The trouble with Strauss

As many young, embittered economists have discovered, the real world rarely conforms to the neat axioms and models you create. You say that if X, then Y. But, in reality, X results in seagull. So, no Nobel Prize for you.

Andrew Strauss encapsulates this dynamic nicely. After England’s pisspoor first innings performance in the third test of their series against New Zealand, English fans wanted change. We wanted blood. Batsmen’s blood.

First on our list was Straussy. Sure, he was a class act, with a proven track-record against strong opposition, but that was then, this is now. It’s like putting your 14 year-old child into a little sailor’s outfit; it would have looked cute ten years ago. But things have changed: he’s into drugs and girls now – not cuteness.

It was in this context of the sailor suit of death swinging perilously over Andrew Strauss in which he had to prove himself. He was not long for this world. We began to make plans: Surely Owais Shah will be the next Don Bradman.

Then Strauss hit a big score. He held England’s innings together with a massive 177. Indeed, he saw out the third day on 173 not out. It was a masterful and professional performance.

This irritating success, coupled with the rather un-English and frankly greediness of the unnecessarily large hundred, has buggered up all our lovely plans about a perfect future of no Andrew Strausses.

No one is sure what to do now. We can’t really have a go at the ECB, they selected a player who made a substantial contribution. That he has done so is annoying as hell, but it is sort of the point of the game.

I’ll just have to find a secondary, rather irrelevant point and take out my anger on that. WHAT! YOU DIDN’T HAVE AN EXTRA COVER FOR JIMMY?!?! YOU BASTARDS! I’LL KILL YOU ALL.

Strangely, that does feel better. In any case, well done Straussy. Please don’t get crap again.