Bethell has never scored a first class century and has a first class batting average of 25. There's thinking outside the box ,but this seems ridiculous to me.
At this point, I'm considering getting my whites out the attic just in case I get a call.
You're the only person I've seen comment anywhere who thinks Crawley is anywhere close to being dropped.
I don't think he should be dropped but I also do not believe that he is the player that the England regime would like us to think he is or that his contributions have been in any way meaningful. He is very much a one dimensional batsman who is great when the ball is doing nothing. If it's seaming, swinging or spinning then he's in trouble. Even if we were to ignore his relatively poor average of 31.98, the fact that, in 50 matches, he's only managed to score at four tons and reached 100 runs in the game six times in total says a lot especially if we look at what happened in those games:
(1) 267 v Pakistan (H) - match drawn with Buttler scoring 152 in the same innings (2) 129 (8 & 121) v West Indies (A) - match drawn with Bairstow (155) and Root (122) both contributing (3) 172 (50 & 122) v Pakistan (A) - won by 74 runs. Brook (240), Duckett (107) and Pope (123) all had meaningful contributions (4) 189 v Australia (H) - match drawn (5) 149 (76 & 73) v India (A) - lost by 106 runs (6) 102 (42 & 60) v India (A) - lost by 5 wickets
Now McCullum talks about Crawley being picked for his match winning big innings but, in six matches where he scored just 100 runs in the game, we won just one and there were three other players in that game that made major contributions to that win. The much maligned Pope, who is rightly under pressure for his place, has a better average and single handedly won us our only victory in India by 28 runs with 196 in an innings in which our second top scorer, Duckett, made 47.
People will rightly argue that we can't go backwards and look to play a Burns or a Sibley. They might also say that there aren't any other batsmen pushing for a place. But then neither was Crawley - his First Class average is 32.44 and for Kent last season he averaged 32.20 from 10 innings with 238 of those 322 runs coming in one innings - so in 9/10 innings he failed miserably to contribute. If the criteria for being picked for England is based on one or two meaningful innings a season then we should ignore averages for everyone and just concentrate on those where the batsman in question did dominate in a match.
Offset against all of that, the partnership between Crawley and Duckett has, on a number of occasions got us off to a good start. That in itself and the ability to be a "flat track bully" shouldn't guarantee a place in the side come what may. However, if he carries on as he has done then I have no doubt that he will do enough, in the eyes of McCullum, Stokes and Key, to earn him a place opening in the Ashes. Even if he has a poor series against India, it will be too late anyway for them to bring in someone that has never played Test cricket. That is a problem in itself.
Really interesting interview with Ben Duckett on The Final Word this week. Was recorded during the Australia ODI's and he speaks of some specific examples from the series in a candid way you don't normally get from players.
You're the only person I've seen comment anywhere who thinks Crawley is anywhere close to being dropped.
On here maybe but I’ve plenty of friends who agree he’s become a liability.
Thinking he's not playing well and thinking he's close to being dropped are two separate things.
Even then 99% of people are focused on Pope (and Stokes).
Crawley is not in any danger of being dropped IMHO.
Would also be interested to know who you'd call up instead?
There isn’t anyone obvious which is part of the problem . If there was , then I’m sure he’d have been dropped by now .
But, couldn't you say that about anyone who has played Test cricket - or any other sport - ever? If there's an "obvious" replacement, then the player gets replaced.
Crawley and Duckett are currently considered the best two to open the batting for England. I think a lot of people would agree with that determination.
You're the only person I've seen comment anywhere who thinks Crawley is anywhere close to being dropped.
On here maybe but I’ve plenty of friends who agree he’s become a liability.
Thinking he's not playing well and thinking he's close to being dropped are two separate things.
Even then 99% of people are focused on Pope (and Stokes).
Crawley is not in any danger of being dropped IMHO.
Would also be interested to know who you'd call up instead?
There isn’t anyone obvious which is part of the problem . If there was , then I’m sure he’d have been dropped by now .
But, couldn't you say that about anyone who has played Test cricket - or any other sport - ever? If there's an "obvious" replacement, then the player gets replaced.
Crawley and Duckett are currently considered the best two to open the batting for England. I think a lot of people would agree with that determination.
Crawley’s record over the last 15 months or so is good . Opening the batting isn’t easy and he’s doing fine - better than most that went before him. I’d far rather watch him that Burns/ Sibley/ Hameed et al .
Crawley’s job is also about setting tone rather than getting hundreds. Obviously the more runs he scores the better but if he can scramble a bowlers head by scoring quickly there’s an extra little victory in it for the side. If we had a better player at 3 Crawley’s form would be discussed even less
Crawley’s job is also about setting tone rather than getting hundreds. Obviously the more runs he scores the better but if he can scramble a bowlers head by scoring quickly there’s an extra little victory in it for the side. If we had a better player at 3 Crawley’s form would be discussed even less
Exactly. Crawley received some negative comments on here by a few for only scoring 70 odd in the first test on a road. 70 odd more than the no 3!
Crawley’s job is also about setting tone rather than getting hundreds. Obviously the more runs he scores the better but if he can scramble a bowlers head by scoring quickly there’s an extra little victory in it for the side. If we had a better player at 3 Crawley’s form would be discussed even less
You could turn that around and say if we had a better player than Crawley opening then Pope wouldn't even be discussed. This management were quite specific in saying, when Crawley scored that 267 on a road against Pakistan and then went on that barren run, that it was all about how many games he could win us with that one big score. He has never done that whereas Pope has. Now the argument is that he takes the game to the opposition which he does for short periods of time. But winning little battles doesn't win the war.
All of that said, I don't think Crawley should be dropped right now but if he carries on the way he is then he has to be vulnerable. There are players out there who have either been dismissed, having not been given the 50 matches that Crawley has, or who are young and could be picked on potential, as he was, but what you can't do is throw one of them in for the Ashes.
As for Pope, the poor bloke's confidence is shattered. He's always been a nervous starter but the way he is batting right now, the look on his face and the way he is that split second behind what is happening is one I have seen, unfortunately, at first hand. That fear of failure looks like it has enveloped him each and every time he walks to the middle. If things don't improve for him in New Zealand then, if only for his own well being, he needs time away. He doesn't strike me as overtly self-confident as a Root, Brook, Smith, Crawley or even Cox. He's more an Ian Bell type and of course it took him almost 100 innings before he scored a ton in an innings when someone else hadn't. I hope Pope finds that confidence because he is a class player whatever his recent form suggests.
The ECB have moved away from offering three-year deals as they did last year with Brook, Root and Wood
Stokes has signed a two-year deal having refused one for three years this time last year. Acceptance that he isn't going to be fit or be offered IPL contracts?
Smith is automatically given a two-year contract, bucking the trend with Atkinson and Buttler the only ones to have theirs extended from one to two years remaining - Rehan, Archer, Bairstow, Carse, Crawley, Duckett, Livingstone, Curran, Pope, Potts, Rashid, Tongue and Woakes all have one of their two years granted last time left to run
Leach and Topley have had their one-year deals renewed and Salt, Bashir, Stone and Jacks are awarded the same for the first time
Bethell and Hull joins Turner who had a Development contract last year too
From last year Anderson, Moeen and Malan have all retired from international cricket whereas Foakes and Robinson have lost theirs. It is unfortunate for the former and the promotion of the likes of Smith and Cox is damning evidence of what this regime is looking for from their keepers. As for Robinson, it's really not difficult to conclude that he has rather blotted his copybook and may never be forgiven for doing so.
Robinson losing his central contract isn't a shock. Will be interesting to see how much longer he stays at Sussex , hopefully being in Div 1 and being the leader of the attack is enough and he's not tempted elsewhere by more money
Not exactly covering ourselves in glory - 93-4 (21) with Salt, Jacks, Cox and Bethell all out giving it a heave and only succeeding in hitting the ball straight up!
I noticed we had just 1 player who simply a batsman. Another was a wicketkeeper batman & the other NINE were either bowlers or batsman who can bowl.
Really should have at least 3 who are purely batsman. Then a wicketkeeper batsman, a couple who are true all rounders & then 4 bowlers (with at least 2 who can bat)
I noticed we had just 1 player who simply a batsman. Another was a wicketkeeper batman & the other NINE were either bowlers or batsman who can bowl.
Really should have at least 3 who are purely batsman. Then a wicketkeeper batsman, a couple who are true all rounders & then 4 bowlers (with at least 2 who can bat)
As a batter, if you don't have two disciplines in your armoury these days then you really are limiting your chances of selection in white ball cricket. Australia used 8 bowlers in the recent ODI against England and still had Marsh and Smith to call upon if necessary plus keeper Carey.
Massive let off for Livingstone. Having hit Chase for a six and a four, he is dropped off a sitter at short midwicket off the wicketless bowler's final ball of his 10 over spell.
Comments
(1) 267 v Pakistan (H) - match drawn with Buttler scoring 152 in the same innings
(2) 129 (8 & 121) v West Indies (A) - match drawn with Bairstow (155) and Root (122) both contributing
(3) 172 (50 & 122) v Pakistan (A) - won by 74 runs. Brook (240), Duckett (107) and Pope (123) all had meaningful contributions
(4) 189 v Australia (H) - match drawn
(5) 149 (76 & 73) v India (A) - lost by 106 runs
(6) 102 (42 & 60) v India (A) - lost by 5 wickets
Now McCullum talks about Crawley being picked for his match winning big innings but, in six matches where he scored just 100 runs in the game, we won just one and there were three other players in that game that made major contributions to that win. The much maligned Pope, who is rightly under pressure for his place, has a better average and single handedly won us our only victory in India by 28 runs with 196 in an innings in which our second top scorer, Duckett, made 47.
People will rightly argue that we can't go backwards and look to play a Burns or a Sibley. They might also say that there aren't any other batsmen pushing for a place. But then neither was Crawley - his First Class average is 32.44 and for Kent last season he averaged 32.20 from 10 innings with 238 of those 322 runs coming in one innings - so in 9/10 innings he failed miserably to contribute. If the criteria for being picked for England is based on one or two meaningful innings a season then we should ignore averages for everyone and just concentrate on those where the batsman in question did dominate in a match.
Offset against all of that, the partnership between Crawley and Duckett has, on a number of occasions got us off to a good start. That in itself and the ability to be a "flat track bully" shouldn't guarantee a place in the side come what may. However, if he carries on as he has done then I have no doubt that he will do enough, in the eyes of McCullum, Stokes and Key, to earn him a place opening in the Ashes. Even if he has a poor series against India, it will be too late anyway for them to bring in someone that has never played Test cricket. That is a problem in itself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c1wjegjp28yo
Even then 99% of people are focused on Pope (and Stokes).
Crawley is not in any danger of being dropped IMHO.
Would also be interested to know who you'd call up instead?
Sod being famous. Rich, yes, famous I'd hate, this among the reasons why.
Crawley and Duckett are currently considered the best two to open the batting for England. I think a lot of people would agree with that determination.
You could turn that around and say if we had a better player than Crawley opening then Pope wouldn't even be discussed. This management were quite specific in saying, when Crawley scored that 267 on a road against Pakistan and then went on that barren run, that it was all about how many games he could win us with that one big score. He has never done that whereas Pope has. Now the argument is that he takes the game to the opposition which he does for short periods of time. But winning little battles doesn't win the war.
All of that said, I don't think Crawley should be dropped right now but if he carries on the way he is then he has to be vulnerable. There are players out there who have either been dismissed, having not been given the 50 matches that Crawley has, or who are young and could be picked on potential, as he was, but what you can't do is throw one of them in for the Ashes.
As for Pope, the poor bloke's confidence is shattered. He's always been a nervous starter but the way he is batting right now, the look on his face and the way he is that split second behind what is happening is one I have seen, unfortunately, at first hand. That fear of failure looks like it has enveloped him each and every time he walks to the middle. If things don't improve for him in New Zealand then, if only for his own well being, he needs time away. He doesn't strike me as overtly self-confident as a Root, Brook, Smith, Crawley or even Cox. He's more an Ian Bell type and of course it took him almost 100 innings before he scored a ton in an innings when someone else hadn't. I hope Pope finds that confidence because he is a class player whatever his recent form suggests.
The ECB have moved away from offering three-year deals as they did last year with Brook, Root and Wood
Stokes has signed a two-year deal having refused one for three years this time last year. Acceptance that he isn't going to be fit or be offered IPL contracts?
Smith is automatically given a two-year contract, bucking the trend with Atkinson and Buttler the only ones to have theirs extended from one to two years remaining - Rehan, Archer, Bairstow, Carse, Crawley, Duckett, Livingstone, Curran, Pope, Potts, Rashid, Tongue and Woakes all have one of their two years granted last time left to run
Leach and Topley have had their one-year deals renewed and Salt, Bashir, Stone and Jacks are awarded the same for the first time
Bethell and Hull joins Turner who had a Development contract last year too
From last year Anderson, Moeen and Malan have all retired from international cricket whereas Foakes and Robinson have lost theirs. It is unfortunate for the former and the promotion of the likes of Smith and Cox is damning evidence of what this regime is looking for from their keepers. As for Robinson, it's really not difficult to conclude that he has rather blotted his copybook and may never be forgiven for doing so.
I noticed we had just 1 player who simply a batsman. Another was a wicketkeeper batman & the other NINE were either bowlers or batsman who can bowl.
Really should have at least 3 who are purely batsman. Then a wicketkeeper batsman, a couple who are true all rounders & then 4 bowlers (with at least 2 who can bat)
137-4 (31)
160-4 (34)
165-5 (34.5)
181-7 (39)
187-8 (40.1)
This team has no identity.