ECB finally making some sensible decisions?
Wow, what a spectacular mess. This was a high-profile implosion of a national team that never needed to happen and hasn't really done anyone any credit. It was hard to imagine when the news emerged that KP had been denied Vaughan back in the squad that it would catalyze this soap opera drama! Indeed, KP seems thoroughly to have wrought his own downfall, and deserves his criticism in the press. But, in my mind, the silver lining of the whole affair is that the ECB seem finally to be making some sensible decisions!
Firstly, the appointment of Strauss - clearly the only sensible option for the test team (though we can all dream of Vaughan returning!). Strauss is a level head and a thoughtful and dependable leader - just when we need a 'safe pair of hands' in charge of the national team the most. His successful previous captaincy during the Pakistan series is frequently cited. Furthermore, he has, since Vaughan's resignation and for the time being at least, reestablished himself in the test side. Burbler Mark Davis calls for Rob Key to be reconsidered, but his stock as a captaincy outsider must surely have declined now a successful 2007 county season is no longer so fresh in the memory.
I would venture, though, that the rather less obvious appointment of Strauss for the ODI leadership was also a good decision. Though he is a marginal one-day player at best, unity seems an important factor at this stage, and at least Hugh Morris is being consistent with his expressed preference for combining the roles. Though he hasn't played a ODI since the World Cup, surely introducing Strauss for Cook or Bell would have little adverse effect on the balance of the side. At any rate, surely the batsman who reevolved his batting to revive his test career may be able to conjure up a new face for the shorter format!
It also seems the right choice not to rush into a new coach appointment. The haste with which Moores was originally appointed seems not to have done the side any favours - after Moores' departure, the man who might have been courted had more time been available, Tom Moody, is once again a leading candidate. In the meantime Andy Flower seems capable enough!
Anyway - did anyone spot the stories that KP apparently asked Warne to come in as coach just before he was sacked?!
2 comments:
Yes - I saw the Warne article on Cricinfo and take it with a pinch of salt in terms of Warne coaching England! But what I did agree with in the article was Warne suggesting that Strauss is best suited to vice-captaincy.
I don't disagree with you that Strauss is the only option. But he's the only option because of some catastrophic goings on at the ECB last summer and that's incredibly disappointing. I find it hard to praise the ECB right now, given that this situation is entirely of their own making. Our best option, even now, would be Vaughan as captain and Strauss fulfilling the Trescothick style supportive and steady vice-captain role.
I'm concerned that the selection of Strauss for the ODI and Twenty20 captaincy is another high risk ECB strategy. It's high risk because his form in one day cricket has been poor at domestic level so there's no evidence to suggest that he's going to suddenly play well for England. He only played 4 Pro40 matches last year, and he averaged 22. And in 6 Twenty20 games for Middlesex he averaged under 15 with a top score of 27.
It's also a risk because he has to get big runs pretty quickly. Remember Michael Vaughan at the 2007 World Cup? Despite the fact that he was captaining well and bowling excellently, the pressure built on him because he hadn't made a hundred in ODIs for years. Strauss may have a little longer than Vaughan, but if he fails against the West Indies away and at home in the spring, I can see us having a different ODI captain against Australia. Having said all that, Strauss is from the Collingwood mould - the more he is written off the more likely he is to come through so as you say, hopefully he can find a way to become successful.
So for me having not picked Strauss in the ODI squad for the West Indies originally, they couldn't give it to him subsequently because there is too much pressure on him to get big runs immediately. I absolutely agree with you that Strauss can easily slot into the Bell/Cook role (it would be difficult to do much worse), but it's interesting to reflect on the fact that some of his best ODI innings have come in the middle order playing the Thorpe-style nudger and nurdler into gaps after the field has gone back. If you were selecting the batting order on what's best for Strauss you might bat him at 4 between Pietersen and Collingwood and Flintoff, so that he can rotate the strike to the bigger hitters, but being the man he is he'll want to take on the challenge of opening and I fear for him in that role.
Who would I have used in ODIs and Twenty20? Flintoff (because Vaughan is apparently vetoed by the ECB!). I've slated his tactics in Tests before on Cricket Burble, but we have to think about what happens when Strauss gets injured. ODIs and Twenty20 are the opportunity for him to develop his captaincy. And in the mean time I would bring Strauss back at 4 asking him to play the role outlined above so that he is there to bounce tactics off and is the logical replacement should Flintoff be injured or prove again to not be astute enough tactically.
What a pickle!
I agree that picking Strauss for the ODI leadership from outside the squad is a risky strategy, but I still think it's a good one. In the absence of a compelling alternative, securing unity and stability will have wider reaching ramifications for England's success than whether Strauss averages 20 or 40 in ODIs.
He is the sort of unflappable, equanimous character that one might not expect to be burdened with the leadership in the same way as, say, a Flintoff-type personality. The England one-day team has typically had the feel of a nurturing ground for the test arena - both in terms of player selections and leaders. I suspect that it will be in the longer format that Strauss makes or breaks his reputation, and indeed where the weight of public expectation and critical judgment will be heaviest on his shoulders.
Flintoff for 20:20? I'm not convinced! That format moves at such a pace that decisions need to be spot-on for every ball, with minimal time to think, and one slip for a few deliveries only can cost your team the result. Definitely not the environment for developing captaincy! Nor one to heap extra responsibility on the shoulders of your match-winning all-rounder.
Those are my opinions anyway - I'm sure the passage of time will make me look very foolish!
Post a Comment