A century for respect
The start of the third Test in Antigua was important for Andrew Strauss and his century will help underpin the respect a captain needs from within the team, writes Mike Atherton in the Times .
Nishi Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
Getty Images
The start of the third Test in Antigua was important for Andrew Strauss and his century will help underpin the respect a captain needs from within the team, writes Mike Atherton in the Times.
In between his moments of good fortune, Strauss played with the utmost fluency and freedom. It was noticeable that he was not prepared to let Benn settle, skipping down the pitch and smiting him for a straight six – his first in Test cricket in nearly three years. And he approached three figures with a number of resounding strokes, two pulls and a drive off Powell and a launch over mid-on off the left-arm spin of Ryan Hinds.
In the Guardian, Vic Marks writes that by dropping Monty Panesar for the Test, probably with the expectation that the pitch would be seamer-friendly, England have adopted a 'horses for courses' policy rarely employed when Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan were in charge.
He is not used to being dropped. In fact his only experience of that since his debut in Nagpur was in Australia at the start of the ill-fated 2006-07 tour when England reverted to Ashley Giles. Then there was a populist hue and cry on Monty's behalf and he returned to the side for the third Test in Perth, never to be dropped again until yesterday. He is no longer the punters' darling, obviously not the captain's darling either.
Marks also writes that there was a liberated feeling to Strauss's stroke play, the cover drives crisp and plundered from pace and spin alike.
To Steve James in the Daily Telegraph, Strauss and Cook are, by some distance, England's best openers.
Seek level-headedness and phlegm in this England squad right now and the search will swiftly arrive at the doors of the southpaw openers. Unaffected by events, however calamitous, they have continued to work hard at their games, determined to reawaken their doggedness at the crease.
In the Daily Mail Martin Samuel wants to know why England cannot have a cricket manager who has a say in selection.
Unlike an international football coach, the manager of England’s cricketers would spend something like 250 days with his team. The argument proceeds that he would have no time for scouting, so would make decisions on players he has not seen. Yet is that the case? Could he not have a team of three observers, his appointments, in tune with his style, who are his eyes around the counties? They make recommendations or are sent out on specific missions. Is that so different to what happens now? All that changes is the random nature of national selection; the fact that, as it is, England’s team management may be responding to the choices of men who do not share their collective vision.
Nishi Narayanan is a staff writer at ESPNcricinfo