Print

[jp2408]

Wow - very bizarre.

Under what circumstances were they going to continue the 'unavailable for selection' policy?

If he was let off, he's back available
If he was charged with affray, he's back available
If he was charged with assault??? Their rationale is that due to the length of trial etc it isn't fair to keep him suspended - surely that applies even more so with a more serious charge and a longer time to trial?

[iand123]

Wow - very bizarre.

Under what circumstances were they going to continue the 'unavailable for selection' policy?

If he was let off, he's back available
If he was charged with affray, he's back available
If he was charged with assault??? Their rationale is that due to the length of trial etc it isn't fair to keep him suspended - surely that applies even more so with a more serious charge and a longer time to trial?

If it was a more serious charge would he have been asked to surrender his passport making him unavailable any games abroad?

[Neon Cricket]

Strauss hasn't got a clue has he? Just smacks of pure desperation to me.

Sends home and suspends a player for pouring a drink over a teammates' head, but lets a player actually charged with affray be selected. Couldn't make it up.

[jamielsn15]

I would think throughout the process the ECB have been taking legal advice, from employment law and criminal law standpoints and their actions have been, dare I say, beyond our understandings of the situation.

I'm maintaining that the primary source of blame is Ben Stokes.  Lets hold the ECB accountable for our poor performance in the Ashes and thenselectors for some strange selections, but be in no doubt that Stokes royally screwed up the best chance we had of winning the Ashes by forcing selection wide of our plans for the past 2-3 years, namely a balanced side with 2-3 test class allrounders...

[LEACHY48]

Strauss hasn't got a clue has he? Just smacks of pure desperation to me.

Sends home and suspends a player for pouring a drink over a teammates' head, but lets a player actually charged with affray be selected. Couldn't make it up.

That's just the whole ECB in a nutshell though isn't it, they're all clueless bigwigs that are ruining cricket in this country.

[ppccopener]

Ecb management has been poor on this tour

The Stokes situation is difficult to deal with

Duckett got scapegoated big time. Stupid behaviour yes, being sent home and effectively banned...no

[rickjames]

Jesus bloody Christ

[jamielsn15]

Strauss has a wife suffering from cancer. The timeframe for which will have meant diagnosis prior to him flying to Australia. Think about that for a second. Once out there, he then has to deal with Bairstow's and Duckett's antics.

If i were him I'd have sent one of them home as well. Duckett was a scapegoat but, as with Stokes, he acted like a tit. Nothing happened since, so i think the decision was entirely justified.

Strauss had to sort all of this knowing his wife, on the other side of the world, has been diagnosed with cancer. Do we not have any shred of empathy?

[Manormanic]

Strauss has a wife suffering from cancer. The timeframe for which will have meant diagnosis prior to him flying to Australia. Think about that for a second. Once out there, he then has to deal with Bairstow's and Duckett's antics.

If i were him I'd have sent one of them home as well. Duckett was a scapegoat but, as with Stokes, he acted like a tit. Nothing happened since, so i think the decision was entirely justified.

Strauss had to sort all of this knowing his wife, on the other side of the world, has been diagnosed with cancer. Do we not have any shred of empathy?

On a personal level, of course.

But...should we set aside jaw dropping my awful decision making as a result? Especially when Strauss has been making those self same awful decisions since the day he started in the job?

The fact is, he should have been sacked before now.

[jamielsn15]

He's not going to be sacked based on the ODI and T20 sides significant progress on his watch. Should he be sacked for decisions made that were forced on him by Stokes, Bairstow and Duckett? Whatever the ECB did in relation to those decisions, they're going to be criticised, especially when they have to uphold employmemt law and try not to prejudice a police investigation.

I dont know what the correct thing to do is/was. I don't have all of the information. Maybe the ECB were also advised by the police, almost certainly they were by lawyers. My feeling is they were put in a very difficult decision by Stokes and criticism was coming no matter what.

[Manormanic]

You're missing the exile of England's best player, the Moore's fiasco, allowing county coaches to be selectors, devaluing the Championship, the bankrupting of test grounds, barring players from title deciders. If Stokes was a decision in isolation, he would just look like an idiot. But its not. Under his watch, English cricket has gone massively downhill and he should resign, or be sacked.

[iand123]

The ECB board made this and alot of the decisions mentioned above i believe. Obviously have input directly from people such as strauss but i dont think you can solely blame him. The ECB was (and continues to be) a farce long before strauss took over

[jamielsn15]

I have missed those points, many of which i agree with, because the consensus seemed to be on the thread that the ECB were to blame for their handling of a situation that arose through no fault of their own and they had an almost impossible job of managing it ahead of and during an ashes tour. Should Strauss be sacked on the basis of that alone? Absolutely not.

He probably used his position to settle a personal grudge with KP, which is wrong. Problem there is, KP put himself in a position where a decision could be made and justified.  The Moore's situation was always going to end in tears. Completely agree re selectors, there's an obvious conflict of interest. Championship has been devalued for years, which doesn't make it right, but it requires a huge overhaul. The ECB are held accountable for the england team and, in much the same way politicians play to the press, the ECB play the political game. They know their jobs are most at risk from national team performances, hence the enquiries after every away ashes tour...

Central contracts have always vexed the counties. Is it right, no. But the issue was around Strauss's handling of the Stokes et al discipline issues. I don't think he can be hung out to dry for that alone. I still don't think he's in danger of losing his job though, due to the success of the limited overs teams, which goes back to my earlier point regarding how Strauss will be judged in the press and media.

As i say, I agree with many of your points. But I still think, taking into account his wife's illness and Stokes's, Bairstow's and Duckett's actions, the balance of blame in those events doesn't fall on the ECB.

 They install a curfew, make an example of the last player to commit an indiscretion (after team meetings and numerous warnings to the squad), get criticism from ex players, but no more incidents occur. Yet they still get hammered. It's far from black and white and not an easy fix.

[Spinflight]

 The ECB was desperate for an excuse for our piss poor performances so scapegoated Duckett and tried to spin the narrative towards a few blokes having a beer after work as being the problem. It was the ECB's security guards that snitched on Duckett, which just isn't right. If your employer decides to protect you outside of work then they have no business meddling in your personal affairs.

 Strangely they've finally got the Stokes situation right. He is innocent until proven guilty after all, though I suspect this is actually a failure of their PR policy. If they'd managed to make the ill discipline and drinking story stick then they'd also be gunning for Stokes.

[edge]

Really wasn't expecting that, the inconsistency is bizarre. If he's suspended due to being under police investigation then he should be suspended while awaiting trial, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs. They'll look bloody silly if he flies out to NZ and then has to fly straight back again when the court date gets announced.

Strauss has been making (No Swearing Please) decisions since the day he started the job I'm afraid. If he's not mentally fit to be making decisions properly at the moment then that's understandable, but then he should be on leave surely.