• Downloads  
  • Desktop Alerts
  • Toolbars
  • Wallpapers
  • Screensavers

Strauss challenged to find the fight within

October 19, 2007

Andrew Strauss: kicking his heels this winter © Getty Images

How quickly his career has crumbled. Now he is on the outside looking in, axed without fanfare from all forms of the game after 12 indifferent months. A certain former coach would undoubtedly have overlooked his shortcomings in the interests of long-term stability, but in truth, Strauss's omission in ODIs and Twenty20s were cricketing decisions that scarcely met with a murmur of dissent. His sacking from the Test squad is something else entirely - a statement of intent that has not been matched since Peter Moores took charge of the England set-up.

"Andrew hasn't performed to the level he can do in terms of play," explained England's chairman of selectors, David Graveney, as the squad was unveiled at The Oval on Friday morning. "He's extremely disappointed, understandably, and it would be strange if he wasn't. But he is a fighter and we believe he will come back into the frame very quickly."

But how much of a fighter is he, really? That is the rhetorical question that has been posed by the new England management. Graveney added that Strauss would remain in the frame for the tour of New Zealand, although it's hard to imagine how - short of a first-class stint in his native South Africa - he is going to find the opportunity to make the runs and demonstrate the resolve that the selectors have called into question. It is more likely that Strauss will have to wait at least until the visit of New Zealand next May before he has a chance to hit back at his doubters.

He's extremely disappointed, understandably, and it would be strange if he wasn't. But he is a fighter and we believe he will come back into the frame very quickly England's chairman of selectors, David Graveney

Remarkably, given England's ropey run of form since the 2005 Ashes, Strauss is only the second member of that sacred band of brothers, after Geraint Jones, to have been jettisoned by England. Marcus Trescothick, Ashley Giles, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and (until recently) Vaughan all succumbed to ailments of one sort or another, while Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Matthew Hoggard and Kevin Pietersen remain integral to England's fortunes. Strauss has simply drifted - fit yet not entirely focused - out of contention.

Mind you, given the amount of cricket that England pack into their professional lives these days, an enforced absence might well be the tonic that Strauss's game so clearly needs. He is as equable a character as you could hope to meet, but that makes the malaise in his performances all the harder to pinpoint. His disappointing Ashes campaign last winter, in which he made just 247 runs in ten innings, was the start of the downward spiral, and yet he was England's form player going into the first Test at Brisbane. Two rash pull shots later, and the seeds of doubt had been instilled in his game.

The desolation of that tour was a far cry from Strauss's superlative first foray overseas, when he racked up three centuries and 656 runs against South Africa in 2004-05. Back then, Strauss played within the limitations of his game with the same sense of purpose as Australia's Justin Langer. The cut and the drive were the only shots he played in anger, with the pull slowly coming to the fore as his confidence grew. Last summer, the singlemindedness had vanished, never better demonstrated than at Lord's against India, when Strauss sacrificed what should have been his first century of the year with a wild charge and swipe at Anil Kumble.

The Strauss of old would never have given his position away so recklessly. In the 2005 Ashes, he was the only England batsman to make two centuries in the series, in spite of Shane Warne's unsubtle digs at his technique against the spinners. His first, at Old Trafford, came only days after Warne's biggest legbreak of the year had bowled him round his legs; the second, at The Oval, underpinned England's first innings in the match they simply didn't dare lose. Such combat experience cannot be squandered lightly. By pricking his self-esteem sooner rather than later, England have bought a key batsman enough time to rediscover his game, ahead of Australia's next visit in 2009.

As an opening batsman, Strauss's failings are doubly noticeable, and his partnership with Alastair Cook was under heavy scrutiny throughout the India series. The pair simply haven't gelled, and average 35.22 after 27 innings - a full 17 runs fewer than Strauss managed with Trescothick in 52 attempts. For all the youthful promise that Cook brings to the team, he is not the dominant cricketer that Trescothick was in his pomp - with the speed of his scoring he used to set the agenda as well as the platform, never more gloriously than at Edgbaston in 2005. Strauss has since taken it upon himself to fulfil Trescothick's role, but an average of 27.21 - set against his former mark of 46.37 - is ample proof of his shortcomings.

There is another possible reason for his slump. For all his smiling self-confidence and that phlegmatic public-school air, Strauss has a right to feel aggrieved at his treatment in recent months. Hindsight now proves that he and not Flintoff should have led England in Australia last winter, and if the worst comes to the worst and he cannot find the necessary fight to regain his place, he will finish his career as the most successful undefeated captain since Brian Close in 1967.

Sportsmen are ambitious by definition - Strauss was so close to leading his country in the twin peaks of the Ashes and the World Cup, only to be deemed unsuitable at the last minute. It has to be a bitter pill to swallow, whatever the thickness of your skin. This setback could yet be the remaking of him, but only if his willingness to fight is as palpable as Graveney makes it out to be.

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo

© Cricinfo