First, as any site that professes as one of its aims being the better use of statistics should acknowledge, is that the Times probably produces more column inches of cricket than its rivals (and certainly more than the tabloids). It therefore follows that they are likely to produce more stupid articles, merely because they produce more articles.
Secondly, because they write more about cricket than their rivals, I tend to go to their web-site more often. As a rule, I try not to read bad articles (although if readers want to suggest articles to be dissected, feel free to draw them to my attention in the comments), but I had a feeling that there would be enough reactionary column inches to fuel a blog entry on the news that Andrew Strauss would miss the tour of Bangladesh.
The column that irked me into remembering my password for blogger, is seemingly unattributed. To be honest I'm not surprised: I wouldn't own up to writing it either.
There are 14 reasons why Andrew Strauss, rather than Alastair Cook, should be leading the England cricket team on its tour of Bangladesh.
OK good, a nice start. This article is going to set out the reasons why Strauss and not Cook should captain England in Bangladesh. Not much to argue about here, other than the absence of any attempt at balance and acknowledgement that there may be reasons as to why Cook rather than Strauss should captain England in Bangladesh.
I am however encouraged by there being 14 reasons. Too often lists like this come up with an infeasibly round number of arguments. Why should these lists always been a round ten or a full dozen? Why not a baker's dozen? Why not 11 reasons? So I'm pleased to see fourteen reasons. Fourteen doesn't often feature in these sorts of lists, so this is promising. Well done anonymous columnist.
It also means the threat of the final couple of reasons being some incredibly lame joke, about being too tired or not bothered to come up with more, is less likely to be dragged out by our anonymous columnist which I'm sure will be a big relief to us all. No-one wants to see an article finish on such a weak ending.
1. Andrew Strauss is the team’s captain.
Hold the front page: we have an exclusive!
But wait, we were promised reasons. This isn't a reason. It's a bald statement of fact, only it isn't actually a fact.
The England team has more than one captain, and I'm not just talking about Cook who will contrary to this bold claim captain England in Bangladesh. Paul Collingwood captains England in 20:20 cricket. Split captaincy is already a fact. Collingwood captains largely the same core of players as Strauss does in tests and Cook will in Bangladesh. In ODIs, there is an even greater similarity between the sides.
2. He has been captain for only a year, not ten. Everyone needs a rest, but how tired can he be?
Oh dear. This is flawed on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.
First he may have been captain for only a year, but is captaincy really the only part of cricket that can wear someone down? Might, I don't know, say being an batsman who has played 71 tests in five and a bit years be tiring?
Secondly, what a year! Three test matches that went down to the very wire, with the last pair batting out for a draw (a feat that has only taken place 19 times in test history) I'm guessing that takes more out of a captain than a routine win against a team like Bangladesh.
Third, how tired could he be - how about averaging 24.28 in the last series. His lowest series average for two and a half years. Last time he was in South Africa he averaged a stellar 72.88. Did burnout cause this decline? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely worth considering rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Fourth, and the biggest concern to me here, is that this seems to entirely miss the point. England are resting Strauss now, not because he is necessarily tired now; but so he isn't tired at the end of the summer, when England have to face both the Ashes and a World Cup campaign after two series this summer and a further two ODI series. Might not a bit of planning in advance be a good thing here?
3. He can hardly be exhausted by his exertions with the bat in South Africa, where his spells at the crease were mostly as short as John McCain’s temper: he averaged just 24 in seven innings.
Nice topical reference to the 2008 American presidential elections there.
Hmmm, didn't we dismiss the possibility that he could have been tired from his batting in the previous point. Strauss averaged 52.66 in the Ashes, might that have made him tired? How about his stupendous efforts in India where he averaged 84.00 the previous winter and then followed that up by averaging 67.62 in the West Indies?
Might his form be a symptom, not a cause of tiredness?
4. Alastair Cook? As captain? Cook was struggling to keep his place in the team until recently. Does he need the extra burden of being the boss?
Andrew Strauss was struggling to keep his place in the team until shortly before being made captain. Did he need the extra burden of being the boss?
5. Can you imagine Graeme Smith crying off tours because he craves a rest? He looks like he’d lead out South Africa even if he were on crutches.
Graeme Smith has played 81 test matches in 8 years. If Strauss plays every test match between now and the world cup, he will have played 84 test matches in six and a half years. Even skipping Bangladesh, Strauss will have played more tests in a shorter time frame.
Then there is also the question of whether Smith is someone England want to necessarily emulate. Achieving a 1-1 draw away in South Africa reflected better on Strauss than it did Smith. The series prior to that for both teams was Australia at home. England won, South Africa lost. Maybe, just maybe, Smith should be looking at Strauss rather than Strauss looking at Smith.
Personally, I'd question the wisdom of leading your country out on crutches. I doubt it would look so clever when trying to turn a single into two runs and the crutches would hinder his slip catching.
6. Being England captain is an honour. Every schoolboy’s dream. A duty, but also a privilege.
True, although utterly irrelevant.
I should also point out it's also an honour, a privilege, a duty that Andrew Strauss hasn't been asked to perform for this tour.
7. English cricket is not in so flourishing a state that it can confidently be left to its own devices while Strauss enjoys a long, restorative massage. England has just lost a match by an innings. Team confidence is fragile. His men need him.
Ah, there's actually the bones of an argument in this. Although someone could equally say that drawing a series away in South Africa was a fine achievement and England are only playing Bangladesh, who in the words of Virender Sehwag are an "ordinary side" who can not beat India in test match cricket.
8. Strauss needs to be on hand to investigate his side’s problems and fix them before facing Pakistan this summer and Australia next winter.
I'm not quite sure what more investigating needs to be done to discover that England lack enough fire-power to consistently bowl sides out twice and that their batsman need to score more hundreds and stop collapsing.
Even if that wasn't obvious from the test series just concluded, what exactly will be learnt against a side like Bangladesh? Probably the same lessons as were learnt from Ravi Bopara scoring three consecutive hundreds against the West Indies.
9. Can you imagine Wellington saying: “You know what? I feel a bit pooped after that Peninsular War. I think maybe I’ll give Waterloo a miss and wait for the next battle. Let me know how it goes. I’ll see you guys later. Well, some of you.”
I can't imagine Wellington going out to the middle to toss with Napoleon to see who would go first, either. Nor, try as I might, I just can't picture the Duke of Wellington buckling on his pads and strolling out and taking guard. I'm not sure what exactly my lack of imagination proves*.
From my limited knowledge of military history, I understand that holding units back and keeping them fresh, was an important part of military strategy.
*Although the start of the Battle of Waterloo was delayed until noon to allow the ground to dry, so maybe it isn't that far-fetched a comparison after all.
10. Did we mention the crucial bit about Andrew Strauss’s paid job being to captain England?
Ah, yes. Andrew Strauss is an employee of the ECB. This means he has to obey their instructions, like when they tell you: "we want you to sit this one out, Andrew".
It also means that the ECB have a duty of care as his employer towards him as their employee. Might England want to avoid a key player going down the route of Marcus Trescothick?
We have another four reasons. But to be honest, we need a break before going on. This is turning out to more stressful work than we expected.
Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ah, I never saw that one coming. Stop, my ribs are aching with all this joy and mirth. Where do they get such original material from?
There are arguments both for and against Strauss going and I'm perfectly happy for people to argue that Strauss should have gone provided they come up with proper arguments for doing so. Nasser Hussain, was one pundit who managed to put forward a fairly logical, reasoned argument in his Daily Mail column. I may not agree with Hussain's conclusion, but I can appreciate there is some validity in the arguments he puts forward. That's more than can be said for this column.
It is also worth pointing out the superficially impressive line of former England captains who have come out against this move: Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, Bob Willis, David Gower and no less than Sir Ian Botham are all quoted in an accompanying article criticising the move. It may be overly cynical to point out that all five are in the pay of Rupert Murdoch, whose subscription Sky Sports channels will be broadcasting England in a test series now given second class status. The lone dissenting voice is that of Michael Vaughan, the most recent and most successful captain. But if Botham is against it, it has to be a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment