1) he is a trusted veteran now of 40 Tests; 2) he is a good bloke; 3) there is no obvious like-for-like replacement in the wings so that his omission would cause ripples of change that most teams like to avoid.
1. Big deal
2. For heaven's sake, what is this, 1955? We're talking about the England cricket team here, not a weeks golfing holiday in La Manga.
3. Well, yes, possibly - but England have had to rejuggle the balance of the side because of the absence of Freddie over the past couple of months. Surely it's not beyond the wit of the selectors to come up with a 'Plan B' in circumstances like this - or are they seriously suggesting that Strauss remains in the side until either his lack of runs becomes a total embarrassment, or he finally plays himself into some form?
Good to see Stuart Broad in the 13 though.
4 comments:
Poor old Vic seems to have forgotten "form is temporary, class is permanent" - or perhaps he doesn't think Strauss is a class act. At least Strauss got a score to-day, and I have a notion that if there was anyone in particular that you thought should have Strauss's slot, you'd've named him...
Yes, good to see Broad in the 13, hope he plays (and not only because he's the only remotely plausible No. 8 in the squad).
Still, I can't help thinking that neither team looks as though it could bowl the other out twice...
Those umpires in Australia last season really stuffed him up.
So Strauss finally got amongst the runs last night, Mark. It can only be a matter of time before the selectors re-partner him with Trescothick.
He was helped by some woeful pre-lunch Indian bowling, but - credit where credit's due, he stuck at it and was unlucky not to post a ton.
Not sure about Tresco - it's a bit of a leap from walloping county attacks round to international level. 20/20 provides a handy halfway house though.
Post a Comment