Is Strauss's Test selection justified ?

[DCC_legend]

I would agree that they can afford to stick with strauss because of the quality of the west indians. The Sky Sports commentators were continually talking about Strauss' form and they pinpointed it to be the angle of his bat. If he is to come back to the form he was showing at the start of his career he needs to have a rest from international cricket and play some county cricket, just to get him back to scoring runs.
If he is picked for the OD series i think the selectors will be making a big mistake, but i doubt they will.

 

[Richard]

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.

And that innings (plus the subsequent 31) are easily underrated, too. IMO Strauss played superbly in that match - had Hayden and Symonds been given lbw when both of them were (Hayden twice before he'd made 12) he'd have been possibly the highest scorer in that match. And let's not forget he had 3 consecutive poor decisions before that.

 

[Richard]

I would agree that they can afford to stick with strauss because of the quality of the west indians. The Sky Sports commentators were continually talking about Strauss' form and they pinpointed it to be the angle of his bat.

And that was something I found very interesting, and also something I thought it was very poor of them not to expand on.

They have the footage - presumably to a few minutes' hand - of him in South Africa 3 winters ago. Why didn't they do a comparison?

It'd be very interesting, as I say, to see whether he was getting the bat down in a more perpendicular arc when he was scoring. And if he wasn't, that'd suggest that something else is the problem.

And if he was, obviously, it suggests that someone needs to do some serious work to get his backlift back how it was.

 

[DCC_legend]

Yeah i'd have to agree with that. They have plenty of time to do so, maybe they'll do it during the next test. They were also talking about him being quite composed at the crease despite his lack of form. All this was said before he got out LBW to Edwards for a duck. Thoughts?

 

[Richard]

Well as I say - the Edwards ball he did not-much wrong, that'd have dismissed pretty well any left-hander. But as to his general composure... I don't know, I've not seen anything suggesting it's a problem, certainly. It might just be that things aren't clicking and that he'll score 140 at CLS and everything'll be right as rain again. There's no obvious problem, there's no pattern in his dismissals which have been though his own fault. One full one which he hit in the air, one short one which he somehow managed to nick.

 

[Richard]

Yeah i'd have to agree with that. They have plenty of time to do so, maybe they'll do it during the next test.

Someone should send 'em an email, TBH (here). But probably not until the morning of the Test. And I'm at work at 10:30 that day, just the luck. Someone needs to volunteer.

 

[DCC_legend]

Well as I say - the Edwards ball he did not-much wrong, that'd have dismissed pretty well any left-hander. But as to his general composure... I don't know, I've not seen anything suggesting it's a problem, certainly. It might just be that things aren't clicking and that he'll score 140 at CLS and everything'll be right as rain again. There's no obvious problem, there's no pattern in his dismissals which have been though his own fault. One full one which he hit in the air, one short one which he somehow managed to nick.

Quite true, i never thought of that actually.
As for the email, if im not doing exams that day, and if i remember i'll certainly send one in.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Something like one 50 in the past 14 innings, now. However, as alluded to, he can probably afford to be carried at the moment in hope that he'll get some form back.

It's interesting, he's long been compared to Justin Langer as a batsman. If you look at Langer, early in his career he had a little bit of success, but then had large troubles. He went and developed his front foot game a lot more, and I think that's something that Strauss needs to do a fair bit of. He has a big windscreen wiper, and he allows bowlers to bowl on a "good length" rather than just short of one. When he makes them bowl just short of a length, it'll bring his very good back foot play into the game more often.

 

[Richard]

It's interesting, he's long been compared to Justin Langer as a batsman. If you look at Langer, early in his career he had a little bit of success, but then had large troubles.

Langer always had ups and downs, didn't he? Even right to the very end.

 

[Perm]

I rate Strauss pretty highly but I think a swap with Trescothick would be the best solution, let Strauss get back into form in County Cricket and see whether Trescothick is up to the standard required at the current point in time.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are a number of ways a selection can be "justified" and very rare is it that a player is selected without any justification at all.

Strauss's selection is justified based on his previous record in what was a great start to a test career, and his good first class record to back it up. It is not justified based on his current form - but you can say that about virtually every player at one stage or another during their careers - their selection is justified in other ways.

Whether he should be in the side or not is a totally different matter though. Firstly, you have to ask yourself whether he himself has done enough to be dropped. Well, given the relatively short nature of his career, and the fairly long run of failures, you'd have to say yes. But it doesn't end here - and this is a mistake many cricket followers make. As many of us only see the top level of cricket played, we tend to focus on the players in it - ie. is is he doing well enough v isn't he doing well enough. However, this is only the first step in "dropping" a player - you must also ask yourself if there are better candidates who would do a better job who aren't currently being selected. As Richard has stated, there aren't any openers banging down the door in County Cricket. One could select a middle order batsman and make Michael Vaughan open - but is Strauss really that much of a lost cause that you'd weaken another player and throw a rookie in for him, when it could all turn around for him quickly? I think not, really. Strauss's form is bad - very bad - bordering on somewhat funny at times - but he deserves at least until the time that there's another opener pushing for selection, IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think in many ways Strauss is both the beneficiary & victim of his very impressive start to his career.

He started his career in form that suggested he might well be a great player (after having a quick look on cricinfo in his first three series he played 12 tests, scored 5 tons & averaged over 56.5), since then there's been something of a reversion to the mean of his overall FC avearge and, in fact, in his 27 tests after that intial burst he averages only 34.2. This suggests to me that he was a good player in great form rather than the actual real deal.

Not ten years ago his average may've been acceptable for an England bat, but the standards have improved (as they have across the board in tests since the turn of the decade), but (IMHO) it certainly means he's on borrowed time at best.

It looks as if bowlers have worked him out. Previously his prerferred method of dismissal was chasing a wide one, now he looks fodder for anything that's pitched up.

 

[Richard]

Not ten years ago his average may've been acceptable for an England bat, but the standards have improved (as they have across the board in tests since the turn of the decade)

Nah, no way IMO - batting in England's just become a whole lot easier.

No-one will ever convince me that Strauss > Atherton unless one hell of a lot changes.

 

[Prince EWS]

He started his career in form that suggested he might well be a great player (after having a quick look on cricinfo in his first three series he played 12 tests, scored 5 tons & averaged over 56.5), since then there's been something of a reversion to the mean of his overall FC avearge and, in fact, in his 27 tests after that intial burst he averages only 34.2. This suggests to me that he was a good player in great form rather than the actual real deal.

One must take both stats into context though. While the average of 56.5 was indeed one of Strauss at his best form, the average of 34.2 is undoubtedly one that has been taken at the point of his worst form. It's just as misleading ITBT, because it's quite obvious that Strauss won't get much worse than his current point - there's only one way from here, in essence. His career has pretty much seen the average cycle of form out now in reality, so his actual test average is probably the best one to go by as a guide.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, no way IMO - batting in England's just become a whole lot easier.

No-one will ever convince me that Strauss > Atherton unless one hell of a lot changes.

I think he meant in a sense of which averages are numerically acceptable, rather than the actual standard of batting.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'd take a test batting average of 34.2 in afwul form any day, it could be a hell of a lot worse. Considering that he face some pretty awesome bowlers in Australia, and had some real shockers, then it shouldn't be taken too hard.

 

[pasag]

He actually 'looked' quite good in Australia from memory, for the start at least, and had this confidence about him that no other batsman besides KP had (imo), but he just kept getting out to stupid, mindless shots. Now he has deteriorated and looks totally out of touch and has become a walking wicket. The theory that he should be kept in the team in the hope that he comes good eventually is very detrimental and can have quite a bad effect on both his career and England's short term fortunes. Drop him imo, hopefully for Trescothick.

That said I hope he regains his form as he's one of my favourite players and I hope he succeeds(as long as it's not against us )

 

[BoyBrumby]

One must take both stats into context though. While the average of 56.5 was indeed one of Strauss at his best form, the average of 34.2 is undoubtedly one that has been taken at the point of his worst form. It's just as misleading ITBT, because it's quite obvious that Strauss won't get much worse than his current point - there's only one way from here, in essence. His career has pretty much seen the average cycle of form out now in reality, so his actual test average is probably the best one to go by as a guide.

Really? Thought I'd been very fair actually. If I were really looking to cook the books I'd have pointed out that over his last 8 tests his average is a shade over 21 or the fact he averages less than Monty in the current series.

I reckon 27 tests is probably a long enough sample to ascertain the general trend of a player's career. Anyway, short of injury, he's got one more test to turn it around. It he fails again I reckon I'd concur with Boycs and that a return to the shires is in order.

 

[Prince EWS]

Really? Thought I'd been very fair actually. If I were really looking to cook the books I'd have pointed out that over his last 8 tests his average is a shade over 21 or the fact he averages less than Monty in the current series.

I reckon 27 tests is probably a long enough sample to ascertain the general trend of a player's career. Anyway, short of injury, he's got one more test to turn it around. It he fails again I reckon I'd concur with Boycs and that a return to the shires is in order.

You can't just take out his best form for the sake of it though, because there's every chance it'll re-emerge - just like his worst form which he is currently "enjoying."

 

[BoyBrumby]

You can't just take out his best form for the sake of it though, because there's every chance it'll re-emerge - just like his worst form which he is currently "enjoying."

I haven't tho. If I did I would've excluded the series against a sub-standard Pakistan bowling attack last year when (from memory) he got two tons. I could argue (not without justification) that it looks like a blip in an otherwise downward trend, but, in fairness, I didn't.

Since the start of our 2005 season he's performed more like the player that his lifetime FC average suggested he was, decent county pro who can scale the hights on occasion. I just think the start of his career coincided with the zenith of his form.