Strauss comes full circle

It seems ironic in hindsight, but back in the autumn of 2006, when England's selectors were tying themselves in knots over the identity of their captain for that winter's Ashes, one of the main objections to Andrew Strauss' appointment was the imbalanced nature of his England experience. He'd simply had it too easy, was how some people saw it.

Runs and victories may have abounded in Strauss' first two years as an international cricketer - from his hundred on debut against New Zealand in 2004, right up to his world-class tally of 10 centuries in his first 30 Tests (the last of which, against Pakistan at Headingley in 2006, sealed victory in his first full series as England captain). But, in a typically English train of thought, he was ultimately overlooked in favour of Andrew Flintoff. "Ah yes, all this excellence is all very well," seemed to be the reasoning, "but what happens when everything goes wrong?"

Well, at least now we know the answer to that one. At Sabina Park on Wednesday, three eventful years after his first incarnation as England captain, Strauss begins his second stint in the role, and the selectors could scarcely have wished for a more chaotic backdrop. The serene development of both team and player has been shattered in the intervening period, culminating in last month's Kevin Pietersen crisis, the fallout from which has thus far been contained, if only because the team had already slipped so far from their 2005 heights as to make further crash landings irrelevant.

It may be an inauspicious moment to take the helm, although Strauss - by his very presence in the job - provides living evidence of the ability to reinvent and regenerate. He is, as Mike Atherton wrote in the Times this week, England's most rounded captain since Graham Gooch in 1990, although that apparent compliment could equally be regarded as backhanded. Strauss, like Gooch, landed the job shortly after his most humbling period as an England cricketer (in Gooch's case, the 1989 Ashes), and at a time when every other realistic option had been exhausted.

Strauss has not, as far as anyone knows, been told he has the charisma of a "wet fish" (as Ted Dexter once said of Gooch), but all the same, the concerns about his character have not been easily dispelled. When he was dropped for last winter's tour of Sri Lanka, at the end of a desperate year in which he had averaged an unworthy 28.80, there were serious doubts as to whether he would ever be seen in an England shirt again. Looking back, it was a peculiar over-reaction to the sort of career blip that all sportsmen go through, but in Strauss' case it was triggered because no one (least of all the selectors who doubted his Ashes leadership credentials) had the slightest idea how he would react in a crisis. He had, after all, never endured one before.

Form is temporary, class is permanent, but in Strauss' case it was nigh on impossible to tell which was which. Privately educated and impeccably spoken, he came across as a jolly nice chap - "Lord Brocket" to his team-mates - but not exactly the sort of man you'd expect to get dirty in a scrap. Every significant moment of his career had a take-it-or-leave-it quality to it; he had happened upon the Middlesex captaincy when Angus Fraser left to join the Independent, and he just happened to be in the right place at the right time when Michael Vaughan twisted his knee on the eve of the Lord's Test in 2004, leaving England in rather urgent need of a stand-in opener.

Magnificently though he fared in both roles (and others, for that matter), the question remained: would he have had the drive to chase them had they not landed on his plate? Only now, after a circuitous journey that has tested the man's resolve more acutely than any of his 14 centuries, are we approaching the definite answer.

The brilliance of Strauss' twin centuries in Chennai before Christmas were a throwback to his 2004 self, a self-contained nugget of a batsman with the strength of mind (reminiscent of Steve Waugh no less) to cut vast swathes of strokes from his repertoire and concentrate only on those that would guarantee a return on his investment. It was his make-or-break 177 in Napier the previous spring, however, that really showed the depth of his character. After his Sri Lanka omission he'd been recalled to the Test team by default, and for two-and-a-half matches had not done enough to justify his retention. He knew, as surely as every player and spectator in the ground, that he was one false move from his endgame. And when it really mattered, he did not blink.

Again, it seems remarkable that his courage under fire should have been called into question. Who, after all, was the leading century-maker in the 2005 Ashes? None other than Andrew Strauss, whose first-innings hundred in the decisive Test at The Oval ought to have been ample proof of his bottle. The fear of failure, however, is a factor that can't be easily quantified - in 2005, like a batsman whose average is infinite because he's never been dismissed, Strauss simply had no fear. Nevertheless Shane Warne, a pretty handy judge of a cricketer, still believed him to be a "bunny", and sure enough, once Strauss' tempo-setting opening partner, Marcus Trescothick, had fallen by the wayside, his limitations at the top of the order were alarmingly exposed.

England captains, give or take, have a shelf-life of four years. Had the Strauss who led England in 2006 retained his role from then until now, he would quite possibly be approaching another endgame right now. Instead he's just setting off - older, unquestionably wiser, and for all the talk of factions within the England camp, surely more respected for the mature manner in which he's tackled his trials and tribulations. Duncan Fletcher, in his controversial autobiography in 2007, wrote that the pre-Ashes Strauss did not command sufficient respect "from a couple of members of the squad". Those differences may well remain, but as the Pietersen saga has unequivocally demonstrated, to be considered worthy is the absolute bottom line.

Strauss' first weeks in the role have given a taster of the style he intends to adopt. His call for his players to take "personal responsibility" reflects his own experiences of the past year. Though he has remained politically ambivalent in his attitude to the former coach, Peter Moores, Strauss' most important lesson came not from Moores or his umbrella-style coaching network, but from the four months he spent on the outside looking in. In that time, he remade his game without external influence, and if he is sceptical about the importance of a head coach, he (unlike Pietersen) is diplomatic enough to keep such thoughts to himself. Although his best intentions were undermined by circumstance, Strauss' eagerness to play 11-a-side in England's first warm-up in St Kitts was also significant. An England place is a precious thing, and something to be fought for regardless of the opponents.

There will be doubts and setbacks, not least when the thorny issue of his role in one-day cricket is revisited, and the rapport he establishes with the jilted KP will be pivotal. But for the moment, Strauss has got the role he has quietly coveted for three years, and the chance - in the form of six consecutive Tests against the best of the lesser sides in world cricket - to massage a captaincy record that is already pretty impressive after two wins and no losses in five previous attempts. And then, after that, everyone knows what lies in store.

It should have been Pietersen leading England into the Ashes this summer, and yet - by a remarkable quirk of fate - it will instead be the man who ought to have had the honour last time around. Strauss has steadfastly refused to accept that his disappointment in 2006 was the trigger for the disastrous form slump that followed, but few men could wish for a more tantalising shot at redemption. Perhaps that knack for being in the right place at the right time is an aspect of his talent after all.