Despite the rhetoric coming from the England camp about him being a match winner, he still has yet to prove that to be the case. After all, how many match winning performances can anyone actually recall him making from his 32 games?
His overall average is 28.30 which is poor but then take out his three biggest innings, two against weak Pakistan attacks on roads of 289 (drawn) and 122 (one of 7 hundreds in the first innings of the match) plus the 121 against the West Indies (drawn) and this average drops to 19.71 with no less than 27 single digit scores from those 53 innings.
McCullum and Stokes will continue to back Crawley all the time we are winning Tests and providing he gets the odd big score. However, if that doesn't happen then there really will be even less justification than there is now for persevering with him.
Appeal for caught down the leg side - Foakes off Robinson - soft signal is not out (but that has no relevance unless technology isn't working) and it is given out!
117-3 at lunch
The IPL has done away with the soft signal, but there's no report from the ICC that they have changed the protocol on soft signals, and it's officially still in place in the World Test Championship.
Where does the suggestion that the soft signal is now only used if the technology isn't working come from? And, if that is the case - contrary to the ICC - why are the umpires still soft signalling?
Sky sports commentators keep saying that's the case and the soft signal is only there in case DRS isn't working.
Despite the rhetoric coming from the England camp about him being a match winner, he still has yet to prove that to be the case. After all, how many match winning performances can anyone actually recall him making from his 32 games?
His overall average is 28.30 which is poor but then take out his three biggest innings, two against weak Pakistan attacks on roads of 289 (drawn) and 122 (one of 7 hundreds in the first innings of the match) plus the 121 against the West Indies (drawn) and this average drops to 19.71 with no less than 27 single digit scores from those 53 innings.
McCullum and Stokes will continue to back Crawley all the time we are winning Tests and providing he gets the odd big score. However, if that doesn't happen then there really will be even less justification than there is now for persevering with him.
I was going to say this about the Parkinson selection, or not, yesterday but forgot. But I feel the same is true with Crawley.
Crawley isn't in the team to score lots of runs or see off the new ball. He is in the team to score quickly. I think England's fastest ever 100 opening partnerships were the last test of the summer and the first innings in Pakistan. They aren't bothered about him scoring 100s if he scores quick 50s once every 2 or 3 tests.
He will probably end his test career with an average in the early 30s but with more "moments" than someone who averaged 10 more.
Parkinson isn't picked because they don't feel he can take enough wickets, rightly or wrongly. I think England would rather a bowler that 5for at 5 in 20 overs than someone that might take 3 for 100 off 50 overs.
England now, in all formats, will always pick a Stokes over a Woakes. I hope they carry on TBH.
Appeal for caught down the leg side - Foakes off Robinson - soft signal is not out (but that has no relevance unless technology isn't working) and it is given out!
117-3 at lunch
The IPL has done away with the soft signal, but there's no report from the ICC that they have changed the protocol on soft signals, and it's officially still in place in the World Test Championship.
Where does the suggestion that the soft signal is now only used if the technology isn't working come from? And, if that is the case - contrary to the ICC - why are the umpires still soft signalling?
Sky sports commentators keep saying that's the case and the soft signal is only there in case DRS isn't working.
Brook LBW Nelson to go with the 87 he got earlier in the series. Needs to find a lucky charm. And quick too because I can't see him having much of a career with that sort of misfortune.
Brook LBW Nelson to go with the 87 he got earlier in the series. Needs to find a lucky charm. And quick too because I can't see him having much of a career with that sort of misfortune.
262-6
If he keeps getting out for 87 and 111, I think he'll live with that! Better than having "0" as your unlucky number...
Rehan Ahmed, by all accounts, bats as he bowls. With plenty of attacking instinct.
Pathetic immature batting.
Ahmed will have been told to express himself. He got there but the execution was somewhat lacking and he totally lost his shape in playing the shot. But then he is 18. And he will learn to be a bit more composed when playing that shot but there is no way he would have done so without the approval of McCullum and Stokes because that is the way he bats.
Wood has quite a few FC fifties. Weirdly I think the requirements of this new style of Test cricket will do wonders for his average. He can play as he likes. Play the Swann role
Wood has quite a few FC fifties. Weirdly I think the requirements of this new style of Test cricket will do wonders for his average. He can play as he likes. Play the Swann role
From 53-0 to 54-3 (all three wickets to Leach) to 142-3 off 48 overs for a lead of 92 runs, Have only just caught up with things but, presumably, there is a reason why Ahmed hasn't bowled today given that he only went for 2 runs off 2 overs yesterday? The seamers have bowled 23 overs without success after all.
From 53-0 to 54-3 (all three wickets to Leach) to 142-3 off 48 overs for a lead of 92 runs, Have only just caught up with things but, presumably, there is a reason why Ahmed hasn't bowled today given that he only went for 2 runs off 2 overs yesterday? The seamers have bowled 23 overs without success after all.
No obvious reason why he hasn't. Stokes use of himself as a bowler is interesting. No overs in the previous match, none in the first innings, 8 on the reel today.
From 53-0 to 54-3 (all three wickets to Leach) to 142-3 off 48 overs for a lead of 92 runs, Have only just caught up with things but, presumably, there is a reason why Ahmed hasn't bowled today given that he only went for 2 runs off 2 overs yesterday? The seamers have bowled 23 overs without success after all.
No obvious reason why he hasn't. Stokes use of himself as a bowler is interesting. No overs in the previous match, none in the first innings, 8 on the reel today.
Stokes must be on CL because, within minutes, he's on!
Comments
Despite the rhetoric coming from the England camp about him being a match winner, he still has yet to prove that to be the case. After all, how many match winning performances can anyone actually recall him making from his 32 games?
His overall average is 28.30 which is poor but then take out his three biggest innings, two against weak Pakistan attacks on roads of 289 (drawn) and 122 (one of 7 hundreds in the first innings of the match) plus the 121 against the West Indies (drawn) and this average drops to 19.71 with no less than 27 single digit scores from those 53 innings.
McCullum and Stokes will continue to back Crawley all the time we are winning Tests and providing he gets the odd big score. However, if that doesn't happen then there really will be even less justification than there is now for persevering with him.
Crawley isn't in the team to score lots of runs or see off the new ball. He is in the team to score quickly. I think England's fastest ever 100 opening partnerships were the last test of the summer and the first innings in Pakistan. They aren't bothered about him scoring 100s if he scores quick 50s once every 2 or 3 tests.
He will probably end his test career with an average in the early 30s but with more "moments" than someone who averaged 10 more.
Parkinson isn't picked because they don't feel he can take enough wickets, rightly or wrongly. I think England would rather a bowler that 5for at 5 in 20 overs than someone that might take 3 for 100 off 50 overs.
England now, in all formats, will always pick a Stokes over a Woakes. I hope they carry on TBH.
Brook 108* (141)
Foakes 42* (85)
153
87
9
108
108*
465 runs @ an average of 116.25 and strike rate of 94.51
262-6
266-7
But then Ahmed bowls a short one for a change and Babar smashes it straight to Pope at short midwicket!