England players and selection discussion thread

[Uppercut]

Yeah those words from Stokes go beyond "showing support for your incumbents" and into "showing contempt for everyone in County Cricket". Taking Stokes at his word, he's saying that no matter how well other openers in the Championship perform, they'll never displace Crawley, even if he's terrible.

This is exactly what bothers me about it too. He’s speaking as of Crawley is the main character in the story and everyone else is just a foil.

 

[Chubb]

This is exactly what bothers me about it too. He’s speaking as of Crawley is the main character in the story and everyone else is just a foil.

The stench of privilege is disgusting. Would love someone to say Dan Lawrence will be selected no matter what but of course the jazzers always get what they want.

I know I keep going on about this, but why is this young player treated differently to all the other young players in England?

 

[Prince EWS]

I know I keep going on about this

So do we.

 

[Flem274*]

To be fair, it would be pretty in character for McCullum to say "This is a clean slate for the junior players. What you have done before Stokes and I took over is gone."

Tbh I think Crawley is rekt and needs a time out for his own sanity but a new coach wanting to give a struggling player their version of faith and help rather than that of the previous guy is the sort of stability you want a head coach to bring tbh.

Look at your Steads and Silverwoods who chop, change and pick a team for the previous games pitch.

 

[GIMH]

Not dropping Crawley for this match I get; with the turnaround it makes sense to keep the squad together.

Giving him that 'no matter what' - not so much

 

[Starfighter]

with the turnaround it makes sense to keep the squad together.

That doesn't make sense, no one could ever drop a batsman in the middle of the series in that case.

 

[GIMH]

That doesn't make sense, no one could ever drop a batsman in the middle of the series in that case.

Sure, I’m not saying you can’t change it but I can understand the logic of keeping the team together for this one.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, I'm gonna take what is said with a pinch of salt, in the end, it's kinda hard on a new bat coming in, if he has to face Bumrah, Siraj and the like with little prep. If he fails again and is retained for the next Series I may start to chunter a bit.

 

[Tom Flint]

No problem with it, release some pressure off him. Then dispose of him without warning when you done giving him chances

 

[greg]

Stokes was hardly going to say otherwise having selected him.

It's not the easiest of things because Crawley's confidence looks at a very low ebb last test and it's not doing him much good playing at this point.

It's also not that easy to bring someone else in for this one off test too with the next test not coming for 7 weeks after this one, and the very short time period between the last test and this test. I doubt Stokes or Mcullum know who is next in line for the opener spot. They probably want 7 weeks to figure out who it should be, rather than play a random for 1 test and then maybe drop him, or have to give him say 8 tests to try and prove himself - even if they don't rate the newcomer. (they'd clearly like Crawley to be the guy but he isn't that at present).

It was slightly alarming what Stokes said after the last test "It's not necessarily about your stats, or anything like that. It's the manner that you play that is probably going to be first and foremost on selectors' minds". Players coming through are already looking at the short formats adoringly because of the incentives involved. You wonder if somone like Alastair Cook was coming through now whether he'd be overlooked, or forced to play a more aggressive style that didn't suit as much.

Still you can't fault the results so far, especially coming off the previous run of form.

England overdoing it a bit on the "play entertaining cricket" line IMO. Ultimately it is results that matter, and results that will entertain the England fans. Nobody wants out and out blockers scoring at 2 an over (with no ability to accelerate later in an innings), because that is not the way you win modern test matches. Hell it wasn't the way you won historic test matches either. But top order batsmen still have a balance between scoring at a decent tempo and actually laying a platform.

We've seen it before with England in recent history (when they were having success with not dissimilar teams) that a formula on smallish English grounds with rapid outfields and always something in it for the bowlers, does not always translate well elsewhere for various reasons (eg. subcontinent or Australia).

 

[greg]

Also there’s a difference between Crawley and someone like Pope (notwithstanding recent Test performance) because Pope has a fantastic 1st class record that makes it easier to argue against potential alternatives on statistical evidence alone. Of course there is always a point if somebody fails* enough at test level when alternatives (especially new alternatives rather than retreads) must be tried even if one is not particular reason to think they will do better.

*how “failure” is defined of course is another matter. Think Kallis, Waugh…

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I definitely think Crawley has more potential than Pope but even I wont keep selecting him unless he makes big runs here against India. He should be dropped and told to figure out his game. All the talent wont count for much if he cant figure out the judgement and decision making part of it.

 

[wpdavid]

I was discussing Robinson on the current tour thread and thought I should move it here. I occasionally come across comments that are less than sympathetic about his ongoing injuries and/or lack of fitness, but missed the original stories. Can someone fill me in please?

 

[greg]

Yeah, I definitely think Crawley has more potential than Pope but even I wont keep selecting him unless he makes big runs here against India. He should be dropped and told to figure out his game. All the talent wont count for much if he cant figure out the judgement and decision making part of it.

That’s not quite what I meant. Whether Crawley or Pope has more talent is of course a question, but my point is that a claimed “talent” is all Crawley’s got if there are other openers in County cricket stacking up runs. But if a faltering Pope gets threatened by people scoring1st class runs then he can say he would be doing likewise - with the record to back him up.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair, it would be pretty in character for McCullum to say "This is a clean slate for the junior players. What you have done before Stokes and I took over is gone."

Tbh I think Crawley is rekt and needs a time out for his own sanity but a new coach wanting to give a struggling player their version of faith and help rather than that of the previous guy is the sort of stability you want a head coach to bring tbh.

Look at your Steads and Silverwoods who chop, change and pick a team for the previous games pitch.

I’ve been arguing for ages that England were flitting between bad openers too much and needed to pick one and put time and effort into developing them.

But firstly, Crawley probably isn’t the right prospect to work on. Not an opener, no FC runs, no obvious straightforward improvements they could make. Even if you believe in his talent, it’s too early.

Secondly, this year they have an opener getting CC runs for the first time in forever. Unlike most of the other guys they’ve tried, Compton has a chance of contributing straight away.

 

[Flem274*]

I’ve been arguing for ages that England were flitting between bad openers too much and needed to pick one and put time and effort into developing them.

But firstly, Crawley probably isn’t the right prospect to work on. Not an opener, no FC runs, no obvious straightforward improvements they could make. Even if you believe in his talent, it’s too early.

Secondly, this year they have an opener getting CC runs for the first time in forever. Unlike most of the other guys they’ve tried, Compton has a chance of contributing straight away.

For sure. I thought Crawley was trash when I first saw him, but I'm a fan and not a coach who has to think about intangibles like the squad buying into his proclaimed faith in them. We can select like its Cricket 22 or the ICC games - McCullum knows from personal experience the drama that creates when Mike Hesson switched the captaincy with all the humanity of a computer game or fan.

 

[kevinw]

Crawley has certainly cast a spell on some because he plays the odd nice pretty drive. Comparing him to Pope is like comparing a clapped out banger to a....well, not a Ferrari, but something mid-range. Pope has a lot of ability, a tremendous FC record and just needs to improve his decision-making and temperament. Get that right and you've got someone at Root's level. Crawley has a terrible temperament, a poor FC record and he doesn't even have a good range of strokes. There is basically nothing to work with. You are taking a guy who is fortunate to even have a county contract and asking him to open the batting in one of the hardest places to open. It's not fair to him nor anyone else. He's just out of his depth and will never have the ability or mindset to play this level.

 

[honestbharani]

That’s not quite what I meant. Whether Crawley or Pope has more talent is of course a question, but my point is that a claimed “talent” is all Crawley’s got if there are other openers in County cricket stacking up runs. But if a faltering Pope gets threatened by people scoring1st class runs then he can say he would be doing likewise - with the record to back him up.

No, I got what you meant. That post was just my own view of things.

 

[Uppercut]

For sure. I thought Crawley was trash when I first saw him, but I'm a fan and not a coach who has to think about intangibles like the squad buying into his proclaimed faith in them. We can select like its Cricket 22 or the ICC games - McCullum knows from personal experience the drama that creates when Mike Hesson switched the captaincy with all the humanity of a computer game or fan.

I completely agree with your general point, but with Crawley specifically you’re wading into some shaky ground. It’s long been suspected that ‘team culture’ is used throughout English cricket as an excuse to select white upper class guys over objectively better players. It’s quite central to the Yorkshire scandal, and there was a media scandal arising from some members of the press talking about Archer in exactly those terms.

Having dropped Hameed and stuck with Crawley, any vague hint of that kind of talk will potentially cause some massive PR problems. They kinda do have to just select like Cricket 22 selectors for a while.

 

[greg]

I completely agree with your general point, but with Crawley specifically you’re wading into some shaky ground. It’s long been suspected that ‘team culture’ is used throughout English cricket as an excuse to select white upper class guys over objectively better players. It’s quite central to the Yorkshire scandal, and there was a media scandal arising from some members of the press talking about Archer in exactly those terms.

Having dropped Hameed and stuck with Crawley, any vague hint of that kind of talk will potentially cause some massive PR problems. They kinda do have to just select like Cricket 22 selectors for a while.

That’s a good point. Gotta be very careful about suggestions that some people aren’t team players or just don’t seem to fit in, especially if there’s any sense of bringing in “off-field” activities.