two purplest patches coincided with Chaminda Vaas’ most successful year (2001) and Lasith Malinga’s most potent period in Tests (2006).

From Tim Wigmore, United Kingdom

Bangladesh will be better served with more five-day matches against the likes of Ireland, and lesser against Australia © AFP

Bangladesh’s predictable capitulations appear to help neither them, judging by their lack of improvement, nor their opponents. But the answer is not what many say – revoking their undoubtedly premature Test status. In fact, it is admitting more teams to the Test arena.

Imagine two scenarios. In the first, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They play two Tests, so fulfilling commitments of the Future Tours programme, and though they briefly threaten to get a draw in their first, they are ultimately thrashed 2-0. England learn little as a weak side are ruthlessly demolished in alien conditions. And the degree to which Bangladesh benefit is highly dubious. Are their players any better playing the swinging ball at the end of the series than at the start?

In the second, Bangladesh tour England at the start of the season. They have a healthy amount of warm-up games to develop in English conditions and are able to put in a respectable performance in the one Test they play. After the series has finished, Bangladesh head to Ireland for three tightly fought Test matches. Both sides benefit much in their development from playing five-day games. Bangladesh are able to hone their technique against the swinging ball to prepare for challenges to come, though Ireland, with Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan both scoring prolifically, edge the series 2-1.

The Tests, though clearly not of the highest quality, offer much more intrigue than minnows being thrashed over a series. Most importantly, they enable both Bangladesh and Ireland to improve as cricket sides.

Cricket is a global game. When countries show ambition and tangible progress, they should be rewarded with a chance to play Test cricket. What this does not mean is they should be forced to play two-game series in India or Australia, which help no one. The Test championship should be used to give series greater context – and, ideally, lead to an increase in five-match series.

But one-off Tests have a place too. Games between touring sides and counties, states, islands or provinces have long since been devalued. So why not use one-off Tests as warm-ups for bigger series ahead? Ireland touring Australia would be an exercise in futility, but what would be wrong with Australia playing a Test there as a warm-up before an Ashes series? Similarly, teams could play Bangladesh before full Test series in India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka; and Zimbabwe (politics permitting) before ones in South Africa.

Established countries would benefit from more competitive clashes than they tend to receive against local sides, while emerging nations would have these to look forward to; if they earned the right, they would play full-length series.

Bangladesh have already played seven Tests in 2010. Though they have shown signs of improvement, they ultimately lost all seven comfortably. A structure much more conducive to their development would be for them to have played a few one-off Tests against established Test sides, then a three-game series against, say, Ireland.

It is incredible that one of the best limited-overs batsmen in the world comes from a country that doesn’t even play Test cricket. Seeing Morgan help England to victory against Ireland invariably leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

And the case of Joyce – flirted with by England for six months, thereby preventing him playing in the 2007 World Cup for Ireland, then ditched and unable to play for Ireland for another four years – is in many ways even worse. There is obviously a limit to the degree Ireland can improve when their best players are constantly picked to play for England. If Ireland played Tests, Joyce and Morgan would have no incentive to move across the Irish Sea.

Carefully managed, there is no reason why not just Bangladesh, but also Ireland, Zimbabwe and even more sides in the future, should not play Tests. Just because they would be unlikely to beat Australia, it would be wrong to limit Tests to eight sides. If they were given sensible programmes conducive to their development – as Bangladesh have not been – then the number of games between minnows and established Test nations would actually decrease. Furthermore, sides are more likely to be able to compete with better teams in solitary Tests than over a series.

Effectively, the only difference would be that the established Test nations would play one-off Tests against emerging nations, rather than be compelled to play two-game ones – so their schedules would actually be freed.

Those nations that have improved should be given incentive to continue doing so: the example of Kenya, whose cricket has declined alarmingly since reaching the World Cup semi-finals in 2003, proves what can happen without such encouragement. But a carefully worked programme would ultimately lead to more interesting Tests, reducing the percentage that are hopelessly one-sided, showcasing the best Test cricket has to offer and allowing emerging nations a genuine platform to improve. As it is, Bangladesh play the best far too often, while Ireland play them far too little. A happy medium should be established, that gives more countries the chance to play Test cricket. A sport with global pretensions must encourage the expansion of its best format.