England v Pakistan, 2nd ODI, Headingley September 12, 2010

Strauss silences the doubters

47

It seems absurd that Andrew Strauss's place in England's one-day line-up was being debated on the day he struck 126 to set-up a 2-0 series lead against Pakistan, but during the lunch interval of the second one-day international a panel of experts on TV selected their World Cup squads and Strauss wasn't in the 15.

Neither, for that matter, was Jonathan Trott, who is England's in-form batsman of the moment in all formats and added 146 with Strauss at Headingley. But it was the absence of the current captain that provoked debate as he notched up his fifth one-day international hundred and second in three matches. The panel's reasoning behind Strauss's omission is his lack of runs straight down the ground and how he will adapt on the slower pitches in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Yet since returning to the one-day side in early 2009 - at that time because there was no other choice following the messy end to Kevin Pietersen's captaincy stint - Strauss has averaged 42.03 in 32 matches compared to a career mark of 35.06. He knows he will be the man leading England at the World Cup and the numbers back up that decision.

"All I can do is do my talking with the bat and help England to win cricket matches," he said. "Other people can talk as much as they like, it's pretty irrelevant to me. I've worked very hard on trying to expand my game and it's important I can lead by example. I've been in good form all summer and that helps because things tend to come a bit more naturally. I'm very happy with my game and even more happy that we are continuing to win."

However, his innings wasn't without two moments of good fortune and Pakistan were convinced he'd been caught behind on 38 when Umar Gul nipped one back off the seam. Kamran Akmal held a fine catch but Billy Doctove turned down the appeal and a few words were exchanged between batsman and bowler. It led to Shahid Afridi calling for the introduction of the umpire review system for major one-day series.

"Definitely it would be good in matches like this and in big series like this," he said. "It is important that it's in cricket now. I know in Twenty20 you don't have much time but in one-dayers you would."

But on this occasion it wasn't a clear-cut decision even on replays so the UDRS may not have even overturned the on-field call and Strauss was very content about standing his ground. "I wasn't sure if it had hit my glove," he said. "Nothing has changed in cricket, the umpires are there to make a decision and they did that."

Strauss was given a much more obvious life on 23 when Mohammad Irfan, the seven-foot pace bowler, couldn't take a simple catch at short fine-leg. Irfan later limped off with cramp for the second match running and Afridi was far from impressed with his new recruit.

"I'm really disappointed with this guy," he said. "Cricket is not all about just batting and bowling, fielding is very important and maybe if he's good in the field I will give him a chance otherwise I'm not happy."

However, Pakistan don't have many other pace options in their squad. Wahab Riaz would be a controversial selection considering his links to the ongoing spot-betting allegations while Abdul Razzaq, who has been left out of the opening two matches, is due to undergo an MRI scan on his troublesome back in the next few days.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Agus2010 on September 15, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    Honestly after the IPL the cricket get the worst stage, because of IPL most of the International player wanted to resign from International cricket (like Flintoff, Gilly and Hyden did), I am sure sooner or later all the Indian players who involved in IPL will retire from all form of cricket because of IPL, because they already know the taste of money they are getting paid whether they paly or carry water bottle and towel to their playing team mate, they make more money than if they play in international matches, that was the reason player like Tendulkar and Harbajan got rest during the tri nation match in Sri. Lanka also the team wanted the management to reduce the test matches between New zeland and want them more rest to play for IPL, no wonder if they will come during World cup 2011 because they already earn much money through IPL and who care if they win or loose Worl cup, they will tell some stupid excuse "We batted very bad and their bowlers done a good job" lol

  • irfan.ahmad1976 on September 13, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    ICC is attempting to be a Policeman of Cricket. Suspending the players just on charges. Lets recall the rules that chucking is illegal in Cricket as well but what happens when the bowler is reported. Is he suspended. I think no till the tests are complete. Its a good way to get rid of those who can damage a team. Pakistan should buy a gutter newspaper as well to blame top players of the world as it will ensure their win.... Big Shame... Rashid Latif was banned for claiming a catch on a ball that did not carry. What about Straus?? No way... He is innocent... He doesnt even know if he hits the ball with his bat, leg, hand or head to hit a six as he is innocent.. The biggest shame is for those who declared him man of the match instead of declaring him "Cheat of the Match". To become man of the match, you need to have sportsman spirit which he lacks. He should learn from his team mate Davies who has shown much more spirit than him by walking out after a nick.

  • delastbastion on September 13, 2010, 21:13 GMT

    Any one who's played cricket at any level knows when he's gloved one, make no mistake about that!, your hands are amongts the most sensitive of body parts. Andrew Strauss's comment following the "gloving incident" casts doubts on his integrity as a person and further as a captain who asserts"it's important I can lead by example" . he might just as well have left it at " the umpires are there to make a decision and they did that". things happen in cricket but by his actions........... Andrew Straus has shown he is nothing short of an ordinary desperate player, who will stoop to any levels to advance his credentials as an England player at all cost's. his actions are not consistent with that of a confident succesful english captain but rather a fringe player unsure of his future within the team. It was the most hollow century I've ever seen.

  • on September 13, 2010, 20:15 GMT

    It was bad luck for Pakistanis. but I dont understand what irfan doing here? no swing no pace no variety he has just bouncer...... why they are not using Razzaq

  • CricketingStargazer on September 13, 2010, 18:18 GMT

    Abdrew Strauss tends to get a fair bit of flack for "cheating". He did last summer over a couple of catches, one of which, apparently, "clearly touched the ground". It's an incident that I have watched 20 times and very little about it was clear (you can't just whether or not a catch has carried from a face-on camera well above ground level anyway). It seems to be a case of someone who is proving to be a little too successful raising the ire of opponents. I've seen far worse than the Strauss edge by other teams, including a famous case where a wicket keeper claimed a catach when the ball had ROLLED along the ground to him. If the umpire is there to decide, let him decide. Not even the most one-eyed of fans can say that the errors have all gone one way thiis summer: you get a rough decision and you show your maturity and fighting spirit by taking it and making sure that the player doesn't profit from the let-off. Too many of the comments here smack of desperation to justify a defeat.

  • on September 13, 2010, 17:03 GMT

    Now I am not the only one to believe that the so called match fixing allegations against pakistani players are parts of a melicious conspiracy.The point is that why they would put put their own reputation, image and carrier at risk and lose the game merely for monitary gain?. On the contrary it is more likely that England might have 'bought' the victory. They might have bribed the middleman to put the bribary plot in action? Is it not possible that they- and not the bookies- might have hired the middleman and also the Media(known for lowest standard of journalism) for hatching the plan of so called visual sting operation?. Is there no one to raise doubts and point fingers at English Players? Why? Are they angels?. If Pakistanis are labled as soldout commodities for ever, why the sting operation was not carried out before their win in the test match?. Ask Strauss, did he buy his century & chances at 23 & 38l?. Why Majid revealed his lucrative business secrets?. Biting of concious(!)?

  • EightBall on September 13, 2010, 16:34 GMT

    It's absolutely ridiculous to compare Strauss's non-walk to accepting money to bowl no-balls. I concur with Strauss's comment, "Nothing has changed in cricket, the umpires are there to make a decision..." Pakistani fans may have been hopeful at the start of this tour. But let's be realistic here. There is no dishonour to losing to this English team in England in any form of the game. For Pakistan to come to England and beat them even in 1 test was an impressive feat. Pakistan was the underdog from the get-go. The whole spot-fixing thing just made things worse for them.

  • Something_Witty on September 13, 2010, 16:27 GMT

    Why were there any doubters anyway? A decent test batsman (these days) will make a decent ODI batsman. That is what Strauss is, a decent batsman, nothing more, nothing less.

  • on September 13, 2010, 14:32 GMT

    I dont think strauss played a good inning, any one can do 100 he they get two chances. Irfan dropped a simple catch of strauss on akhtar bowl when he was on 23. He was dropped again by kamram akmal so thats the proven fact that catches win matches. we need razzaq no matter what I also think we should give chance to irfan through out the series. Razzaq should open the bowling with akhtar and gul and irfan should be suitable for mid overs.

  • jangli70 on September 13, 2010, 13:48 GMT

    gentleman does not go and says that he is out, no no not a person playing for his plase in team, and is white. Only good Gilchrist does it normally and he do got hammer from the white press why he had gone before the finger of empire..

  • Agus2010 on September 15, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    Honestly after the IPL the cricket get the worst stage, because of IPL most of the International player wanted to resign from International cricket (like Flintoff, Gilly and Hyden did), I am sure sooner or later all the Indian players who involved in IPL will retire from all form of cricket because of IPL, because they already know the taste of money they are getting paid whether they paly or carry water bottle and towel to their playing team mate, they make more money than if they play in international matches, that was the reason player like Tendulkar and Harbajan got rest during the tri nation match in Sri. Lanka also the team wanted the management to reduce the test matches between New zeland and want them more rest to play for IPL, no wonder if they will come during World cup 2011 because they already earn much money through IPL and who care if they win or loose Worl cup, they will tell some stupid excuse "We batted very bad and their bowlers done a good job" lol

  • irfan.ahmad1976 on September 13, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    ICC is attempting to be a Policeman of Cricket. Suspending the players just on charges. Lets recall the rules that chucking is illegal in Cricket as well but what happens when the bowler is reported. Is he suspended. I think no till the tests are complete. Its a good way to get rid of those who can damage a team. Pakistan should buy a gutter newspaper as well to blame top players of the world as it will ensure their win.... Big Shame... Rashid Latif was banned for claiming a catch on a ball that did not carry. What about Straus?? No way... He is innocent... He doesnt even know if he hits the ball with his bat, leg, hand or head to hit a six as he is innocent.. The biggest shame is for those who declared him man of the match instead of declaring him "Cheat of the Match". To become man of the match, you need to have sportsman spirit which he lacks. He should learn from his team mate Davies who has shown much more spirit than him by walking out after a nick.

  • delastbastion on September 13, 2010, 21:13 GMT

    Any one who's played cricket at any level knows when he's gloved one, make no mistake about that!, your hands are amongts the most sensitive of body parts. Andrew Strauss's comment following the "gloving incident" casts doubts on his integrity as a person and further as a captain who asserts"it's important I can lead by example" . he might just as well have left it at " the umpires are there to make a decision and they did that". things happen in cricket but by his actions........... Andrew Straus has shown he is nothing short of an ordinary desperate player, who will stoop to any levels to advance his credentials as an England player at all cost's. his actions are not consistent with that of a confident succesful english captain but rather a fringe player unsure of his future within the team. It was the most hollow century I've ever seen.

  • on September 13, 2010, 20:15 GMT

    It was bad luck for Pakistanis. but I dont understand what irfan doing here? no swing no pace no variety he has just bouncer...... why they are not using Razzaq

  • CricketingStargazer on September 13, 2010, 18:18 GMT

    Abdrew Strauss tends to get a fair bit of flack for "cheating". He did last summer over a couple of catches, one of which, apparently, "clearly touched the ground". It's an incident that I have watched 20 times and very little about it was clear (you can't just whether or not a catch has carried from a face-on camera well above ground level anyway). It seems to be a case of someone who is proving to be a little too successful raising the ire of opponents. I've seen far worse than the Strauss edge by other teams, including a famous case where a wicket keeper claimed a catach when the ball had ROLLED along the ground to him. If the umpire is there to decide, let him decide. Not even the most one-eyed of fans can say that the errors have all gone one way thiis summer: you get a rough decision and you show your maturity and fighting spirit by taking it and making sure that the player doesn't profit from the let-off. Too many of the comments here smack of desperation to justify a defeat.

  • on September 13, 2010, 17:03 GMT

    Now I am not the only one to believe that the so called match fixing allegations against pakistani players are parts of a melicious conspiracy.The point is that why they would put put their own reputation, image and carrier at risk and lose the game merely for monitary gain?. On the contrary it is more likely that England might have 'bought' the victory. They might have bribed the middleman to put the bribary plot in action? Is it not possible that they- and not the bookies- might have hired the middleman and also the Media(known for lowest standard of journalism) for hatching the plan of so called visual sting operation?. Is there no one to raise doubts and point fingers at English Players? Why? Are they angels?. If Pakistanis are labled as soldout commodities for ever, why the sting operation was not carried out before their win in the test match?. Ask Strauss, did he buy his century & chances at 23 & 38l?. Why Majid revealed his lucrative business secrets?. Biting of concious(!)?

  • EightBall on September 13, 2010, 16:34 GMT

    It's absolutely ridiculous to compare Strauss's non-walk to accepting money to bowl no-balls. I concur with Strauss's comment, "Nothing has changed in cricket, the umpires are there to make a decision..." Pakistani fans may have been hopeful at the start of this tour. But let's be realistic here. There is no dishonour to losing to this English team in England in any form of the game. For Pakistan to come to England and beat them even in 1 test was an impressive feat. Pakistan was the underdog from the get-go. The whole spot-fixing thing just made things worse for them.

  • Something_Witty on September 13, 2010, 16:27 GMT

    Why were there any doubters anyway? A decent test batsman (these days) will make a decent ODI batsman. That is what Strauss is, a decent batsman, nothing more, nothing less.

  • on September 13, 2010, 14:32 GMT

    I dont think strauss played a good inning, any one can do 100 he they get two chances. Irfan dropped a simple catch of strauss on akhtar bowl when he was on 23. He was dropped again by kamram akmal so thats the proven fact that catches win matches. we need razzaq no matter what I also think we should give chance to irfan through out the series. Razzaq should open the bowling with akhtar and gul and irfan should be suitable for mid overs.

  • jangli70 on September 13, 2010, 13:48 GMT

    gentleman does not go and says that he is out, no no not a person playing for his plase in team, and is white. Only good Gilchrist does it normally and he do got hammer from the white press why he had gone before the finger of empire..

  • cricket_fan_1 on September 13, 2010, 13:38 GMT

    Strauss's on field actions don't have anything to do with being English. But he should have been more careful about his comments in public about the Glove controversy. It's is a complicated case of Umpire incompetence, because the incompetence always gives benefit of doubt to the non sub-continent team (assuming other team is not from the subcontinent).This despite the fact many claim that a subcontinent cricket board runs the ICC.

  • AhmadSaleem on September 13, 2010, 12:48 GMT

    It was third time during this summer when Strauss didn't walk after getting a huge edge where 90% modern cricketers would have walked straight away. You don't walk when you get a faint edge like trott did during first ODI some of them walk even then like Umar Akmal walked yesterday after getting a faint edge without waiting for the decision coming from umpire. Same thing was done by KP at Oval where he walked straight away after nicking one to keeper. But the English captain is a shameless cricketer who not only stood his ground but later insisted that he didn't know whether he gloved it or not. Come on Mr. Strauss, you not only gloved it but also edged it. It was a huge deflection.

  • simon_w on September 13, 2010, 11:52 GMT

    I have to confess I'm a little bit distressed about the people posting comments equating not walking with match fixing... Surely you people don't actually really mean that, do you?

  • emile70 on September 13, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    Yeh that dodgy Strauss should've walked, an earlier one in which he didn't hit he shows his contempt to the Pakistanis appealing by shaking his head. So you hit this one get off.. An ordinary innings and also should've been caught earlier... Cheats don't always prosper

  • crali on September 13, 2010, 11:07 GMT

    The Pakistan cricket team are most probably the most Out of form cricket team in world cricket at this point. England are like the most inform team in world cricket.

  • on September 13, 2010, 10:25 GMT

    its not the first time he didnt walked he did this in test series also.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 13, 2010, 10:25 GMT

    I guess that one other thing that has made me laugh is the comments about Andrew Strauss as not being "an English gentleman". The people posting here must be the only ones who have forgotten that he was born in Johannesburg in South Africa. Of course, when he does anything well he is criticised as not being English (or even British), so you can't expect him to hold his tea cup correctly, or show the correct degree of English deference to walking.

  • on September 13, 2010, 9:46 GMT

    You have got to be kidding?? Calling Strauss a cheat because he didn't walk, when NO-ONE in world cricket walks.

    I simply can't understand the complete lack of humility of Pakistani cricket fans and players. Perpetual proven cheats, culminating in this disgraceful spot fixing episode yet you have the cheek to be sanctimonious and indignant towards what is considered now days part of the game.

  • dravidgood on September 13, 2010, 9:07 GMT

    I would'nt claim Strauss a cheat even if he knew he nicked it, coz hes simply not a walker. Brian Lara wasnt, sachin isnt and I dunno if anyone other than Gilly is. In cricketing circles its pretty well-taken if ure not a walker. Thats what he said that the umpires take that call. sometimes they can be unlucky as well, even then umpires take the call. So go mr Strauss, blow loud the trumpet of integrity and honesty, coz we need those voices more than ever today around our beloved game which is neck deep in filth. And thats what he would say "i dunno if it hit my glove", he makes us know that he simply dint walk. He would be lil bit of a cheat if he rather said "oh Christ, how do you think i nicked it, i knew like heaven that i dint". So dont be harping about this issue. Even Dravid would approve this I guess. Important thing is he lands in the subcontinent in 2011 and along with other intense cricketers restores our faith in the game running by mediocrity now.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 13, 2010, 8:24 GMT

    Amazing!!! Was any of those here venting their spleen actually watching or listening, or have they picked all this up 3rd or 4th hand??? The commentary both TV and Radio called the incident as out. Both noted that the batsman's hand left the bat AFTER contact. And both noted (as did CricInfo at the time) that Strauss was lucky to get away with it. So much for the media casting doubt on what happened. The mitigating factor that was mentioned for the umpire was that, from the his viewpoint, it would have been hard to distinguish body and glove as they were close together. As far as I recall, there was no suggestion that the ball took a thick edge off the bat as some are suggesting below (is Andrew Strauss a contortionist, perhaps to hit it with both???) As for not walking being cheating... if you ARE a walker and know that you have edged it and don't walk, yes. If you consistently let the umpire reach a decision, right or wrong... Andrew Strauss has had enough bad decisions in the past.

  • on September 13, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    well what i don get is that a couple of overs ago in an appeal from Mohammad Irfan which was turned down by the umpire suggesting that the pad was involved rather than the bat one can clearly see that Strauss was shaking his head suggesting he didn't edge it my point to all the English fans is that why didn't he nod to the umpire that yes u edged it on the second occasion.

  • on September 13, 2010, 7:39 GMT

    typical english cricketer , when someone else does ..all the banter and speech of ethics and GENTLE MAN game.why on earth he didnt walk when he knew it hit his gloves like hammer...

    and a statement of im not sure if it hit,, surely u know ,, stop this crap and also have a close look at urself before using big words of honesty and integrity...why media isnt hyping now.. becuase its english cricketer not a sub continent cricketer media shuld have the courage to call spade a spade and cheat a cheat,,

  • on September 13, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    i just wondered once again in last over of umar gul ,,, 6 ball6 runs.. gud tight match but,,,,,,first ball perfect blokhall,, but next one is very wide,, how cum ? and next one is too short and easy to hit ? so i think once again pakistan throw this match,,,,,,,,,,,,i really feel sorry for pakistani fans,,,,,,,your cricketers dont care for ur sentiments ................

  • PrakTheTruthful on September 13, 2010, 6:35 GMT

    The replay clearly shows not only that it deflected off his glove, but that he immediately took his hand off the handle and shook it. All teams get decisions that don't go the way they should. Whether or not hiding behind the umpire's call of Not Out should be called cheating is debatable, but saying to the press that he wasn't sure if he'd gloved it was an obvious lie. And that is shameful.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 13, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    Mohammad_Saeed, Pakistan had a platform to pass 300 comfortably but fell away in the last few overs. They were 241-3 after 43 overs. The last 7 overs produced 53 runs for 5 wickets and the 49th over produced a massive 3 runs. On a good pitch, 20 more runs would have given the bowlers a chance to apply some pressure, as it was, they just didn't have enough runs in the bank to do so and England were always either right up with or ahead of the RRR without having to take risks. England did not have a single big over in the last 15, because one was not needed.

  • on September 13, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    Strauss played really well to win this for England.That is what counts at the end of the day.You shouldn't be expecting Strauss to walk considering he stood his ground after nicking the ball in the third test.I have no problem with that and issue should be the incompetency of the umpires.Pakistan played well and should have won the match.Their bowling was still very good and they should have wrapped up the likes of Strauss and Trott who arent great one day players.Pakistan's team spirit is poor which is not helping them to win the recent matches.

  • Agus2010 on September 13, 2010, 5:35 GMT

    @uglyhunk I agreed you, it was quoted as saying that the English media (again) Sunday times published that news, what is the meaning of that????? The media wants to sell their paper and wanted to be popular for that they have doing some fake drama and give some fake news, I guess they might given huge amount of money to this so called "fixer" Mazhar Majeed and asked him and taken his report and asked him to act against those Pakistan trio, I have one more doubt, they have told that video taken before the match start, then how do they sure that Pakistan will win the toss and is going to bowl first??????? Do they already fixed with bot the captain or with on field umpires??????????????? so confusion

  • mxnmxn on September 13, 2010, 4:49 GMT

    Hardly! Strauss is in his lean form and needed this chanceful century to survive. He is indeed a good batsman but he is definitely not up to the mark in recent series against Pakistan. Pakistan is team is a bunch of technically good but rather mentally erratic talent. I hope they regain themselves from the neverending controversies.

  • uglyhunK on September 13, 2010, 2:50 GMT

    @Agus - Same news paper came up with this again - http://www.hindustantimes.com/No-truth-in-allegations-of-fixing-in-IPL-2/H1-Article1-599422.aspx

    There are rumors and allegations and there are facts and crimes. You have to be sensible to understand the context and act on the information, don't just get carried away by what you read.

  • on September 13, 2010, 2:12 GMT

    we all talk about integrity and honesty in cricket and it being a gentleman's game, why didn't Strauus walk when he was clearly out, one is always looking out for oneself, whether it is an 18 year old Amir or a 32 year old Strauss, what makes one better than the other, all integriity in cricket is long gone, like the rest of the world, we all really are doomed and the English are no better than the others, atleast the Pakistanis have the excuse of being poor and downtrodden, the English are the worst of the hypocrites!!!

  • Mohammad_Saeed on September 13, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    @cricketingstargazer: I can see that you are an Englad supporter and your comment makes sense somewhat. It is true that you never what could have happened had strauss been given out. But when you stated that the batting of Pakistan was to be blamed, that didn't make sense. They DID perform well as far as their batting is concerned. The bowlers just didn't do well and the fielding was, well,l awful. Regardless of not having the "trio", they could have done a little better but that isn't an excuse. So blame the bolwing and the poor fielding; not the batting. Especially since Pakistan barely ever reach 300runs in both formats of the game. My two cents.

  • boris6491 on September 13, 2010, 0:54 GMT

    Strauss has been performing well, we can give him that. Although, his good performances have come predominantly against weaker sides and in low pressure situations. To me, Australia will be his test. It disappointed me that he was initially picked not as a batsman but truthfully speaking, as a captain! His batting had done little of note to gain him a place in the OD squad but with the resignation of Pietersen and the reticence of Collingwood, he was shied back in. If he can do well in the ODIs in Australia, I would give him a ticket to the WC. If not, England need to rethink their team strategy.

  • on September 13, 2010, 0:23 GMT

    I'm not surprised at these comments -- Pakistan are so awesome that other cricket sides have no say at all in the result of matches played against them. If Pakistan loses, there are only two reasons for it: the selectors picked the wrong players and should be sacked, or, even more often, the umpires were incompetent and/or biased. Moreover, Pakistan themselves have never benefited from a poor umpire decision.

  • tpjpower on September 12, 2010, 22:55 GMT

    Strauss is a very good, determined player and he should definitely lead England during the World Cup. As for Pakistani fans criticising England on bad sportsmanship - really? After the past year of controversy surrounding this Pakistan team, from spot fixing to ball-biting to blanket banning of players to factions deliberately underperforming to undermine captains, nobody could honestly suggest Team Punjab is providing a moral compass. Stop whinging. Much as Pakistan are an exciting and talented side, this group of players doesn't deserve to win.

  • Rastus on September 12, 2010, 22:15 GMT

    As an England fan I find it an embarrassment that the Captain of the England team can cheat in such a blatant way. The England captain should be setting an example of sportsmanship not an example of how to cheat. Bowling a couple of deliberate no-balls pales into insignificance compared with getting a thick edge through to the keeper and then just standing there. Saying it is the umpires decision and that they even out over time is the most feeble argument to defend such cheating.

  • TheSmudge on September 12, 2010, 22:01 GMT

    No one in the modern game except Gilchrist would have walked for that one. If we discount all the runs batsmen get after a dubious decison, every player who has ever lived would lose 30% of his average and half his centuries.

  • andrewstrauss on September 12, 2010, 21:53 GMT

    If you looked at the supposed catch closer you will actually see that his hand had left the bat so the catch doesn't count.

  • DN25 on September 12, 2010, 21:51 GMT

    It's too early to say..his form is very erratic in all forms of the game...he is around coz no options available with england!!

  • Trickstar on September 12, 2010, 21:36 GMT

    What's all this talk of Strauss walking,I bet he didn't know at the time what it came off and I don't think it was logical it came off bat or glove ,it could have deflected off his forearm,which is what it looked like in real time.In real time nobody could tell what had happened, only in slow mo it became apparent,Gul didn't even go up for it straight away and only joined in with Akmal. How many players walk nowadays, especially when it was a hard decision to see in real time,batsmen should let umpires make the call unless it's a obvious edge or catch.Some people seem to want to take some thing away from Strauss for his innings,typical cricinfo comments.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 12, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    If people were saying that Pakistan lost because they scored 20 fewer than they should have done, that be one thing. Of course, though, actually we are told that they lost because of the umpire. The fact that Straiuss's dismissal would have brought in a free-scoring form batsman with a lot more time to build his innings seems to be ignored: had Strauss been given, it is at least arguable that Pakistan could have lost a lot more quickly. You have a neutral umpire who calls it how he sees it. Very occasionally there is a debatable, or even poor decision, but these are falling both ways. Don't use the umpire as an excuse for the failings of the batting.

  • djarian1 on September 12, 2010, 21:14 GMT

    Strauss silence the doubters? Are you kidding me! He was lucky on one occasion and didn't walk on an obvious caught behind. So much for the sports man spirit from their players. Important to remember Trott also didn't walk in 1st ODI which was a clear caught behind.

  • bakhtjamal on September 12, 2010, 21:07 GMT

    Strauss was out when Umer Gul bowled and Kamran Akmal caught..even the hot spot showed a spot on his glove. Common sense is that the only way the ball would have deflected is through some kind of contact, otherwise the deflection was too much for a swing. And he shouldve walked knowing he was out. Its just that he took the glory out of his own hands. Thats all I wanted to say..well played both teams btw. It was a good game of cicket

  • RAVI_BOPARA on September 12, 2010, 20:41 GMT

    PRETTY MUCH SURE STRAUSS WILL LEAD ENGLAND IN THE WORLD CUP !!

  • AhmadSaleem on September 12, 2010, 20:05 GMT

    What are you talking about Mr. McGlashan? Wasn't it a clear-cut decision? Oh you patriotic journalist, it was a huge edge and there was a big deflection and what a good reaction by Strauss. It actually not only hit his glove but the bat also.

  • AhmadSaleem on September 12, 2010, 19:59 GMT

    Scoring a century against a depleted bowling attack doesn't make him great. Ansd also consider the fact that he was out before he got to 50 and it was a big edge, a big deflection and he didn't walk

  • Agus2010 on September 12, 2010, 19:29 GMT

    There was a match fixing allegations about IPL players in Indian news paper called "Hindustan Times" Cricinfo always gives the match fixing Flash news about Pak. trio, why there is no news about this Spot-fixing??????

    Twenty nine cricketers, including two Australians are suspected to be involved in spot-fixing at last year's Indian Premier League in South Africa, a leading London newspaper claimed on Sunday. According to a secret dossier compiled by the ICC's anti-corruption and security unit, the list includes some high-profile names but nobody from England or Pakistan, whose players did not take part due to security issues, The Sunday Times claimed."Some betting patterns were very suspicious at IPL 2," the report said quoting a source. Despite long-standing concerns about the integrity of the IPL -- whose commissioner Lalit Modi is suspended amid corruption allegations -- England players are expected to be available for the entirety of next year's IPL for first time.

  • on September 12, 2010, 19:02 GMT

    Come on Pakistan, you did well today, and gave a fighting performance. England won by their talent in stabilizing the innings. i wish the other matches will be also interesting as this one.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on September 12, 2010, 19:02 GMT

    Come on Pakistan, you did well today, and gave a fighting performance. England won by their talent in stabilizing the innings. i wish the other matches will be also interesting as this one.

  • Agus2010 on September 12, 2010, 19:29 GMT

    There was a match fixing allegations about IPL players in Indian news paper called "Hindustan Times" Cricinfo always gives the match fixing Flash news about Pak. trio, why there is no news about this Spot-fixing??????

    Twenty nine cricketers, including two Australians are suspected to be involved in spot-fixing at last year's Indian Premier League in South Africa, a leading London newspaper claimed on Sunday. According to a secret dossier compiled by the ICC's anti-corruption and security unit, the list includes some high-profile names but nobody from England or Pakistan, whose players did not take part due to security issues, The Sunday Times claimed."Some betting patterns were very suspicious at IPL 2," the report said quoting a source. Despite long-standing concerns about the integrity of the IPL -- whose commissioner Lalit Modi is suspended amid corruption allegations -- England players are expected to be available for the entirety of next year's IPL for first time.

  • AhmadSaleem on September 12, 2010, 19:59 GMT

    Scoring a century against a depleted bowling attack doesn't make him great. Ansd also consider the fact that he was out before he got to 50 and it was a big edge, a big deflection and he didn't walk

  • AhmadSaleem on September 12, 2010, 20:05 GMT

    What are you talking about Mr. McGlashan? Wasn't it a clear-cut decision? Oh you patriotic journalist, it was a huge edge and there was a big deflection and what a good reaction by Strauss. It actually not only hit his glove but the bat also.

  • RAVI_BOPARA on September 12, 2010, 20:41 GMT

    PRETTY MUCH SURE STRAUSS WILL LEAD ENGLAND IN THE WORLD CUP !!

  • bakhtjamal on September 12, 2010, 21:07 GMT

    Strauss was out when Umer Gul bowled and Kamran Akmal caught..even the hot spot showed a spot on his glove. Common sense is that the only way the ball would have deflected is through some kind of contact, otherwise the deflection was too much for a swing. And he shouldve walked knowing he was out. Its just that he took the glory out of his own hands. Thats all I wanted to say..well played both teams btw. It was a good game of cicket

  • djarian1 on September 12, 2010, 21:14 GMT

    Strauss silence the doubters? Are you kidding me! He was lucky on one occasion and didn't walk on an obvious caught behind. So much for the sports man spirit from their players. Important to remember Trott also didn't walk in 1st ODI which was a clear caught behind.

  • CricketingStargazer on September 12, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    If people were saying that Pakistan lost because they scored 20 fewer than they should have done, that be one thing. Of course, though, actually we are told that they lost because of the umpire. The fact that Straiuss's dismissal would have brought in a free-scoring form batsman with a lot more time to build his innings seems to be ignored: had Strauss been given, it is at least arguable that Pakistan could have lost a lot more quickly. You have a neutral umpire who calls it how he sees it. Very occasionally there is a debatable, or even poor decision, but these are falling both ways. Don't use the umpire as an excuse for the failings of the batting.

  • Trickstar on September 12, 2010, 21:36 GMT

    What's all this talk of Strauss walking,I bet he didn't know at the time what it came off and I don't think it was logical it came off bat or glove ,it could have deflected off his forearm,which is what it looked like in real time.In real time nobody could tell what had happened, only in slow mo it became apparent,Gul didn't even go up for it straight away and only joined in with Akmal. How many players walk nowadays, especially when it was a hard decision to see in real time,batsmen should let umpires make the call unless it's a obvious edge or catch.Some people seem to want to take some thing away from Strauss for his innings,typical cricinfo comments.

  • DN25 on September 12, 2010, 21:51 GMT

    It's too early to say..his form is very erratic in all forms of the game...he is around coz no options available with england!!