You can tell lots of information from statistics. So it's interesting to note that Crawley has won more Tests opening the batting than any other current (i.e. non-retired) player, ever (15 and counting). And he has a better average in winning Tests than the next two on the list (Burns and Jennings).
One argument for England picking him is that England keep winning when they do. That may be swaying McCullum's and Stokes' thinking right now. And who would argue against their decision-making?
Think the major factor for Crawley being selected is the positive mindset ...you are almost suggesting he is a "lucky mascot " ..whilst hales and Roy haven't succeeded as one day openers converted into test match openers YJB is proven test match quality and already part of the " revolution " I'd go with Johnny to open
If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow duckett pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.
As opposed to Crawley, Duckett & Pope. There is nothing "make shift" about Pope at 3 either - he's now done it on 20 occasions and averages 41.63 doing so. Duckett has opened since 10 times since he came back and averages 62.25.
If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow duckett pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.
Alternatively, Crawley, Lees or Hameed? You can bet that Bairstow would give them more pause, even opening
Bowl it straight to bairstow early on and all our reviews will be wasted.
Whereas Crawley has taken to take an off stump guard in this Test so he knows where his off stump is and still ends up knicking off and getting bowled! It's also, thankfully, not possible for Bairstow to waste all our reviews.
Root, in the top 3… 70 innings averaging a shade under 40… most of those innings coming early on in his career and he’s a better player now. I’m sorry, it just makes too much sense in this McCullum led team.
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow duckett pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.
As opposed to Crawley, Duckett & Pope. There is nothing "make shift" about Pope at 3 either - he's now done it on 20 occasions and averages 41.63 doing so. Duckett has opened since 10 times since he came back and averages 62.25.
I still think the Aussies will be happier to see pope at 3 than at 6.
duckett hasn't faced a good Aussie attack yet.
time will tell and I may be proved wrong but I don't think the Aussies are worried by our top 3.
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
brook's made bairstow's immediate return a bit unlikely now, you'd have to drop pope or root.
Bazball definitely changes the thinking, and Crawley fits the positive approach better than more traditional openers like Hameed or his Kent colleague Compton. Indeed by playing Duckett as an opener it shows that England aren't looking for traditional solid openers, to take the shine of the new ball and blunt the bowling.
It seems daft to move him again, but could Pope open. After all, No 3 isn't his natural position, and he's adapted to that, and he would be a more solid option than say Bairstow.
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
brook's made bairstow's immediate return a bit unlikely now, you'd have to drop pope or root.
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
But then you are either dropping Foakes or Stokes? The best keeper in the world (who also has a better Test average than Crawley) or the captain. If there is a sound argument for not moving Bairstow on last summer's form then surely there's no argument for moving Pope, Root or Brook on this winter's form is there? Equally, why make him force his way in the team when, as a Test batsman, he is head and shoulders above Crawley? As I've said previously, not many would have predicted that Duckett would be one of our openers as he wasn't doing it in the CC and was more known, anyway, as a white ball player let alone that he would do as well as he has done. So why not Bairstow?
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
brook's made bairstow's immediate return a bit unlikely now, you'd have to drop pope or root.
Neither of them bat at six?
the skipper bats at six. You'd be hard pressed to drop him.
If bairstow opens that means we have a very make shift looking top 3 of
bairstow duckett pope
no question on how destructive they can be but I bet the Aussies wouldn't be to upset at bowling at them with a new ball in their hands.
As opposed to Crawley, Duckett & Pope. There is nothing "make shift" about Pope at 3 either - he's now done it on 20 occasions and averages 41.63 doing so. Duckett has opened since 10 times since he came back and averages 62.25.
I still think the Aussies will be happier to see pope at 3 than at 6.
duckett hasn't faced a good Aussie attack yet.
time will tell and I may be proved wrong but I don't think the Aussies are worried by our top 3.
For several years I put the argument that Pope should not be batting at 3 and not 6 because he is, technically, too good a batsman to do so and also he frequently found himself in a position where he did not understand what his role was. I think that it would be a backward step for him to drop down the order now that we have, at last, found our number 3.
It's bizarre (I fully understand why though) that Bairstow has been in and out, up and down the order, gloves on, gloves off and finally nails down a spot and shows a vain of form the all time greats would be proud of. Gets a freak injury.
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
But then you are either dropping Foakes or Stokes? The best keeper in the world (who also has a better Test average than Crawley) or the captain. If there is a sound argument for not moving Bairstow on last summer's form then surely there's no argument for moving Pope, Root or Brook on this winter's form is there? Equally, why make him force his way in the team when, as a Test batsman, he is head and shoulders above Crawley? As I've said previously, not many would have predicted that Duckett would be one of our openers as he wasn't doing it in the CC and was more known, anyway, as a white ball player let alone that he would do as well as he has done. So why not Bairstow?
But that goes back to the question why are you picking Bairstow?
On his form as a number 5/6 last summer or because he can't be worse than Crawley as an opener?
Surley you pick your best batsmen in the best positions and then pick the rest accordingly? If that's the Yorkie trio at 4, 5 and 6 that's what it is.
Robinson proves himself not to be no Nighthawk in trying to pull a ball that was never designed to be pulled. But then we probably don't really have one of those anyway.
Nah, England will crawl along at 2.2 an over, and finish in the final 5 overs of the day
If we see a proper Stokes, 1 from 50 odd balls, innings I am all for it. I am starting to think he is physically incapable of playing like that any more.
Comments
Then it's either gloves on or open when he was finally established at 5 or 6.
Put him in at 6 and make someone else move if your picking him on last summers form. Or make him force his way into the team as something else.
I would do the the former.
duckett hasn't faced a good Aussie attack yet.
time will tell and I may be proved wrong but I don't think the Aussies are worried by our top 3.
It seems daft to move him again, but could Pope open. After all, No 3 isn't his natural position, and he's adapted to that, and he would be a more solid option than say Bairstow.
the skipper bats at six. You'd be hard pressed to drop him.
On his form as a number 5/6 last summer or because he can't be worse than Crawley as an opener?
Surley you pick your best batsmen in the best positions and then pick the rest accordingly? If that's the Yorkie trio at 4, 5 and 6 that's what it is.
53-2
205 needed