Strauss - Man in form of Legend in the making ?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

It really is a pleasure to watch him bat, that much is for sure!!!

Interesting, isn't it, that this time last year he was being dismissed as a potential Test player by a lot of people who felt that he just wasn't up to the grade: I think the fact that he's a less than dramatic "accumulator" with a reputation for getting scores on the board without viewers ever noticing.. and the fact that he'd reached 27 without gaining a fearsome reputation for taking attacks apart... was leading many to suggest he should be skipped for someone more in keeping with the modern game, like Pietersen.

Let's not forget that when his chance came at the beginning of the summer.. Collingwood was ahead of him in the pecking order for a batting spot.. and many also thought Bell and Key should be.

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

He does remind me so much of Graham Thorpe - seeing them batting together today really brought it home to me, although Thorpy, ever sensible in a difficult situation, was happy to play second fiddle. Strauss does seem a bit more positive than Thorpe, but I imagine he is feeling very confident right now.

The one thing Thorpe (like Butcher) has got that Strauss has yet to even be called on to show is the ability to not care if he's in form or not: many players look the part when they are seeing the ball well, in the zone and confident.. but one only has to look at Tresco to see an example of a player who's not able to cut it at this level if it's not "happening" for him.

Strauss seems to me to have the right mentality to be able (albeit in time) emulate Thorpe in this last respect.. and if he does then even if the form passes he should surely become one of the most significant players in the side.

Not sure he'll ever crack "legend" however good he gets though: it's a tag that's completely eluded Thorpe.. and largely eluded Atherton... and pretty much eluded Fraser.. as it has Chanderpaul (the WI Thorpe)... and Bevan - that tag seems to be allocated on a fairly random basis these days... more to do with talismanic status (think Devon Malcolm, Darren Gough, and even before he made an impact, Flintoff) than cricketing ability.

[flanflinger]

I wouldn't call any of the players you mentioned "Legends".. Flintoff and Strauss could be but they are a long way off

Legends are players like Waugh,Tendulkar, Botham, Bradman, Gavascar, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Hammond, Richards (V and B) Warne, Lilliee etc; i.e The best players of their Generation.

Phil Tufnel is also a Legend - but mostly for his activities off the field!!

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Legends are players...... i.e The best players of their Generation.

from Cambridge's website

Legend (n), defination: someone or something very famous and admired, usually because of their ability in a particular area
Legendary (a) defination: very famous and admired or spoken about

[Ernest]

I think Flintoff has achieved enough in just 18 months to be considered a legend right now at this moment, maybe not just for his cricketing exploits, but because of his larger than life figure.

He is the one everyone wants to see, he is the one who gets the roar, when he walks out to bat, he is a houshold name, and would have been more so, had he had the terrestrial coverage Botham had.

There is only one Freddie Flintoff.

[Rachael]

Can one achieve legendary status within the context of a team that consistently loses.. even if you perform sensationally? Not sure. Heath Streak almost single handedly lifted Zimbabwe into credibility.. but is unlikely to become a legend.. whereas if he'd been available for Australia or India throughout his career he'd quite pooosibly be looked on as one of the all time greats.

Pollock came into his own just before South Africa began to seriously decline. His cricket merits a place in a shortlist for an all-time XI (even if he would ultimately miss out).. whereas Donald's achievements would warrant no such place.. and yet if it were not for the Pollock name (and the obvious family links) one suspects that Donald would eventually end up with the more legendary status.

Kirsten.. who has perhaps been worthy of mention in the same breath as Pollock in terms of significance and impact on the field... strikes me as one who'll be recalled in South Africa.. and amongst the real devotees of the sport.. but despite being a contender for a world XI throughout a large portion of his career.. I doubt he'll become any sort of legend - Ntini or Gibbs would be more likely to get that plaudit!

Typically.. Gower has something approaching legendary status.. where Gooch does not. Tendulkar undoubtedly does.. whereas Dravid's standing is STILL not absolutely secured. Also, despite being a far less complete player.. Waqar is already more legendary than Wasim.

Gough ended his Test career witha status that far outweighed his achievements... whereas Caddick (almost his equal as a player) has no such standing.

Sadly, if Strauss were working class and Northern he'd stand more chance of become a legend in the UK: like Ed Smith, he labours under the burden of being intelligent, well educated and articulate.. which seems to be a major obstacle to anyone unless they have huge charisma and glamour, in the manner of Gower.

Strikes me that Strauss could be a consistent top 20 player.. and eventually even consistetly in the top 10.. and yet end his days with even less of a shout of being hailed a legend than Henman has: sad, when Henman would walk into any world XI.. and "legends" like Beckham and Owen wouldn't get into a 3rd or 4th XI.

[Beny]

I wouldent call him a "wonderkid". Not least because he's 27 years old. He's a good player but no better than the Hodges or Hussys of the world. He's a good batsmen but lets leave it at that.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Beny

I wouldent call him a "wonderkid". Not least because he's 27 years old. He's a good player but no better than the Hodges or Hussys of the world. He's a good batsmen but lets leave it at that.

Nope, let's not leave it at that

Strauss>Hodges>Hussey

[Maranello]

What about Strauss v Clarke?

Is it = or < or >

[Zainub]

Difficult to say this early. Strauss looks better than Clarke against good fast bowlers. Clarke ain't bad against the quickies either bit compared to Strauss he handles the spinners better. Having said that Strauss hasn't really faced any decent spinner baring Vettori, and Clarke scored runs in India, so...he's proved him self there, and that speaks a lot really. Both special players in their own rights. One to watch out for the future. Difficult to compare really.

[cantplaycantalk]

Seems funny that no one has picked up the fact that England have just cracked a record (for England) 8 Test match wins in a row. Such are the things that legends are made of. Add to that the turning over of the Windies home and away, whitewashing a NZ team who arrived in England with a decent reputation and you have a potential to look back on several members of this team as potentiaL legends.
Vaughan the man who led England into a new era.
Strauss a musician with the bat who repeatedly pulls England through to victory.
Harmison the Ashington Express, the first England bowler in a generation to be rated world #1
Flintoff, will anyone ever forget his summer of 2004 hitting a BIG 6 to his Dad in the stands

And less we forget too early Nasser Hussain, rebuilt England as a top cricketing nation signed off with a century at Lords and walked away handing the batton on to the above Strauss.

Yep only time will tell for certain, but we are already looking at a team and individuals who are breaking records, and thats a pretty good start.

Keep up the good work guys