Let’s remember that cricket’s no quasi-religion

ANYTHING said about Eoin Morgan’s choice to not travel the tour of Bangladesh can’t help but be tangled in hypocrisy.

When offered the ODI captaincy after Alastair Cook’s sacking, people can assume there is a code that if you accept that responsibility you have to bear it unquestioningly and uncritically.

Yet, if that is the case we’re taking cricket to some kind of quasi-religion. Cricket is cricket, and it is not bigger than peace of mind – health is of far superior significance.

For Morgan’s integrity and the future of his leadership to be in jeopardy is absurd and unjust.

If going to Bangladesh would skew Morgan’s focus at the crease and trouble him, then leave him be. Even at the elite level I hope this game never gives cause for national players to abandon their instinct, no matter how irrational the logic.

Andrew Strauss has a right to be disappointed but not frustrated, having partnered Marcus Trescothick for England he must be aware through personal experience and the experience of team-mates that tours come with their hardships.

I will concede the momentum driven by England’s domination of Pakistan this summer will fall foul to Morgan and Hales’ absence, but can reflect on the fact English cricket has reserves of batsmen with the potential to succeed under Trevor Bayliss.

Morgan staying grounded gives a chance to bring Ian Bell back into the fold for the experience English cricket is crying out for. There are other players in better form, of course, but I don’t forsee him taking the ODI team backwards and it gives him a chance to breathe England life again, with the chance of replacing James Vince in the Test squad.

Whatever happens, the decision(s) made by Andrew Strauss will be a result of Giles Clarke’s legacy. RICHARD MASON via email