Cricket is in a state of flux, but some traditions endure, for instance, the great Ashes autopsy. As people cast around for solutions to England's cricketing woes there is a consensus Andrew Strauss is an integral part of a better future. Michael Vaughan suggests he'd be a good chairman of the ECB, Michael Atherton sees him more in the Chief Executive's role and Tim De Lisle (Guardian) thinks he is right man to reset English cricket, but seems happy to leave him in his current role of chairman of the ECB's cricket committee.
From the little bits I've seen, Strauss is a good man who speaks and, presumably, thinks clearly. But I'm less convinced he's the right man to run English cricket and I find his treatment in the media a little odd. Tim De Lisle for one seems to be in favour of a mythical Andrew Strauss.
In today's article in the Guardian De Lisle writes: "It was Strauss who saw, in 2015, that something drastic needed to be done about England’s white-ball cricket. He sacked the captain, his old opening partner Cook, and promoted Eoin Morgan, who turned out to be the most successful England captain since Mike Brearley."
Which is great, or would have been great, but it's not, I think, true. Eoin Morgan was appointed England's one day captain in December 2014. Andrew Strauss took over as the ECB's director of English cricket in May 2015. It was poor old Paul Downton who oversaw the appointment of Eoin Morgan.
On the one hand just a piece of careless journalism but also indicative of the way journalists think about Andrew Strauss. He's spent the past 7 years in a variety of roles pretty much at the heart of English cricket and has made tweaks on the tiller, not dramatic alterations to the course set by Colin Graves and Tom Harrison. But journalists regard him, or claim to regard him, as an agent of change. All very odd.
Extremely well remembered. At least 'Rupert' Downton can take credit for something!
ReplyDelete