IT HAS taken only one game for the credibility of the Super Series to be called into question. While the Australia team were rejoicing at the ease of their victory against the ICC World XI on Wednesday, others saw the 93-run margin as confirmation that disparate individuals, however talented, struggle to become a team in a week.

Daniel Vettori suggested before today’s second one-day international that the public require a 2-1 scoreline and a close-fought Test match to be convinced by the concept. While sponsorship and television deals will cover overheads including prize and appearance money of about £1.5 million, that is hardly the point.

Statisticians have criticised the ICC for giving the three one-day games and the six-day Test official status, and dissatisfaction is sure to grow if the remainder of the event is as unexceptional as the start. With the recent Afro-Asian Cup also given ICC blessing, the governing body cannot continue to sanction these contrived matches.

Whatever the result, the decision to allow next week’s match to count as a Test is particularly galling because it contradicts the definition in the ICC’s own regulations as being: “Any cricket match of not more than five days’ scheduled duration played between teams selected by Full Members as representative of their Member Countries.”

The ICC Board initially rejected a recommendation from its Chief Executives’ Committee to bestow status to the Super Series. Asked to reconsider, having approved a one-day game for tsunami relief, they must have felt like errant schoolboys who are told to re-do their homework until they reach the right answer.

If the ICC believes that the quality of players assembled justifies its position, it is on thin ice. Focusing on ability undermines the claims of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for continued recognition. The suspicion must be that the ICC wanted these matches to be official to enhance the product for television and its audience.

Its own website says that “cricket enjoys a long tradition of composite teams playing against national sides and representative teams”. But the cited examples — England taking on the Rest of the World in 1970, Australia facing a World XI in 1971-72 and the 1987 MCC Bicentenary Game — were not granted Test status.

The first two series, featuring players such as Sobers, Kanhai, the Pollocks and Barry Richards, were organised to fill spaces left when matches against South Africa were cancelled. This one is an added extra to a calendar that is already so crowded that the ICC is close to agreement on stretching the Test-match cycle from five to six years.

You have to feel sorry for Alan Jones, the Glamorgan opening batsman, who made his one and only appearance for England in 1970. It was billed by the old Test and County Cricket Board as an official series at the time and continued to be recognised by Wisden until as late as 1979, even though the ICC reaffirmed the opposite in 1972.

The ICC “expects” the Super Series to become a regular feature played every four years. However, staging arrangements this time were practical only because Australia led both Test and one-day rankings at the cut-off date, which happened to be April Fool’s Day. It is said to be a cricket rather than a marketing initiative, but if broadcasters deem the product unsatisfactory it is unlikely to continue.

Viewers on Wednesday saw new problems for players at the indoor Telstra Dome. Australian Rules is staple entertainment at the multipurpose facility, so the outfield has to absorb falling bodies. Vettori described the surface as the softest he has known and the Australian players wore football boots when not batting or bowling.

Such difficulties will not arise when the circus moves to the Sydney Cricket Ground a week today. By then Kevin Pietersen may have been named as winner of two categories at the ICC Awards Night, which will receive more attention on Tuesday if, as expected, he is accompanied by Caprice, the model, who was due to arrive as his plus one today.