September 16, 2009

Strauss for the title

It's hard to look beyond England's captain when you're picking the top cricketer of the last 12 months

Just when we thought it was safe to spend the month moaning - about the increasingly palpable shortcomings of 50-over cricket, the advent of the umpire review system, the invasiveness of drug-testing, post-Ashes fatigue, the English weather, Shane Warne's absence from the Sky Sports commentary box - along comes a timely reminder that our obsession can be, y'know, fun.

For all their randomness, and often flagrant disregard for justice, annual awards are just that. Fun. To take them too seriously, as an official arbiter of quality, is to invest them with far too much credibility. Their value is that they give us a chance to take stock, to reflect on a passage of time before it melts into that endless trail of dimly remembered events. Which is why, even though most of the final decisions will probably be forgotten before I delete the email revealing them, the announcement of the contenders for the 2009 ICC Awards exerted a hold of some fascination when I opened my inbox on Tuesday morning. Especially when it led to ruminations over the World Test XI, for what it tells us about the game's evolution.

It certainly says much for the gusts of change that the inaugural ICC Test XI, named just five years ago, featured no fewer than six men who have subsequently retired from the five-day fray - Matthew Hayden, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Chaminda Vaas, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie. Of the remainder, moreover, only two, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis, are legitimate claimants for inclusion in the 2009 XI - and neither ought to make it.

Indeed, based on performances between August 13, 2008 and August 24 this year, only Kumar Sangakkara of the 2007 XI is in with a strong shout of making October's side. Granted, injury (Brett Lee, Kevin Pietersen) and lack of opportunity (Ryan Sidebottom bowled just 59 overs) have played their part, but given that Shakib-Al-Hasan, the most consistent non-keeping allrounder, has been more important to Bangladesh's cause than Kallis has to South Africa's, it is indicative of this trend that less than half last year's XI - Graeme Smith, Mahela Jayawardene, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Sangakkara and Dale Steyn - rank among this term's leading contenders. In other words, maintaining form is becoming an increasingly rare art. A reflection of the players' rising workload in an era of overkill? Give me a likelier cause.

In the period under scrutiny, a Test XI based purely on statistical consistency should read: Gautam Gambhir, Smith, Kumar Sangakkara (wkt), Younis Khan, VVS Laxman, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Thilan Samaraweera, Shakib, Mitchell Johnson, Graeme Swann and Peter Siddle. With Shakib supplying Bangladesh's first such candidate, this team comprises no fewer than eight nationalities, and more Sri Lankans - even without Murali - than Australians or Indians: a most welcome progression from the dynastic tyranny that gave us, every year from 2004 to 2007, a ICC World Test XI numbering at least four Australians. Load in some context, without which statistics are merely bones, and an equally potent side could be proffered: Andrew Strauss, Phillip Hughes, Michael Clarke, AB de Villiers, Ramnaresh Sarwan, JP Duminy, Matt Prior (wkt), Stuart Broad, Harbhajan Singh, Dale Steyn, Ishant Sharma. Eight of these, encouragingly, have yet to complete their third decade.

Post-Stanford, post-Pietersen v Moores, Strauss took the reins when English cricket was looking sicker than John Cleese's ex-parrot. That it is now widely perceived to be in polite if not rude health is no mean feat

Because there were only six Test nations and tours were infrequent, it would be grossly unfair to draw comparisons with an XI drawn from performances over the same period 50 years ago, containing as it would players from just Australia, England and West Indies - Geoff Pullar, Colin McDonald, Rohan Kanhai, Garry Sobers, Ken Barrington, Joe Solomon, Richie Benaud (capt), Wally Grout (wkt), Fred Trueman, Wes Hall, Brian Statham. On the other hand, an XI representing the form horses of 1988-89 - Mark Taylor, Shoaib Mohammad, Richie Richardson, Javed Miandad, Martin Crowe, Robin Smith, Jack Russell (wkt), Malcolm Marshall, Arshad Ayub, Terry Alderman and Courtney Walsh - could be culled from six nations. Among those who played at least five Tests, a 1998-99 XI - Taylor, Saeed Anwar, Rahul Dravid, Daryll Cullinan, Kallis, Steve Waugh, Alec Stewart (wkt), Anil Kumble, Stuart MacGill, Walsh, Glenn McGrath - would accommodate seven nations. Eight is still a spread of talent to cherish, reflecting as it does the most gloriously unpredictable (aka competitive) period Test cricket has ever known.

The past year, after all, has seen South Africa win in England and Australia, Australia win in South Africa, England beat Australia and run India closer than the then-brand leaders managed, and West Indies beat a major player for the first time in six years, all while Sri Lanka have been clambering ever closer to the summit. The reluctance of teams to tour Pakistan remains as understandable as it is regrettable, but are these not reasons to be unfearful?

That Taylor and Walsh feature in both the 1988-89 and 1998-99 XIs is another indication, you might imagine, of our fast-changing, getting-bloody-hard-to-keep-up times. The picture is rosier than you might imagine. Of that 1998-99 side, Dravid and Kallis are still prominent; all the rest have retired. Which members of either of the aforementioned 2008-09 XIs will still be regaling us with their undimmed wares 10 years hence? Broad, Duminy, Hughes, Shakib and Sharma are all young enough, certainly. In the shorter term, it is far from fanciful to picture six batsmen and as many bowlers from the top 10s in the current Test rankings still strutting their stuff productively in 2014. But only if the Future Tours Programme undergoes some serious pruning.

THE OSCAR OF OSCARS, nonetheless, will go to the ICC Cricketer of the Year, the shortlist for which extends to just four: MS Dhoni, Johnson, Gambhir and Strauss. Graeme Smith's omission is decidedly curious, and not solely because he would be my choice. Not only is he worth a place in the World Test XI on runs alone, he also led South Africa to hoodoo-trashing series wins in Australia and England. The only plausible excuse is that the latter rubber was actually won on August 11, 2008, and hence comes narrowly outside the selectors' remit. As it is, given the nominees we have, it is fiendishly hard to look beyond Strauss.

England's captain now occupies decidedly rarefied air. Among batsmen who have led their country in upwards of 15 Tests, only five - Don Bradman, Jayawardene, Sobers, Graham Gooch and Lara - have averaged more than Strauss's 56.14. That he relishes the responsibility is encapsulated still better by the fact that, like Gooch (whose average went up 22.79 as captain) and Jayawardene (up 18.58), he has been considerably more productive with the stripes than without, lifting his mean by 15.10. That he has been England's most prolific and reliable run-maker since he reclaimed the reins for the tour of the Caribbean, at a time of huge upheaval and poor collective form, is testimony to a rare fortitude.

Lest we forget, in Napier just 18 months ago, Strauss was poised to slink back to county cricket, never to return. It was, he relates in his forthcoming book, "the only time in my life I have struggled to sleep". The key to his subsequent 177 was a first-innings duck: "With only one innings left I felt it was too much to expect to pull it out of the bag, so I was just going to enjoy my last innings for England." In other words, he relaxed. Encouraged by Paul Collingwood, he also reclaimed the cut and the pull, the once-fruitful strokes his cautious, fretful self had sheathed. As Kris Kristofferson so deftly put it, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

"More than anything, performing in those circumstances made me think that when the going gets tough, that is what motivates and brings out the best in me," reflects Strauss. "And, when you are armed with that knowledge, it gives you huge confidence for difficult times in the future." Nothing particularly earth-shattering, sure, but this realisation was no less valuable for its familiarity. Come The Oval last month - and yes, it does seem a sight longer than that - England were pulling the Ashes out of the bag. That they bounced back not once but twice in that series - from the near-disaster of Cardiff to victory at Lord's, from humiliation at Headingley to final triumph at The Oval - can be attributed to many factors, but none was more important, surely, than the tone set by Strauss, at the crease and in the field.

There is a bit of him in each of the other contenders. Like Gambhir, Strauss possesses the mental fibre and inner confidence to stare down adversity and drag a career from the precipice. Like Johnson, he can dominate opponents. Like Dhoni, he is a leader by vivid example. None of those rivals, though, has had quite as much to contend with this year as Strauss. Post-Stanford, post-Pietersen v Moores, he took the reins when English cricket was looking sicker than John Cleese's ex-parrot. That it is now widely perceived to be in polite if not rude health is no mean feat. Just don't mention the words "limited" or "overs" in close proximity.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Vijay on September 18, 2009, 19:42 GMT

    First of all I am an Indian, but still I am shocked and surprised to see Graeme Smith's name not included in the list. I definitely he is one of the top runners, if not the eventual winner for cricketer of the year. If Rob thinks that Strauss is the most deserving winner for Cricketer of the year, then I think he should better get a reality check. If my memmory serves right, England were pathetic in India, lost the series 0-1, even more pathetic in WI (where Strauss the leader was born), and won the Ashes not because England were superior, but the Aussies were not at their best. I am not surprised at Englishman's obsession with Ashes. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it has got to Sky Sports where they pay for every series to watch it live. So, I think most of the Englishman do not watch any cricket other than Ashes and so you cannot blame them for not knowing what is happening in the rest of the cricketing world. Spend some money Rob, or at least read newspapers. Thanks.

  • A on September 18, 2009, 16:34 GMT

    There are just too many who will go by the recent result instead of the content that spanned over the whole year and it seems Mr Steen is one of them. Granted Strauss had a good time against the Aussies in the Ashes, it does not mean the rest of the cricket from the past year can be ignored. Have you forgotten AB de Villiars? Can his performance be overlooked? And didn't Smith just do what Strauss achieved as well? He wasn't playing the 'Ashes' though...he plays for South Africa...what a shame. And what about Dale Steyn? He was instrumental for SA in Australia. I really think there is more to cricket than England and Australia and they should realize that and review performances with an eye on the whole year and not just the recent events. Speaking of recent events, Mr Strauss is on the edge of a historic moment again...the first 7-0 defeat in the history of cricket. He does deserve and award for that surely...

  • Pavan on September 18, 2009, 15:16 GMT

    Frankly speaking , i dont see any english cricketer winning this title atleast in near future. Except for Flintoff and Kevin there were no quality players in the team. Englan is no way near any sub-continent team or South Africa or Australia. yah for sure they can win one title, may be European player of the year. and i pity on author for his biased analysis.

  • Arron on September 18, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    I can see the headline: "Captain of side whitewashed 7-0 at home takes 'Cricketer of the Year' award". And some people still wonder why the ICC are regarded with contempt.

  • Louis on September 18, 2009, 11:10 GMT

    Absolutely PATHETIC!!! AB de Villiers hit 3 hundreds against aus and one vs england and one vs india. Worst award nominations of all time and everything

  • Jordan on September 17, 2009, 22:42 GMT

    I'm an Aussie, but I have no hesitation in saying that Graeme Smith is the top player of the last year. He captained his side superbly when they toured in Aus last year and his batting was impressive. If not him, then one of his team-mates surely. Strauss as the top cricketer of the last 12 months? Give me a break!

  • saif on September 17, 2009, 22:37 GMT

    This is the most hilarious team ever. Rob were you watching only the ashes as far as looking at the team. Matt Prior for the keeper. The guy can't bat according to me. Then Broad in your team and even swann. Trust me you din't watch much cricket to make the this kind of team.Murali, Harbajan,Vettori. And you picked up swann..Then Broad.Don't you see other good bowlers around?..And then Dhoni VS Strauss for the cricketer of the year. If you think he is so good he should have at least won a game for England its 6-0 right now to Australia. Dhoni can win a game alone himself. Him in test and one day compared to strauss is way way better. Watch more cricket around the world to make the team rob. If he was so good England would have been in the top 3 rankings in the world but they are not, not even test or ODI's. Or strauss would have been somewhere in the rankings but he is not .

  • Davesh on September 17, 2009, 19:44 GMT

    Rob, we all will stand by Strauss if you can promise on his behalf that England - 1. Will not loose 5-0 to Australia in the next Ashes 2. Will win a test match outside England in 2010 for they couldn't do that last year. 3. Will not loose to India 5-0 in a ODI series. 4. Will win more ODIs than atleast Bangladesh.

  • Arron on September 17, 2009, 19:39 GMT

    "HundredPercentBarcelonista": your comments are spot on. Yet more short memory syndrome from the ICC. Take the period as a whole and a South African or Indian should win the award. By the way, I'm English, and I feel alienated by my country's Ashes obsession when it detracts from appreciation of what goes on elsewhere. As, of course, it so often does. Strauss has had a fine year, but his captaincy (being polite) leaves much room for improvement, he was handed the Ashes initiative at Lord's by shocking bowling, he scored three hundreds on total featherbeds in the Windies (and we still lost, partly thanks to his defensive captaincy). Rob Steen is dead right that Smith should be nominated, but he'd have been better off writing an article about what Smith's omission says about the nature of the ICC.

  • Davesh on September 17, 2009, 19:38 GMT

    Rob is right. Straus for cricketer of the year, Broad for bowler of the year, Flintoff for fielder of the year, Harminson for comeback of the year and Sidebottom for no: 12 of the year.

  • No featured comments at the moment.