I missed the bulk of the Second Test match celebrating our 35th wedding anniversary in Belgium. The TV in the extremely nice hotel in Leuven gave us BBC1, BBC2 and BBC World but alas no Sky Sports, so I knew few of the exciting details from Lords until our return, although we were able to commiserate with the excellent Tom Watson as he failed to win the British Open at Turnberry. And since we were travelling home on Monday, we were in doubt about the outcome of the Test until our arrival at St. Pancras, where the Evening Standard proclaimed, ‘Aussies smashed by Flintoff’. But since we hadn’t seen men throwing themselves under the hooves of London cabs, I’d already assumed the Australians hadn’t achieved the apparently impossible and won.
It seems the post-university choice for Andrew Strauss was between becoming a pro cricketer or entering the world of City finance. As things have turned out, he made a very wise decision in favour of the former, and of course, the City being what it is, if he should ever fancy a second career, no doubt they’ll welcome him with a seat on a board or two. Good leader. Good at mental arithmetic. He copped a lot of criticism after the narrow squeak of the first match. ‘He’s a nice guy’, was the refrain, ‘but where do nice guys come?’ Apparently he lacked fire in his belly, or the ability to inspire others in the heat of battle. He was tactically weak, and hadn’t contributed sufficiently with the bat. Well, a week later he’s rather effectively nailed a few of those opinions.
What is it about Middlesex and money? I remember another exile from South Africa, well Zambia actually, another Lords favourite too, who went onto a career in the Square Mile. Philippe Edmonds was a man who never quite fulfilled his potential for England. 125 wickets at around 34 apiece isn’t an adequate reflection of his talent, although he was playing at a time when spin bowling maybe wasn’t as tactically valued as it is now. This was one aggressive cricketer. I remember him losing it with some batsman during a Test – words had been swapped – provoking a bouncer off two paces which smashed into the wicketkeeper’s gloves held high over his head twenty three yards away (it was probably the incomparable Alan Knott). And two balls later the medicine was repeated with even more venom. At which point I suspect further words were exchanged – though this time between ‘keeper and bowler.
Anyway, I digress. Strauss showed last Thursday that he’s not one of those captains for whom batting while in charge becomes an impossibility. As surely as Ponting had stamped his authority on the first match, so Strauss did on the second. He was helped it must be admitted, by some atrocious bowling, and a stroke of good luck. Johnson is having a bad time, his wrist position all over the place, and his arm a little lower than when he’s at his best. In the England first innings he suffered the indignity of going for more than six an over. And Strauss was perhaps fortunate to take out Hauritz with a fierce straight drive that at first seemed to have damaged a finger badly enough to have jeopardised his further participation in the match. He was a bowler who might have troubled the England captain. Mostly however, Strauss was left free to accumulate off his legs and punch square through the off-side in the area which is his favourite. Only Hilfenhaus exercised a measure of control.
Only the undisputed greats of English cricket have scored more hundreds for their country than Strauss has now done, and if for instance one compares him with Michael Atherton, England captain of a generation ago, he comes out very favourably. And at 32 years of age he has, as they say, power to add. Beware the quiet man.
Close of first day's play: England 364 for 6
