Strauss Resting Vs Bangladesh

[Richard]

I dont think playing bangladesh is disrespecting test cricket at all, if we want bangladesh to get better compete more they need to play the best teams, i think every test playing nation has sent weaker teams over there. And didnt west indies get beat by them in a test series or match recentley?

Something between West Indies A and West Indies B, yeah. Bangladesh aren't going to get better by playing teams that will thrash them all the time - they'll get better by playing teams of roughly equal standing. Or, alternatively, they won't get better, because the talent\infrastructure isn't there. You can't get blood out of a stone. Only when a team has the right ingredients will it become good enough; you cannot manufacture a team into being good enough by pitting it at a level miles above that at which it can compete.

That applies to anyone BTW.

 

[Richard]

Well he benifited so well last time he had a break (when he was dropped a couple of years ago), so I presume they're trying repeat that.

Not actually true. When Strauss returned from being dropped in Sri Lanka all the flaws which had been causing him problems were still firmly in place and caused him the same problems early in the series in New Zealand. He then gutsed out an unbelievably... well, gutsy... innings to save his Test career, and come the 2008 summer in England he was back to batting how he'd batted in 2004 and 2005 at the start of his Test career.

The change came after he returned from being dropped, not during.

 

[Furball]

My view is simply that he's the captain of England, which is a full time, 365 days a year job.

 

[Richard]

My view is that the only time you're England captain is when you step over the boundary-rope on the cricket field.

At any time they wish the England selectors can appoint and de-appoint the England captain (to borrow and slightly modify AV Dicey's legendary phrase about UK Parliament). Captaining a cricket team is a job for the field.

 

[L Trumper]

My view is simply that he's the captain of England, which is a full time, 365 days a year job.

But if his team and his players are fine with him being rested then the decision can't be blamed. And I don't think strauss took the decision without discussing with some of his team members. Like every job he can take a leave he want to. I never supported his decision I always wanted captain to participate in every game unless he feels incompetence within himself. Then again we can't blame the decision. If he feels like resting so he can take rest, he earned it.

 

[wpdavid]

In my opinion this has nothing to do with disrespecting Bangladesh (God knows they have done little to earn respect) and all to do with the institution of the England captaincy.

It should not be a part time job. If it is your job then you captain every possible Test. It is as simple as that IMO. To do otherwise would be disrespectful (meh, Ill thow it around as well if others are) to those that have held the post during its long proud history.

There's one or two previous captains who've done exactly that over the years though - Illingworth not going to India in 1972/3 springs immediately to mind. Having said that, I suppose Illy wasn't centrally contracted tbf.

I think he should have gone to Bang though. Sends an interesting message to the rest of the side that he's above such tours.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can see both sides, tbh. One the one hand, yes the captain probably should be leading his men (I've always been a believer in the old adage that says you should never ask someone to do something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourself); but on the other, it is only Bangladesh and giving them test status in the first place was arguably more direspectful to the institution of test cricket than letting a bloke nudging into his mid-30s put his feet up for a bit.

 

[Pup Clarke]

An overlooked factor is that Strauss has arguably been England's best batsman for the past 12-18 months, he has the capacity to spend time at the crease as well as being mentally tough (other than Collingwood there's not many others). I can definitely see England struggling with the bat on occasions.

 

[Burgey]

Showing disrespect to the idiotic decision to elevate Bangladesh to Test status = a very fine idea. It won't make the blindest bit of difference to anything, but it's still a good thing to be doing.

Disrespecting Test cricket is what's being done by those who insist Bangladesh are worthy of playing it; disrespecting that decision is actually showing great respect to Test cricket.

TBF it felt the same whenever we played England between 91 and 03..

So you think this is Dandy Andy's protest at the Bangers being elevated? He should have withdrawn from the pre-Ashes series vs them in 05 then..

Anyway, I lnow it was a different era, but I saw how chopping and changing the captaincy affected Australia in the early 80s when GC started picking and choosing. Not a fan tbh.

 

[Richard]

TBF it felt the same whenever we played England between 91 and 03..

However many overwhelming Australian victories there were over England '89 to '02/03 (and for all '89, '90/91, '93, '98/99, '01 and '02/03 were indeed such things, I might remind you that '94/95 and '97 were nothing of the sort), it bears no resemblence whatsoever to any serious Test side's majority of matches against Bangladesh since their erroneous elevation to Test status. And you know it too.

So you think this is Dandy Andy's protest at the Bangers being elevated? He should have withdrawn from the pre-Ashes series vs them in 05 then..

Nah, I think nothing of the sort - I just think he's resting because he doesn't really fancy an unlovely, short, trip to the subcontinent for what will in all likelihood be a fair slaughter. But if that decision, in a completely unrelated capacity, shows disrespect to the notion of Bangladesh being a Test-playing side, all well and good.

Anyway, I lnow it was a different era, but I saw how chopping and changing the captaincy affected Australia in the early 80s when GC started picking and choosing. Not a fan tbh.

Chappell opted-out of two tours, to England in 1981 and Pakistan in 1982/83. Both major tours, at a time when the international calendar, while beginning to hint at how overcrowded it was later to become, was still nowhere near as bad as it is presently. Hardly comparable to skipping what should be a fairly irrelevant series on a very short tour.

 

[L Trumper]

TBF it felt the same whenever we played England between 91 and 03..

So you think this is Dandy Andy's protest at the Bangers being elevated? He should have withdrawn from the pre-Ashes series vs them in 05 then..

Anyway, I know it was a different era, but I saw how chopping and changing the captaincy affected Australia in the early 80s when GC started picking and choosing. Not a fan tbh.

Who felt the same way? Even though some of them are rubbings, I am sure mcdermott, warne, waughs, slater et al 's stardom raised because of their performance in ashes. Most importantly in AUS point of view taylor's captaincy during 94/95 series really showed other teams including WI that they are the team to beat. Do you really think performance against bangladesh will elevate one stature as a cricketer?

 

[Burgey]

Who felt the same way? Even though some of them are rubbings, I am sure mcdermott, warne, waughs, slater et al 's stardom raised because of their performance in ashes. Most importantly in AUS point of view taylor's captaincy during 94/95 series really showed other teams including WI that they are the team to beat. Do you really think performance against bangladesh will elevate one stature as a cricketer?

I felt the same way.

No it won't elevate his stature one way or the other. But I don't think it's a good thing to chop and change test captains to "rest" them. Rest from other things, don't play ODIs, sit a few of them out. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Richard]

England don't play any away ODIs this year UIMM. So he'd have a job skipping them.

It's the break from travelling, not playing, that is so desperately required.

 

[Burgey]

England don't play any away ODIs this year UIMM. So he'd have a job skipping them.

It's the break from travelling, not playing, that is so desperately required.

Bet if the series was being played in Tahiti he wouldn't need the break from travel...

Though tbf Tahiti haven't performed that well of late

 

[L Trumper]

I felt the same way.

I understand you did. I was just wondering did from anyone else seriously thought playing ashes during 91 -03 is waste of time.

No it won't elevate his stature one way or the other. But I don't think it's a good thing to chop and change test captains to "rest" them. Rest from other things, don't play ODIs, sit a few of them out. That's all I'm saying.

Its not a good idea. But I am sure he discussed with some of the senior members in the squad and team management. If he had enough doubt that it won't be good for england or himself in future he would have travelled. Its about travelling rather tests or odis. I am not satisfied with that decision either. But saying this is disrespecting test cricket and disrespecting bangladesh is absolute bull****.

 

[Burgey]

Well I think it is, but we obviously disagree on this point, so fair enough.

 

[Furball]

England don't play any away ODIs this year UIMM. So he'd have a job skipping them.

It's the break from travelling, not playing, that is so desperately required.

3 in Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

What I meant was England don't have any ODI-specific trips, or long ODI series'.

There'd not be a great deal of good to be garnered from Strauss going to Bangladesh and only playing the Tests. If he was going to go, he might as well play Tests and ODIs.

 

[FBU]

eh? Ponting played on through an elbow injury this summer, without missing a Test. Infact he's played 63 Tests in a row now, not missing a Test since 2004.

I was thinking of ODIs. He missed 15 in an 18 month period.

 

[Craig]

Shane Warne is fast turning into Neil Harvey IMO.