Is Strauss's Test selection justified ?

[Woodster]

Are the recent comments from Geoffrey Boycott, amongst others, clamouring for Strauss to have a stint back in County Cricket to regain his form fair, or should he be allowed to work through this rough trot with England ?

We know he is a top player and is currently enduring a blip in what has so far been an excellent Test career, but what will benefit both he and England best ?

Let's not forget, he was 8th in the list of highest runscorers as recently as 2006, when he scored in excess of 1,000 runs, and before the last Test, he averaged around 33 in his previous 10 Tests, below par but not as shocking as people think. (Trescothick averaged only 34 in his last 10).

It could be seen as an ideal opportunity for the likes of Shah to have another chance, Bopara to be handed his Test debut after being in sparkling form with Essex. Even talks of Solanki coming into the side. I personally am happy they have stuck with Strauss and hope that he justifies their decision with a return to something near his best up at Chester-le-Street.

 

[Goughy]

I dont mind Strauss and I cant think of too many players Id rather have in the team that are not in there currently. Only one Id be interested in seeing him dropped for would be Trescothick.

 

[Richard]

Personally I only want Strauss to be dropped if there is another opener who deserves to come into the side. And there's an obvious candidate if so - Marcus Trescothick. Purely and simply, if he is ready to return to the side right now, there is no case for him not doing so.

Let's look at the Strauss case for a minute: it's seriously worrying. The last time he did anything of real note in Test cricket was in September 2005. I, unlike some, don't believe he did a lot wrong in Pakistan that winter but he was mostly poor in India, of that there's no denying, mostly poor against Sri Lanka (though their attack is a potent one), good against a woeful Pakistan attack missing 3, maybe even 4 or 5, front-line seamers (Shoaib, Asif and Shabbir being the big three) and not too flash in Australia either (though I believe some have also been harsh on him there).

Most recently, his failures against a seriously poor WI attack are deeply worrying. All right, he didn't do one hell of a lot wrong in the most recent game or in the second-innings at Lord's but the other 2 innings, well... he should have scored more than he has, purely and simply. As I say, he was more than capable of pounding an equally poor Pakistan attack - he should be doing it again here.

I still believe he has it in him to succeed at Test level and I'm happy enough for him to be retained for the next game. But if he doesn't do anything of note there, and Trescothick feels he's up for Test cricket again, he has to come back against India.

 

[Woodster]

You say its seriously worrying, but don't most players at this level have a barron period where they can't buy a run ? It is how he responds that will be most interesting and I feel he will respond with runs.
Perhaps what is in his favour is there are no genuine openers ready made to step in, I feel Trescothick at this moment would be nothing more than a gamble again. But i'm sure he knows best.

 

[Goughy]

You say its seriously worrying, but don't most players at this level have a barron period where they can't buy a run ? It is how he responds that will be most interesting and I feel he will respond with runs.
Perhaps what is in his favour is there are no genuine openers ready made to step in, I feel Trescothick at this moment would be nothing more than a gamble again. But i'm sure he knows best.

Maybe Trescothicks touring days are behind him but in England I believe he is far less of a gamble than plugging in a completely unproven and inexperienced player

 

[Richard]

You say its seriously worrying, but don't most players at this level have a barron period where they can't buy a run ? It is how he responds that will be most interesting and I feel he will respond with runs.

I certainly hope he will. The trouble is, as I say, that it's a pretty long time now - the best part of 2 years. I wonder whether he'd still be in the side had Shoaib and Asif been fit and Shabbir's action been right in 2006, I really do.

Not many people are virtually out of the runs for that long.

As I say, though - I've always rated him as a batsman, I couldn't care less if he's mostly a back-foot player, he always has been and he's been perfectly capable in the past of playing the pitched-up ball and waiting for the short stuff. Exactly the same as Graeme Smith who people think you can deal with simply by bowling outside off - when he's going well he'll just leave that and eventually the bowlers will get it wrong.

As I say - what worries me the most is that Strauss has always - and I mean always, no exceptions - scored runs against average bowling at Test level. His first two series were plentiful in that regard, and so as I say was Pakistan in 2006. Hopefully he can do something of note at Chester-le-Street. Otherwise there'll be certain types clamouring for useless Durham openers to take his place.

 

[Richard]

Maybe Trescothicks touring days are behind him but in England I believe he is far less of a gamble than plugging in a completely unproven and inexperienced player

Quite. And who are these openers bustling for selection anyway? The only options being discussed seem to involve Vaughan opening - great, just when he's starting to look good again for the first time in ages.

I don't understand enough about illnesses of the type of Trescothick's to know whether or not his touring days are gone, though.

 

[Woodster]

Maybe Trescothicks touring days are behind him but in England I believe he is far less of a gamble than plugging in a completely unproven and inexperienced player

If this was the case, and his touring days are behind him, are you saying you would still select him despite the fact he won't go on a tour with England ?

I am all for selecting the strongest side, but if someone says I'll only play the home games, but not the away ones, I would be exceptionally sceptical about picking him at all.

I also, don't really know enough about his illness so I don't know if he would be greatly affected with tour duties.

 

[archie mac]

I always cringe when they use Test cricket to experiment with players. I think it devalues the whole thing. Especially when so many fine players never had the honour

Maybe Strauss just needs a little luck, after all he copped the worst decisions from the umpires during the most recent Ashes series

 

[Richard]

The only trouble with needing a little luck is that it doesn't come especially often...

When were we using Tests to experiment?

 

[Woodster]

I certainly hope he will. The trouble is, as I say, that it's a pretty long time now - the best part of 2 years. I wonder whether he'd still be in the side had Shoaib and Asif been fit and Shabbir's action been right in 2006, I really do.

The blame cannot lie at Strauss's door if Pakistan had a weakened side for various reasons. He can only bat against the team he's playing against. In this series he batted against the same attack as the rest of the England side, but scored more runs than any of them, with 444 runs.

 

[archie mac]

The only trouble with needing a little luck is that it doesn't come especially often...

When were we using Tests to experiment?

I don't think I said that

 

[Richard]

The blame cannot lie at Strauss's door if Pakistan had a weakened side for various reasons. He can only bat against the team he's playing against. In this series he batted against the same attack as the rest of the England side, but scored more runs than any of them, with 444 runs.

The blame can lie at his door, though, for not scoring against any of the other attacks he hasn't scored against in the last 18 months. That's what I mean.

If that Pakistan attack is the only one you can score against, it's a bit of a problem.

 

[Richard]

I don't think I said that

I always cringe when they use Test cricket to experiment with players. I think it devalues the whole thing.

...........
?

 

[Burgey]

Fortunately for England, they can afford to persist with him atm because of the standard of the opposition, and because their other players are batting well.
It's hard to re-gain form at test level, but their results in this series suggest they can carry him for at least the short term.

 

[Richard]

If we can carry Harmison and Plunkett we can certainly carry Strauss.

 

[archie mac]

...........
?

I did not say they were doing that, just that I did not like the idea

As in if Strauss was dropped to make way for someone just so they could have a look at him, because now it was a dead rubber

 

[Richard]

Oh, right, I see what you're saying - referring to dead-rubbers.

Yes - a Test is a Test IMO. You pick the man you think can do best every game.

 

[archie mac]

Oh, right, I see what you're saying - referring to dead-rubbers.

Yes - a Test is a Test IMO. You pick the man you think can do best every game.

Glad your with me mate

 

[Woodster]

The blame can lie at his door, though, for not scoring against any of the other attacks he hasn't scored against in the last 18 months. That's what I mean.

If that Pakistan attack is the only one you can score against, it's a bit of a problem.

I agree that if you take out that Pakistan series (which obviously you can't) he has not scored as heavily as both he or England would like. He is certainly in need of a big score, he has been making starts, but not strung a consistent run together in recent times.

He did score a 50 in Australia, a 50 and a 48 against Sri Lanka, and a ton and a 46 in India, but the consistency has not been there, I appreciate that.