Andrew Strauss - Not a bad start, chap.

[marc71178]

He's had a start more sensational than most, that's certain.
If he keeps this up, he could replace Graeme Smith as the potential next-best-after-Bradman.

Erm, apart from you, nobody else has said that about Smith.

 

[Richard]

And I can't see anyone else saying it about Strauss, either, can you?

 

[marc71178]

After the end of the New Zealand tour it was perfectly conceivable that he'd finish his Test-career with an average in the 60s.

In spite of the fact that back in 2002 we all identified his obvious weakness?

 

[marc71178]

And I can't see anyone else saying it about Strauss, either, can you?

No, because to label any player with that early in their career is silly, and can lead to a large helping of egg on your face.

Bit like you've got by hyping Smith so much.

 

[badgerhair]

Of late he's been poor.
After the end of the New Zealand tour it was perfectly conceivable that he'd finish his Test-career with an average in the 60s.
So he'd be a contender - and no more - for the 2nd-best batsman of all-time.
The recent games have made that look ever more unlikely with every one.

His ending his career with a 60+ average could only have been perfectly conceivable to someone who simply reads scorecards and doesn't watch cricket. Watching the English bowlers sling down rubbish tailored to his few strengths and attacking none of his obvious weaknesses while he compiled 259 at Lord's was painful in the extreme. At least they learned their lesson and didn't do it again that series, which is why he could hardly buy a run thereafter.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

In spite of the fact that back in 2002 we all identified his obvious weakness?

Anyone can identify a weakness in anyone.
Until it starts getting you out cheaply, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Richard]

No, because to label any player with that early in their career is silly, and can lead to a large helping of egg on your face.

Bit like you've got by hyping Smith so much.

No, I've egg on my face only in your and a few others' esteem, because you were the ones who interpreted it as hype rather than just a light suggestion of possibility.

 

[Richard]

His ending his career with a 60+ average could only have been perfectly conceivable to someone who simply reads scorecards and doesn't watch cricket. Watching the English bowlers sling down rubbish tailored to his few strengths and attacking none of his obvious weaknesses while he compiled 259 at Lord's was painful in the extreme. At least they learned their lesson and didn't do it again that series, which is why he could hardly buy a run thereafter.

No, he could hardly buy a run thereafter because of Martin Bicknell's inswing, one piece of extraordinary carelessness and two pieces of bad luck.
Funny, isn't it, how plenty of bowlers slung down the same sort of rubbish tailored to his few strengths - perhaps it might have been because he gave them no other way of getting him out? If someone's willing to judge on series only against their own team that's hardly a virtue. For the record, of course, I'd add that I've watched 15 of Graeme Smith's Tests, rather than simply read scorecards.

 

[marc71178]

Anyone can identify a weakness in anyone.
Until it starts getting you out cheaply, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Erm, if his clear run scoring bias can be restrained to prevent him scoring runs, it looks to me like his weakness does matter.

 

[marc71178]

No, I've egg on my face only in your and a few others' esteem, because you were the ones who interpreted it as hype rather than just a light suggestion of possibility.

Right, so now labelling someone with such high accolades is just "a light suggestion of possibility"

So if I say you're talking out of your rearend, can I say it was just "a light suggestion of possibility"?

 

[marc71178]

No, he could hardly buy a run thereafter because of Martin Bicknell's inswing, one piece of extraordinary carelessness and two pieces of bad luck.

Funny that it becomes luck on someone you like, but is a weakness if you don't like them.

How do you explain the trouble he had with an out of form Giles in same innings then - anomalies?

 

[bryce]

To think that someone was arguing that Strauss wouldn't make the Australian Test side the other day...

to think that you were suggesting to swap him with langer

 

[Scaly piscine]

to think that you were suggesting to swap him with langer

As I and most other people keep saying Strauss is Langer mark II. Why on Earth wouldn't you replace Langer with a guy like Strauss who's been taking apart every attack he faces with surreal ease?

 

[bryce]

langer is a proven performer with over 20 test centuries while strauss has had one good season of international cricket - only the people sporting the english eyes would make such a statement

 

[Scaly piscine]

Langer is a solid, reliable player but he's not a Hayden or Gilchrist (in terms of batting value to a team not style). Strauss could well be a Hayden or a Gilchrist. Langer is always going to be decent, but not in the same class as those. Also Strauss has a great temprament and oozes class when he bats and if you'd seen him bat perhaps you'd see this and not come out the attitude that suggests you'd stick with a guy until he retires just because he's a reasonable player.

 

[Scallywag]

Why on Earth wouldn't you replace Langer with a guy like Strauss who's been taking apart every attack he faces with surreal ease?

Just look at Langers record over the last 12 months that will give you a clue.

 

[social]

To think that someone was arguing that Strauss wouldn't make the Australian Test side the other day...

Who would he replace?

Im not denagrating his performances but he would never have been given the opportunity with Australia in the first place.

Strauss has only come into his own in the last 12 months. Langer and Hayden have held a mortgage on the openers' spot for longer than that.

Would Australia have swapped either for Strauss 12 months ago? No

Would they do so today? No

 

[social]

I'd think he'd replace Clarke straight away.

No Strauss is an opener or no. 3 not no. 5.

Plus the Australian selectors believe that Clarke will be the next batting superstar so I dont think that they'd swap him for anybody at the moment.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As I and most other people keep saying Strauss is Langer mark II. Why on Earth wouldn't you replace Langer with a guy like Strauss who's been taking apart every attack he faces with surreal ease?

Because Strauss has scored hundreds against New Zealand (x1), West Indies (x1) and South Africa (x3). Langer has scored hundreds against Pakistan (x4), England (x3), West Indies (x3), India (x3), South Africa (x2), New Zealand (x4) and Sri Lanka (x2).

Langer has scored centuries in 7 different countries and Strauss has in 2.

That's why on earth, or any other planet for that matter.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No Strauss is an opener or no. 3 not no. 5.

Plus the Australian selectors believe that Clarke will be the next batting superstar so I dont think that they'd swap him for anybody at the moment.

If Clarke were an opener or Strauss were a middle order batsman, they'd do it in a heartbeat.