Is Strauss's Test selection justified ?

[tooextracool]

Maybe they did a year ago - people have found more and more ways to be dissatisfied with him of late though I think.

Really? Didnt know about that, the last time he was in the side, he definetly had a good reputation around in the dressing room. I've always liked the look of Key after the 2002/03 Ashes tour, i thought he was pathetic against India in his debut series, but I was extremely impressed by his 93* against a decent WI bowling attack and even more impressed by his 83 in SA. Not sure about his prowess against spin, but i cant see how he deserved to be dropped on that SA tour tbh.

As far as Strauss is concerned, Ive said it before and i will say it again, he made that emphatic start to his test career largely due to the poor quality of bowling that came his way, and most people who watched him during that time would notice the consistency with which he was served deliveries that were short of good length on his pads and wide of the off stump rather than full swinging deliveries. I honestly cant see how he is good enough at the moment to be able to score runs on a consistent basis. His temperament is shockingly poor and his technique is even worse. He may very well score runs at Chester-le-street, but its not going to change anything IMO, he'll still be worked out against a quality bowling attack especially an attack specializing in swing. And unlike Paul Collingwood his ability to score runs on the slower wickets of the subcontinent is in serious doubt not only because he is rather poor against spin but also because he cannot play on a slower surface that requires him to get on the front foot. Unless he makes serious improvements, i cant see him do anything other than fail in SL this winter anyways, so picking him for this summer in the hope that he will 'regain form' is rather redundant.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

I cannot see why you would compare Strauss with Trescothick's record. For one thing, Trescothick was suffering from issues with his own mental state within that period.Honestly, Strauss had a 1 year golden period in the sun where he went untested against not just quality bowling but also quality spin bowling. I dont know how he became a proven player because of it because a 2 year period of mediocrity should overwhelm a 1 year period of success especially given that half of that success came against the might of WI and NZ.
And are people being serious about Ravi Bopara in the test side? Am i missing something, but is someone with such a dismal FC record actually supposed to be impressing in domestic cricket?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Graeme smith like a lot of left handers has issues with the inswinger. However his front foot technique is not under question in the manner in which Strauss' is nor is his ability against spin in too much doubt.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Ive commented on this in the past and it is a problem that Strauss has tried to work on in the past. There have been times recently when his bat has come down straight and yet for the majority of the time, hes still played with a crooked bat technique.

 

[Woodster]

I cannot see why you would compare Strauss with Trescothick's record. For one thing, Trescothick was suffering from issues with his own mental state within that period.Honestly, Strauss had a 1 year golden period in the sun where he went untested against not just quality bowling but also quality spin bowling. I dont know how he became a proven player because of it because a 2 year period of mediocrity should overwhelm a 1 year period of success especially given that half of that success came against the might of WI and NZ.
And are people being serious about Ravi Bopara in the test side? Am i missing something, but is someone with such a dismal FC record actually supposed to be impressing in domestic cricket?

Well I thought the comparison would be reasonably self explanatory. Trescothick is the man that people are generally clamouring to get back in the side in place of Strauss, thus a comparison is not the craziest way of thinking, surely.

Trescothick during this period played 7 out of 10 matches at home, and did not have to face the Aussie attack, so perhaps his figures may have been worse. He was obviously fit enough mentally to play in those games, so you cannot wipe those stats from the record. I am a Trescothick fan do not misunderstand me.

With regards Ravi Bopara, the talent is there for all to see. He may have been catapulted a little further into people's thoughts following his performances in the World Cup, where he displayed an excellent temperament under pressure and quality wristy strokeplay. Which if you've seen him play before you would recognise. He does not have an amazing record, but decent, and he is still only 22 years old, his stats will improve. His records this season is not too shabby mind (averaging 67.28 in County Champ and 61.66 in One-dayers).

 

[Steulen]

You don't need a reason for having favourite players, alot of times it's just irrational anyways. I can't really explain why I <3 RTD. Just do tbh.

Good man.

 

[Steulen]

Because he's a gun.

Good man.

 

[Steulen]

Haha, fair point.

Good man.

 

[Steulen]

oh, and **** multi-quote.

 

[GIMH]

 

[Richard]

oh, and **** multi-quote.

 

[Richard]

Really? Didnt know about that, the last time he was in the side, he definetly had a good reputation around in the dressing room. I've always liked the look of Key after the 2002/03 Ashes tour, i thought he was pathetic against India in his debut series, but I was extremely impressed by his 93* against a decent WI bowling attack and even more impressed by his 83 in SA. Not sure about his prowess against spin, but i cant see how he deserved to be dropped on that SA tour tbh.

Referring to Flintoff, not Key. He has lost popularity in certain circles at regular intervals since the First Sri Lanka Test in 2006.

Key wasn't really dropped on the SA tour, either, he was dropped for Bell after it. And I don't see any point in picking Key unless he's opening, if the berth is in the middle Bell is an infinitely better bet.

 

[Richard]

Graeme smith like a lot of left handers has issues with the inswinger. However his front foot technique is not under question in the manner in which Strauss' is nor is his ability against spin in too much doubt.

Exactly, Smith has problems with the inswinger - hence the best chance against him is the precise opposite of the tactic so many people mistakenly advocated early in his career - ie bowling outside off-stump. You've got to attack his weaknesses, not try to avoid his strengths.

 

[Richard]

With regards Ravi Bopara, the talent is there for all to see. He may have been catapulted a little further into people's thoughts following his performances in the World Cup, where he displayed an excellent temperament under pressure and quality wristy strokeplay. Which if you've seen him play before you would recognise. He does not have an amazing record, but decent, and he is still only 22 years old, his stats will improve. His records this season is not too shabby mind (averaging 67.28 in County Champ and 61.66 in One-dayers).

I'm pretty sure his stats will improve too, but the point tec was making is that it needs to happen (for more than 10 or 15 innings) before people start seriously considering him for a Test place.

 

[Woodster]

I'm pretty sure his stats will improve too, but the point tec was making is that it needs to happen (for more than 10 or 15 innings) before people start seriously considering him for a Test place.

No I agree that you need to prove you can handle yourself at County level before being thrown into the international arena, but that is not always the case. His Essex compatriot Cook was thrown in after not many first class games, yes an exception rather than the rule. But when a talent is spotted, at times it can work to throw them in. The selctors earn their corn by identifying the few players that can take their game to the next level before they have fully proved themselves with a long first class record.

I'm not advocating Bopara to be in the next squad by any stretch, but I can understand the talk that is surrounding him. I would much rather he play for Essex this season and maintain that average and have a run feast of a season, and be considered to play for England in the ODI's.

 

[Richard]

No I agree that you need to prove you can handle yourself at County level before being thrown into the international arena, but that is not always the case. His Essex compatriot Cook was thrown in after not many first class games, yes an exception rather than the rule. But when a talent is spotted, at times it can work to throw them in.

But far more often than not it won't work, that's the thing. Just because something occasionally does work is no reason to try it IMO. It's far better to use a more reliable practice.

 

[Woodster]

But far more often than not it won't work, that's the thing. Just because something occasionally does work is no reason to try it IMO. It's far better to use a more reliable practice.

Yes, but just because something hasn't prolifically worked does not mean you should not try it! That is why I say, this is where the selection committee come in, they who have more in depth knowledge of the game and players alike, and they get paid to make this judgement. I am agreeing with you in this case as I said previously, but there are players that justify being thrown in early.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but just because something hasn't prolifically worked does not mean you should not try it!

If something fails more often than it succeeds, that seems to me a pretty decent reason for not trying it.

 

[Woodster]

I hear what you're saying, though stats do not always tell the whole story, otherwise the players with the best average will get picked, no need for selection committee's!

 

[Richard]

Well... there's still a need for selection committees, to send the letters, make the phonecalls, etc. And anyway - it's about good analysis of the performances (which are reflected in stats) - stats are not a black-and-white thing, every case is different.

That's why you need selection committees. Not to decide that someone averaging 33 over a comparable time is somehow better than someone averaging 47.