Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - England's win is England's loss

But as his other three innings were what one expects from him in short-form cricket – scratch, scratch, miscued big shot, out – there may have been a deeper purpose behind the award, that of ensuring that he will think he is good at one-day cricket and continue to open England’s innings throughout the World Twenty20.

These days, everything eventually tracks back to the IPL, so my guess is that this ludicrous accolade was directed by a dirty tricks department reporting to Lalit Modi.

The first hint of this campaign of misinformation I spotted was a week ago, when a strange Indian gentleman claiming to be a journalist popped up in the Sky TV studio, ostensibly to make sage comments on the Test match going on in Napier. Everything he said on that subject sounded sensible, but he was then invited to talk about the ODI which had just finished in Barbados, and pronounced that the main fault with England’s one-day side was the bowling.

Being English, I can’t really be expected to understand one-day cricket, but that just seems plain wrong. Without wishing to go overboard with praise for the unworthy, surely the bowling is the least of England’s one-day problems. Broad and Anderson are making good progress as new ball bowlers, Flintoff is excellent both in the middle overs and at the death, and the rest of those on show usually manage to border on adequacy.

Modi’s man was clearly trying to divert attention away from England’s horrible batting, which remains as clueless as ever. Tellingly, the only games which England won on the field (as opposed to being handed victory by a West Indian clerical error) were ones in which they did not have to try and bat for 50 overs. Given the full ration, England panic as soon as they lose a couple of wickets and are six down and struggling before they know it.

West Indies perhaps rely a little too much on a Gayle blitz to launch their innings, leaving them slightly doubtful if he goes early, but Sarwan and especially Chanderpaul are adaptable and versatile enough to build good platforms and then accelerate. They are followed by Bravo and Pollard, who possess both the ability and the self-belief to marmalise defensive bowling from the off. England batsmen who try and emulate them unerringly pick the wrong ball to whack straight up in the air, but if that doesn’t work they fall back on their sorry judgement of runs to get themselves out.

The plan must be that the series win sufficiently blinds England to their own uselessness to allow the rest of the world to laugh at them come June. West Indians disappointed with the outcome, particularly those seeking to blame coach Dyson for the Duckworth-Lewis debacle in Guyana, should therefore realise that this wholly ridiculous and anomalous result was part of a much deeper strategic scheme to destabilise England by getting them to pick the wrong team again and again and again.

The wry smile on Chris Gayle’s face at the final presentation suggests to me that he is privy to the conspiracy and was thinking “mission accomplished”. Though the best team lost, it was for the greater good, and the rewards will be reaped when England crash out of the Twenty20 World Cup by losing to the Netherlands.

Mike, even as you attempt to critique England's limited overs selections & strategy in general, it is hard not to note that you're tellingly harsh on Strauss. He has done everything that has been asked of him. He just got his batting form back...he was asked to lead a team that had just lost its captain and coach. He was by far the most successful batsman from England team all winter in both forms of the game and why would you not have him in the limited overs side? He may not be playing T20s for middlesex...but who said Middlesex are always right in their selection policies? Rahul Dravid was written off exactly like this in 1998..look what he did..came back and scored 10000 runs in a small matter of 7 years! I think Strauss deserves his place in all forms of the game.

Can't just please everyone. The award for Strauss is not just for his batting but for his leadership (during the entire tour) as well. If any lesser men (ie Pietersen, Flintoff et al) had captained this side during the past 10 weeks England would have become a joke - as we saw under Flintoff in Australia and under Pietersen in India. The article is born out of typical British sadism. Here is a man who has shown to the world that he can take the English cricket forward and you are just berating an award given to him. Agreed English batting is found wanting in all aspects but no one should begrudge the award to Strauss. It is the least he could get after toiling manfully for the last ten weeks and proving to the likes of you (ie pathetic souls, though he does not owe anything to you lot) that he should have been captain since two winters ago and not the numpties who overtook him to the job (Flintoff and Pietersen).

A pretty funny article and it is true Strauss won't cut it against stronger teams. He has just looked good against the West Indies.

Against teams like Aus or SA or Ind, his failings and that of the English team will be severely exposed.

In that regard, changes have to be made in the English side. This series victory really means nothing. It papers the huge cracks in the side.

England shouldn't be feeling too smug about defeating the Windies.

Even in his one useful innings in the ODI series KP looked patchy.

As rightly said by the author, come June and the T20 World Cup, the true strength of this English team will be revealed.

A very funny article. I wouldn't wish to comment on whether strauss is fit for t20s but i think strauss is good enough for opener in odis.

The wi-england odi series was pretty boring as compared to the first 2 matches of aus-sa series. Instead of the team which outplays the other team winning the match, in this series the team making lesser mistakes (on the field as well as off the field calculations) was winning!

Lastly, are you sure this is your piece or have you stolen one of confectionery staller's article?!! the humour (gods sense of humour, strauss and the ambulanceman, english don't understand odis!!!) was great!

[Mike: Mr Zaltzman isn't the only writer with a sense of humour. I'm glad you like mine too.]

Good grief. What does Strauss have to do to gain people's support and trust?

In the recently concluded series, Strauss scored 204 runs at an average of precisely 51 at a strike rate of 86.8. Along the way he picked up on century, one blistering half century and captained in difficult circumstances. KP meanwhile, had just one score above 17. Granted, that 48 in the final match was important given the match situation, but a series average of precisely 20 still represents a woefully inadequate return for England's "best" batsman.

I do see that England have got some serious issues with their batting, but there ARE issues in the bolwing too. Only a fool would be so blind as to believe there isn't. Broad is progressing but lacks penetration. Anderson is mercurial at best. Harmison is a waste of space. This leaves Flintoff as the only bowler in the England camp people fear; but only when fit.

And the whole bit about the conspiracy... what utter vacuous dribble.

I too, am a surprised at the harshness of this piece of writing towards Strauss.
As a West Indian supporter living in the U.S I always felt that Strauss did a pretty darned good job at keeping things from falling apart both on the field of play and off it, considering the circumstances under which he had to take over . Surely England selectors cannot overlook his performance (and form) in both forms of the game while everyone around him were mediocre or poor at best.
What the writer should have said is that the English selectors must now find the perfect foil (in the mould of Gayle)to compensate for Strauss's batting style. The problem here is not with the English captain, who I hope is given a chance to lead the team in both forms of the game, but rather with the make up of the team.The nonsensical notion of a conspiracy to ensure England remains uncompetitive is a feeble attempt to hide the frustration of England's performance this last winter.

[Mike: Part of England's tragedy is that over the last ten years, the outstanding candidate for the Test captaincy has been at best a mediocre one-day player. Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan were also shown up badly whenever they tried to score unnaturally quickly. Strauss is an excellent leader - and the ODI team badly needs one - but can an ODI team afford an opening batsman whose main purpose is to be captain?

As to the conspiracy theory bits - lighten up!]

Strauss isn’t regarded as good enough to play for England’s ODI side for nearly a year, during which England win only 4 of 16 matches away from home. He steps in to captain the side in an emergency. He realizes he has to change his approach – going aerial, hitting it hard – and succeeds to the point that, leading from the front, he’s the main batting reason that England win the series. Does that make him a great ODI performer? No. But to say he shouldn’t be within a hundred miles of a one-day side is simply crass. Since assuming the captaincy, Strauss has upped his game, in both Tests and ODIs. Who was the last England captain to do that? Hutton, perhaps?

[Mike: Gooch, certainly. Possibly Stewart. Atherton had had no real record before becoming captain.Arguably Hussain. In other words, most recent ones apart form Vaughan]

No Way Near to Imran’ Side
Pakistan once again justified the tag of unpredictability labeled on them for the last so many years. They seem to have completely lossed that killing instinct which was the hall mark of this supremely talent outfit in the yesteryears. We always expected much better show against this second string Australian outfit, importantly in the absence of gifted Ricky ponting, promising Mitchell Johnson and extremely consistent Michael Hussey. But the way we have given up against them has seriously raised some questions on the future of cricket in our Country. The entire strategical shift is required to retain the decent respect amongst the test playing nations, adjustment of batting line up requires some serious planning and hardwork, you need to have the right players at the right positions to control any given situation. Middle order and opening needs to be strengthened for the future, the only way to achieve the said goal is to nurture the younger lot with the veterans of cricket like Mohammad yousuf, inzamam Ul Haq and Saeed Anwar. I always believed that the make shift arrangements cannot deliver results in the long run, so we should rely on the specialists to do wonders for us. Secondly players should be selected on the consideration of their pure performance in the first class games rather than any preferential treatment meted out to them. . Younis khan should lead from the front by maintaining his consistent run with the bat in every game. As that will be an example for the other players to follow, he should be more innovative, aggressive and flexible in his strategies in accordance with the match situation. Pakistan team should follow the legacy set by Imran khan, wasim akram and waqar younis to salvage their dignity, self respect and honor.