Monday, December 16, 2002 Stuart MacGill's mum is Welsh so, had he wanted to, he could have played 100 Tests for England by now. Australia used to believe in fielding two legspinners so, had he been born a century ago, MacGill might have taken 200 Test wickets. Shane Warne had intensive surgery on his bowling shoulder in 1998 so, according to the laws of biology, MacGill should have been his country's first-choice spinner for the past five years.

That's the story of MacGill's career: could have, might have, should have. Now here's a must have. In the coming hours and days when Australia's selectors ponder Warne's replacement, temporary or otherwise, they must have the sense to pick MacGill. He must play the remainder of the triangular series, the Melbourne and Sydney Tests and, if Warne is still on the sidelines, he must go to the World Cup.

This is not about justice because justice, as MacGill can testify, has no place in cricket. It is about the fact that MacGill remains far and away the second-best spinner in a land where spinners are as common as spinifex.

If Australia's selectors are to be believed, however, he ranks closer to sixth-best. He was left out of Australia's A side last Saturday in favour of Nathan Hauritz and Brad Hogg. Cameron White and Mark Higgs were both preferred to MacGill in Australia's provisional 30-man squad for the World Cup. It beggars belief.

Hauritz is a Queensland offspinner who has taken 24 wickets in 11 first-class matches at 29.36. Higgs is a bits-and-pieces left-armer with 22 wickets in 27 games at 56.40. White, a promising 18-year-old leggie from Victoria, has played a dozen first-class matches for 24 wickets, average 38. Hogg is a makeshift chinaman bowler who, in 65 matches, has totted up 83 wickets at 46.15.

Neither Hauritz, Higgs or White have taken a single first-class five-for. Picking any of them ahead of MacGill is like inviting Dannii Minogue, rather than Kylie, to sing at the Olympics closing ceremony.

So where has MacGill gone wrong? We can assume it has nothing to do with his unconventional personality – MacGill loves wine, hates beer and reads books – because the Australian team embraces all sorts these days. Nor can age be a factor because, at 31, MacGill is ripe for the picking.

His ability, too, remains unchallengeable. In his past two Tests, spread over two years, he has taken 14 wickets. He maintains he can now bowl every variation he wants – leg-break, topspinner, flipper, zooter, wrong'un – and is focusing primarily on what he calls "triggers". What should he be thinking about as he trots in? What does he need to do to execute his strategies? That kind of stuff.

The real reason behind the selectors' quarantining of MacGill, of course, is their reluctance to play two legspinners together. It is a curious kind of logic in the country that spawned Bill O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett, cricket's most famous spin twins, and it is a logic MacGill has at least half-disproved: in six Tests with Warne he has taken 31 wickets at 20.48, compared with Warne's measly 13 scalps at 54.15.

Yet MacGill, not Warne, has paid the price. Warne has horded 491 wickets and been voted a Wisden cricketer of the century. MacGill has won only 17 Test caps and never even been voted a Wisden cricketer of the year. What's more, he has been afforded only three one-day internationals.

The jury is still out on whether the selectors' ongoing faith in Hauritz at limited-overs level is helping or hindering the youngster. At 21, Hauritz has good variation and a cool head but does not turn the ball far enough – a shortcoming unlikely to be rectified by bowling flattish darts in 50-over sloggathons. His continued selection in Australian one-day squads has meant that, in more than two years as first-class player, he has played just 11 four-day games. It can only be thwarting his development.

The opposite criticism is made of MacGill. Too frivolous, too expensive. At domestic one-day level he captures a wicket every 25 balls – a stupendous strike-rate – yet he goes for five runs an over. There's the rub.

Truth is, though, that if Australia are to win the World Cup they need wicket-takers, not containers. Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie are both more frugal than ferocious. Brett Lee does not have a frugal bone in his body but, under captain's instructions to tighten up, he still looks unsure of himself. Without Warne, who can be relied on to bowl teams out? It has to be MacGill.

Most Australians, and cricket fans generally, will be praying it does not come to that. The image of Warne wrenching his right shoulder as he tried to cut off an on-drive was one of the most harrowing sights ever broadcast on Sunday-night TV in Australia. Even downtrodden English supporters who watched the replay, who studied it frame by frame, could not help but flinch in shock, in sadness, in sympathy.

See the way he hurls his torso into mid-air. Watch the jolt of his right shoulder as his elbow kisses the turf. Feel the agony as pain twists every muscle of his face. Warne failed to stop the single but, just for a moment, he stopped time. It was like Rick McCosker copping one in the jaw in the Centenary Test. Like Jeff Thomson ploughing into Alan Turner in 1976. Only worse, somehow. Cos this was Warney.

But that's life. That's cricket. One man's misfortune is another man's opportunity; something Stuart MacGill could tell you a thing or two about.

Chris Ryan is a former managing editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly and a former Darwin correspondent of the Melbourne Age.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd