I can’t say I agree with the non-selection of Andrew Strauss for the 20-20 World Cup.
At the very least he is unfortunate. If any other batsman had enjoyed his success in the recent ODI series – average 51, strike rate 87 – they would have been rightly aggrieved to be excluded. His wonderful 79 from 61 balls to help England chase 135 from 20 overs with time to spare surely signalled that he was an able batsman over 20 overs, and worth his place on merit.
When you consider that, under difficult circumstances, he has led the team well in the West Indies, he is doubly unfortunate. Geoff Miller was quoted as saying Strauss’s style is better suited to Test and One-Day cricket, and it is: but anyone who can score 79 from 61 under pressure would surely be an asset in a 20-20 World Cup.
Of course, it wouldn’t have been possible to include Strauss just as a batsman. If he was included, he would need to be captain. Crucially, as well, it would have been disruptive to include him in the 30, but then drop him for the final 15. It may well be that the rate him in the top 30 but not the top 15 batsmen for 20-20, and as such chose not to select him at all.
The advantage is it gives him some time off to focus on the forthcoming Ashes series. Planning for that one needs to be meticulous, and giving your captain the time to plan for it makes good sense.
The problem is, Strauss has still not been confirmed as permanent Test and ODI captain. He should be, immediately. The ECB say they want to conduct a full review of the West Indies tour before appointing a 20-20 captain, and to consult with the new coach (whoever that might be). This only serves to increase uncertainty and does nothing to aid planning. How can Strauss focus on the Ashes, if he doesn’t know what his role is going to be?
The other players suffer as well. After all the uncertainty, they seem happy with Strauss as captain (and, indeed, with Flower as coach) and no doubt would welcome him leading them into the Ashes. Appointing Strauss now would afford them some certainty going into this vital summer of cricket.
I can see the logic of appointing a coach first, especially after the Moores-Pietersen debacle. Andrew Strauss, though, is by all accounts an easy man to get on with, and an easy man to work with. I can’t imagine that any coach would struggle to work with him.
Strauss did show some weaknesses in the West Indies – a reliance on declarations by numbers being the most obvious one – but given the fact he was chucked in at the deep end, with a group of confused and largely dissatisfied players, he did a fine job. The lack of support he is being shown could be very damaging to the team unit.
There is really no excuse, as there is no other viable candidate in the team. Pietersen and Flintoff have tried and failed, as has Collingwood; Cook and Broad are too young; and no-one else is assured of their place in the team.
The only possible candidate appears to come from outside the team: Rob Key. Key has successfully captained the England A team in the winter, and is the captain of Kent, one of the strongest domestic teams. He is known to most of the England squad, having been on the fringes of the national team for many years, and has successfully grown a reputation as a good captain away from international cricket.
He must be the leading candidate for the 20-20 captaincy. He is also, coincidentally, possibly the best candidate around for the Test number three spot. Could the ECB be tempted to make him Test captain as well? I sincerely hope not. Strauss is clearly the best man for that job, and the sooner he is told that by the ECB, the better.