England produced an amateur bowling and fielding performance against Netherlands. It was a disgrace. Dropped catches, fielding mistakes, overs with multiple beamers and even they even managed to be no-balled for not having enough people in the circle. Swann’s bowling was very much the high point although he managed to drop a sitter at the death. Andrew Strauss has shown great leadership for England but he must take quite a bit of the blame for today’s schoolboy-like display. He showed very little imagination and was badly behind in the game.
On current form England have no chance against India on Sunday – unless they think they can chase 500 that is.
It was nice to see Netherlands put up such a good display, they really did themselves proud. Excellent batting, good fielding and a solid bowling performance. They fielded England off the park.
Showing posts with label Andrew Strauss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Strauss. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Jaded
Andrew Strauss is jaded. He is a tired man who needs a break from cricket. He is so tired that Strauss not going to Bangladesh has been a foregone conclusion since September when the ECB leaked as much. So he is not jaded, it is just convenient ECB lie. Indeed, the surprise is that other players are not tired enough to skip going. Hold on a moment, Strauss is a batsman who does not bowl – how can he be tired? He hasn’t even done much batting of late and he will not be going to the World Twenty20. For those of us who actually do a day’s work ... the thought of being given three months off from visiting hot places and playing cricket seems a bit like a mickey-take. Burn-out? I wouldn’t mind the risk of that type of burn-out.
They gave Strauss’ job to Alastair Cook. It makes perfect sense to give it to a guy whose Test average is on the slide and can barely justify his place in the side. Oh, hang on that covers the whole batting line-up except Collingwood – so Cook is probably as good a sacrifice as anyone. I wonder if he will get Strauss' extra Captain's salary...
They have announced a few replacements for the ‘jaded’ player but I am not going to even type their names: they have NO chance of being picked – it may rock a boat somewhere.
They gave Strauss’ job to Alastair Cook. It makes perfect sense to give it to a guy whose Test average is on the slide and can barely justify his place in the side. Oh, hang on that covers the whole batting line-up except Collingwood – so Cook is probably as good a sacrifice as anyone. I wonder if he will get Strauss' extra Captain's salary...
They have announced a few replacements for the ‘jaded’ player but I am not going to even type their names: they have NO chance of being picked – it may rock a boat somewhere.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Cramps
There has been a bit of a fuss about Andrew Strauss refusing Graeme Smith a runner for cramp in yesterday’s Champions Trophy match. There seems to be an implication that it is ‘unsportsmanlike’. Ridiculous. There is no way ‘cramp’ should be an excuse for a runner. Strauss was quite right to deny Smith a runner - what will be next ‘my legs are a bit tired’. I looked up the law and it states:
“If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have (ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.”
Cramp is clearly not an injury or illness. If a player is incapable of batting he should either retire or grit his teeth and carry on. I think the ICC should take a positive stance here and add something to the laws that states quite clearly that fatigue or fatigue related ailments are not cause for a substitute or runner.
Of course, had South Africa won Smith may not have mentioned it.
“If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have (ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.”
Cramp is clearly not an injury or illness. If a player is incapable of batting he should either retire or grit his teeth and carry on. I think the ICC should take a positive stance here and add something to the laws that states quite clearly that fatigue or fatigue related ailments are not cause for a substitute or runner.
Of course, had South Africa won Smith may not have mentioned it.
Friday, 28 August 2009
England's Ashes winners
In a shock move I decided to look at the positives for the England cricket team after the Ashes series. After all the won, so there should be lots! The side Australia sent to England was the worst for a long time but that should not detract from England’s performances; after all England can only play against the side sent. Who came out of the series with their reputation enhanced?
Andrew Strauss is a big winner. A year and a half ago his place in the England side was by no means certain and to some degree should not even have been picked. The captaincy seems to have been the making of him. His batting has improved out of sight and he is now back to his best. His captaincy whilst perhaps not of the very highest calibre is improving and shows considerable promise.
Matt Prior is a wicket keeper batsman whose wicket keeping has always been poor. In the West Indies last winter it was a laughing stock. There was a very real fear that he would give away hard fought opportunities in the Ashes with fumbled catches. Not so. Prior’s wicket keeping has improved considerably. He looks much less flustered behind the stumps and although the odd bye still gets past him the all important catches have stayed in his gloves. Prior’s batting too has been impressive finishing with a series average above Cook, Collingwood, Bell and Bopara.
Stuart Broad has come out of the Ashes as a national hero which is odd because two Test matches ago he was being widely tipped to be dropped. His bowling lacked penetration and control. By the end Broad topped the England bowling averages. A real boon with Broad is his batting, he ended up above Cook, Collingwood, Bell and Bopara in the averages. A fact that reflects well on Broad and terribly on the four batsmen.
That is about it, the others struggled one way or another. Trott of course made a century on debut and was a big winner, but he only played one match. He will have booked his place on tour though.
Andrew Strauss is a big winner. A year and a half ago his place in the England side was by no means certain and to some degree should not even have been picked. The captaincy seems to have been the making of him. His batting has improved out of sight and he is now back to his best. His captaincy whilst perhaps not of the very highest calibre is improving and shows considerable promise.
Matt Prior is a wicket keeper batsman whose wicket keeping has always been poor. In the West Indies last winter it was a laughing stock. There was a very real fear that he would give away hard fought opportunities in the Ashes with fumbled catches. Not so. Prior’s wicket keeping has improved considerably. He looks much less flustered behind the stumps and although the odd bye still gets past him the all important catches have stayed in his gloves. Prior’s batting too has been impressive finishing with a series average above Cook, Collingwood, Bell and Bopara.
Stuart Broad has come out of the Ashes as a national hero which is odd because two Test matches ago he was being widely tipped to be dropped. His bowling lacked penetration and control. By the end Broad topped the England bowling averages. A real boon with Broad is his batting, he ended up above Cook, Collingwood, Bell and Bopara in the averages. A fact that reflects well on Broad and terribly on the four batsmen.
That is about it, the others struggled one way or another. Trott of course made a century on debut and was a big winner, but he only played one match. He will have booked his place on tour though.
Monday, 24 August 2009
And so it ends
England winning the Ashes, who would have thunk it? Not me, that is for sure, I didn’t believe they were good enough. Heck, I still don’t and I just checked the sports to make sure I didn’t dream it. How does a side that scores two individual centuries beat a side that has eight? Or a side whose two best players have injuries that stop them playing a full part in the series beat a side with world class players that return to the side. Or a side that lost to West Indies a few months ago beat the Aussies who had just trashed South Africa in South Africa.
There seems little doubt that Andrew Strauss played a vital role both as opening batsman and captain. He has grown into the captaincy role and has a happy knack of getting good performances from himself and from unreliable bowlers. I think he summed it up best himself “when we are bad we are very bad, when we are good we are just good enough”. England were certainly just good enough today and it won them the biggest prize in cricket.
There seems little doubt that Andrew Strauss played a vital role both as opening batsman and captain. He has grown into the captaincy role and has a happy knack of getting good performances from himself and from unreliable bowlers. I think he summed it up best himself “when we are bad we are very bad, when we are good we are just good enough”. England were certainly just good enough today and it won them the biggest prize in cricket.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Strauss misses the cut
Andrew Strauss has been left out of England’s 30-man squad for the ICC World Twenty20 competition in June. Quite right too. He may have ‘suddenly’ become a 50-over player but he is in no way a T20 player. However, Andrew Strauss captained England’s last T20 match and did about as badly as everyone else.
Did they pick him in the Caribbean knowing he wasn’t the man for the job? Probably, they really are that stupid.
Did the one match he played force him to be dropped? I would hope not, he did as badly as everyone else.
After captaining in the previous match how did he suddenly become not worth mentioning in the best 30 players? Error, does not compute.
Do the England selectors have even the slightest clue what they are doing?
The full squad: Kevin Pietersen, Kabir Ali, James Anderson, Gareth Batty, Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Paul Collingwood, Stephen Davies, Joe Denly, James Foster, Andrew Flintoff, Stephen Harmison, Rob Key, Sajid Mahmood, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Eoin Morgan, Graham Napier, Samit Patel, Liam Plunkett, Matt Prior, Adil Rashid, Owais Shah, Ryan Sidebottom, Graeme Swann, Chris Tremlett, Shaun Udal, Chris Woakes, Luke Wright.
Did they pick him in the Caribbean knowing he wasn’t the man for the job? Probably, they really are that stupid.
Did the one match he played force him to be dropped? I would hope not, he did as badly as everyone else.
After captaining in the previous match how did he suddenly become not worth mentioning in the best 30 players? Error, does not compute.
Do the England selectors have even the slightest clue what they are doing?
The full squad: Kevin Pietersen, Kabir Ali, James Anderson, Gareth Batty, Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Paul Collingwood, Stephen Davies, Joe Denly, James Foster, Andrew Flintoff, Stephen Harmison, Rob Key, Sajid Mahmood, Dimitri Mascarenhas, Eoin Morgan, Graham Napier, Samit Patel, Liam Plunkett, Matt Prior, Adil Rashid, Owais Shah, Ryan Sidebottom, Graeme Swann, Chris Tremlett, Shaun Udal, Chris Woakes, Luke Wright.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Rubbish
Ian Bell and Alastair Cook are rubbish. Paul Collingwood and Andrew Strauss are also rubbish. Their statistics demonstrate this very clearly. You can argue about them being ‘good players’ or ‘batsmen with a sound technique’ until the cows come home but they are still rubbish. A Test average of just over 40 after a good number of Tests is grounds for de-selection, not retention. Not only are they rubbish, they have been rubbish for years – literally. Look at the graphs below. Rubbish.
Why are they rubbish? That is a more difficult question to answer because all four of the mentioned players have played good innings; innings after which people have said ‘xyz has come of age’, ‘what a quality player xyz is’. Strauss and Cook made centuries on debut and have averaged over 50 in Tests. Bell made 162 not out in his second match and 199 against South Africa last summer. Collingwood has a double century against Australia. There seems to be a paradox – they are rubbish but somehow can produce innings of quality. I suppose you could argue that if they play enough innings they will occasionally make big runs; they certainly have been given plenty of chances.
My dad’s favourite hobby horse is that they don’t play enough cricket. Whether he is correct or not, one thing is for sure – they don’t play much. In 2008, Cook played twelve test matches: three in March, seven spread between mid-May and mid-August followed by two in December. Cook also played four games for Essex. That is sixteen first-class matches, twelve of which were Tests – and not a century any of them. Is that enough to maintain form? How is Cook going to progress if he doesn’t play much cricket? There has been the suggestion that the England players don’t need to play much and can just turn up and ‘turn it on’. I would suggest that they are simply wrong and if you look at other sports players progress by playing. Top footballers do not become world class players by avoiding games and only playing once in a while. Top tennis players do not dominate their sport by only playing the odd tournament. Why should cricket be any different? The current players and system is not working. Maybe my dad has a point.
Why are they rubbish? That is a more difficult question to answer because all four of the mentioned players have played good innings; innings after which people have said ‘xyz has come of age’, ‘what a quality player xyz is’. Strauss and Cook made centuries on debut and have averaged over 50 in Tests. Bell made 162 not out in his second match and 199 against South Africa last summer. Collingwood has a double century against Australia. There seems to be a paradox – they are rubbish but somehow can produce innings of quality. I suppose you could argue that if they play enough innings they will occasionally make big runs; they certainly have been given plenty of chances.
My dad’s favourite hobby horse is that they don’t play enough cricket. Whether he is correct or not, one thing is for sure – they don’t play much. In 2008, Cook played twelve test matches: three in March, seven spread between mid-May and mid-August followed by two in December. Cook also played four games for Essex. That is sixteen first-class matches, twelve of which were Tests – and not a century any of them. Is that enough to maintain form? How is Cook going to progress if he doesn’t play much cricket? There has been the suggestion that the England players don’t need to play much and can just turn up and ‘turn it on’. I would suggest that they are simply wrong and if you look at other sports players progress by playing. Top footballers do not become world class players by avoiding games and only playing once in a while. Top tennis players do not dominate their sport by only playing the odd tournament. Why should cricket be any different? The current players and system is not working. Maybe my dad has a point.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Andrew Strauss
I posted a graph of Andrew's career early in 2008, here is an updated graph. As can be seen he has played better since the start of 2008. Not setting any records though...
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Turning around the supertanker 'England Fail'
A few years ago, England had a good Test side. This culminated in the 2005 home win against Australia. Since then the side has been in decline. England’s loss against South Africa is the second home series loss from the three series and by any yardstick England’s Test side should be considered a failure. That probably sounds a bit harsh ‘failure’ but it is accurate. England can only beat weak Test sides and make that seem difficult. The latest loss was typical of England – a poor first innings, it looks like the opposing side are easily going to get a big lead before Flintoff performs some heroics, a second innings which includes a century by someone in ‘Last Chance Saloon’ and finally a successful run chase by the opposition who manage to win despite multiple attempts to lose.
The selectors have tried the ‘do absolutely nothing at all unless we really, really have too’ strategy. That is not a bad way to treat nuclear waste but has been hopeless for England’s Test side. Here are a few ideas:
Give Strauss the Captaincy
Michael Vaughan is a good captain but his form is terrible. On form alone Vaughan shouldn’t even be considered for the England side, let alone be a permanent fixture. Strauss does have his bad form runs but he did play well when captain and in reasonable form right now. However, Vaughan has the ability to be the best player in the England side. Anyone who doubts this should go back and see what he did before becoming captain. His run of scores was remarkable and took him to number one in the world. I think Vaughan is worth another series as a player. If he can capture that old form he will be brilliant.
Drop Collingwood and Bell
You don’t drop a bloke after making a century. I would - mainly because I wouldn’t have picked him in the first place. Collingwood and Bell both just do enough to be picked. Their averages are poor. With his recent century, Collingwood now has six centuries in seventy innings – that is about one century for every six Tests. Rubbish. Bell has eight centuries in seventy-five innings and whilst he may look good when batting he rarely produces the goods when it matters.
Commit to Ambrose, or not
Lots of people seem to dislike Tim Ambrose. I am not one of them. I want my wicket-keeper to catch the ball. Specifically, I want him to not drop the ball when it has been edged. The previous incumbents, Prior for example, were unable to catch the ball when edged. I would much rather a wicket-keeper have an average of 26 and catch Jayawardene when he has 15 than have an average of 40 and drop the Sri Lankan captain allowing him to make another 150. The key point here is to pick a wicket-keeper who is good behind the stumps and stick with him.
Cut central contracts to six-months
Giving out central contracts for a year makes no sense to me. The ‘logic’ is that it gives stability to players who then know where they stand. I don’t agree, if a player is good enough it will make no difference to them. If they are not good enough it is better to cut them free after six months. As it stands the ECB will have to commit another twelve months to Vaughan in a month or so. That seems madness given his current form. Hoggard and Harmison, both centrally contracted players, have not played for England since the start of March. The money they have been paid would be much better spent if it went to Ambrose and Broad. My point is: award contracts at the start and end of the season(ish).
None of this will happen of course...
The selectors have tried the ‘do absolutely nothing at all unless we really, really have too’ strategy. That is not a bad way to treat nuclear waste but has been hopeless for England’s Test side. Here are a few ideas:
Give Strauss the Captaincy
Michael Vaughan is a good captain but his form is terrible. On form alone Vaughan shouldn’t even be considered for the England side, let alone be a permanent fixture. Strauss does have his bad form runs but he did play well when captain and in reasonable form right now. However, Vaughan has the ability to be the best player in the England side. Anyone who doubts this should go back and see what he did before becoming captain. His run of scores was remarkable and took him to number one in the world. I think Vaughan is worth another series as a player. If he can capture that old form he will be brilliant.
Drop Collingwood and Bell
You don’t drop a bloke after making a century. I would - mainly because I wouldn’t have picked him in the first place. Collingwood and Bell both just do enough to be picked. Their averages are poor. With his recent century, Collingwood now has six centuries in seventy innings – that is about one century for every six Tests. Rubbish. Bell has eight centuries in seventy-five innings and whilst he may look good when batting he rarely produces the goods when it matters.
Commit to Ambrose, or not
Lots of people seem to dislike Tim Ambrose. I am not one of them. I want my wicket-keeper to catch the ball. Specifically, I want him to not drop the ball when it has been edged. The previous incumbents, Prior for example, were unable to catch the ball when edged. I would much rather a wicket-keeper have an average of 26 and catch Jayawardene when he has 15 than have an average of 40 and drop the Sri Lankan captain allowing him to make another 150. The key point here is to pick a wicket-keeper who is good behind the stumps and stick with him.
Cut central contracts to six-months
Giving out central contracts for a year makes no sense to me. The ‘logic’ is that it gives stability to players who then know where they stand. I don’t agree, if a player is good enough it will make no difference to them. If they are not good enough it is better to cut them free after six months. As it stands the ECB will have to commit another twelve months to Vaughan in a month or so. That seems madness given his current form. Hoggard and Harmison, both centrally contracted players, have not played for England since the start of March. The money they have been paid would be much better spent if it went to Ambrose and Broad. My point is: award contracts at the start and end of the season(ish).
None of this will happen of course...
Monday, 10 March 2008
Andrew Strauss
Andrew Strauss made a big impact when when he started to play test cricket, he almost had two hundreds on his test début. I have blogged about his reintroduction to the test team. I thought it may help to give some facts rather than shooting from the hip. The graph below shows Andrew's test career. The blue line is his average as it has progressed. The red line is a three match rolling average. This means that the last red point is the average of the Hamilton test and the previous two he played (against India).
His average has been on a slow decline before the 2005 Ashes and is nor just above 40. His three match average indicates that his average has been regularly below 30 and is also trending downwards. It looks like it is now or never for Stauss.
I intend to follow this post up with a few other players figures for comparison.
Andrew Strauss Test Career up to 10th March 2008
His average has been on a slow decline before the 2005 Ashes and is nor just above 40. His three match average indicates that his average has been regularly below 30 and is also trending downwards. It looks like it is now or never for Stauss.
I intend to follow this post up with a few other players figures for comparison.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
How can we get Strauss in the side?
Andrew Strauss was not selected for the tour of Sri Lanka and has not played between that unselection and the selection of the touring party to New Zealand. So, how could he be picked for the tour to New Zealand if he had been dropped for the previous tour? Why wasn't say, to pull a completely random name out of the hat: Mark Ramprakash (who has managed to averaged over 100 in the last two seasons) chosen ahead of him?
Strauss managed 4 in 25 balls in the first tour match and has been selected for the second (and final) warm up match. If he fails again, what excuse will they use to include him? Who could they drop to make way: Owais Shah who made 96 in the warm up match?
Strauss managed 4 in 25 balls in the first tour match and has been selected for the second (and final) warm up match. If he fails again, what excuse will they use to include him? Who could they drop to make way: Owais Shah who made 96 in the warm up match?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
