SA tour of Eng, July 19 - Sept 12

[sussexpob]

As for the 2nd test, surely even the most patient of people must have lost it with Zak Crawley? Since his double hundred vs Pakistan, he averages 17 in 20 odd games. He averages 16 this summer in tests with no 50. In terms of performance, I would struggle to come up with an example of any batters who have played almost none stop for 2 years at such pittance of returns.... even the gold standard of English crap batting, Mark Ramprakash, never got more a series in a year when he was batting at his terrible best.

Crawley's FC average is now 28-29. He hasn't scored more than 41 in his last 10 matches for England/Kent. His 8 games in the CC this year come at a low 20s average... making him Kent's 12th best averaging batter in a summer where they have 7 batters averaging over 40. So the pitches have been good enough to score on, and his form is so bad he shouldnt even be getting a game for his county.

He has to go. Simple as that. Was out defending his wicket twice again.... the first innings dismissal was classic Crawley. Edge into the slips playing forward...

There really isnt any positives left. He gets out the same way all the time, his form is dire, he cant score in lower forms of the game, and really despite his potential, has no longer term case over his career that he can even be an above average player in CC. I really dont understand why he's played so many tests. What do they see in him?

He needs to go back to Kent and score a gigantic mountain of runs to justify playing another test for England.

[Durhamfootman]

McCullum says he can still win test matches for England

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62609719

"I look at a guy like Zak and his skillset is not to be a consistent cricketer. He's not that type of player.

"He's put in that situation because he has a game which, when he gets going, he can win matches for England."

doesn't look as though he's going anywhere, anytime soon

[Arthur Crabtree]

That's the squad for the first two Tests, so they're unlikely to change. And no one's playing fc cricket.

Brook, Overton and Robinson to choose from.

[sussexpob]

McCullum says he can still win test matches for England

As I have said many times concerning Crawley, I get what they saw in him a couple of years ago. And considering the dire situation he walked into, it was worth the risk trying him out based on pure potential. But this is absolute drivel from McCullum on all levels. The idea you can play someone with an average of 26 because you accept he isnt "consistent" but a match winner; well, there is scant evidence that he can win matches for England, because he soo rarely scores big. And the last time he did, England didnt win the game....

There comes a time when reality overtakes the invisible quality of potential. "Still finding his feet at this level"?? He averages 28 in FC for christ sake Bazza, he still needs to find his level in the lower form of the game. He's nearly 25.... hes played 26 tests. Every single shred of evidence points towards him being rubbish. I cant make any convincing argument based in reality that says any different.

[sussexpob]

And lets be honest, his only really achievement of note in his test career was in a series that was so different to any in the history of English cricket, it renders what occurred somewhat null and void. Pakistan were piloted into a strict quarantine of length, most of the team were recovering from positive tests, they had a horrendous warm up and had to isolate in hotel rooms for weeks, and this after months isolating in Pakistan were they werent able to train. And the bowlers couldnt shine the ball to swing it.

Pakistan came as a mark of goodwill, and people in lockdowns at home needed a few distractions, but none of that series can be taken as proper test cricket.

So the only thing he ever did has a gigantic amount of context to it

[Durhamfootman]

And no one's playing fc cricket.

of course they aren't

I can't think of a single reason why anyone would want to

[alfie]

I am a bit of a Crawley fan but I agree there is no case for persevering with him at present. He seems to have lost all confidence (understandably !) and really the only way I can see him coming back to his best is having him go back to his county for a year or so and reset. Keeping him in , failing again and again , is not doing him any good.

Trouble is they have settled the 2nd test squad and there is no alternative opener in it. So unless they ask Harry Brook to debut out of position or do something daft like ask Bairstow to open (neither option remotely fair to the players , or prudent) I can't see any option but to have him go again in Manchester...

[sussexpob]

I am a bit of a Crawley fan but I agree there is no case for persevering with him at present. He seems to have lost all confidence (understandably !) and really the only way I can see him coming back to his best is having him go back to his county for a year or so and reset. Keeping him in , failing again and again , is not doing him any good

I think the problems are technical rather than mental, because he just doesn't have the tools at his disposal to last long enough to cash in on his qualities elsewhere.

I remain skeptical that such an large problem can be overcome, but then again sometimes is better to have a really obvious problem to work on. So I am not going to write him off if he goes away and proves he can bat for long times and stops getting out the same way. He has a lot to offer if he overcomes his defence...

I'd be tempted to send him back with the message that runs mean little... go out there and bat as long as possible. If you see out 200 balls for 10 runs, that's a positive. Get him thinking about surviving rather than scoring.

[sussexpob]

Imagine if Bazza could go all Dr Frankenstein, and somehow work out a way to combine Lees and Crawley into one player.... we might then have a test match quality player

[Durhamfootman]

even better if this player could nearly keep wicket as well.... he'd be straight in the team

[Arthur Crabtree]

Robinson in for Pozzo is the only change. Crawley presumably is expected to get single figures or a double ton.

[sussexpob]

Robinson in for Pozzo is the only change. Crawley presumably is expected to get single figures or a double ton.

Incredibly harsh on Potts, who has done pretty well.... England can make some bizarre selections sometimes, they pick Wood to be rubbish over and over again, and then drop a 22/23 year old after one hardly disastrous test. I'd have made the change elsewhere...

[Durhamfootman]

I half expected it. I thought that Robbo was always going to come in at some point, otherwise they wouldn't have added him to the squad with Overton still there. Stokes and McCullum kind of boxed themselves into a corner earlier in the year with all their talk about playing A & B when fit, so it felt likely that Pottsy would have to be the one to make way. Now the talk is about how good his character is for not throwing his toys out of the pram, so that won't do him any harm going forward.

A pity Durham haven't got any matches for him to make a point

As always, when the batting falls apart, England change the bowlers. 'T'as ever been thus

[alfie]

Not a bad change , I think. The drawback (and the reason I wanted Potts over Robinson at Lord's ) is that with the latter having question marks over his endurance , and the two old boys - well , old - there might be problems if the SA innings went long. And that remains an issue but you can't have everything you want in a limited squad.

Potts has been pretty good value. But he really wasn't great last week...gave away a lot of easy runs to the SA top order ; and his figures since that first match against NZ haven't actually been all that good - something like 13 wickets @ about 38. He will come again ; but I don't think missing this one will hurt him in the long run.

Obviously England would like an express pace option ; but there ain't one fit , so best go with the bowlers with the best records : I do think both Anderson and Broad "needed the run" last week. Not saying they were rubbish ; but neither were at their best (though Jimmy was economical as ever , and Broad looked rather better in that final spell to the tail) : am expecting better this week and along with Robinson I think they will test a SA batting line-up that looks serviceable rather than vintage.

England's batting : well that we have to see which version turns up

[sussexpob]

Its going to sound like I disagree more than I actually do with your point Alfie, but sometimes I find it a little bizarre that bowlers seem to get rougher treatment than batters (with bowlers, people are a bit more inclined to chop and change, while with batsman we linger on what it does to their confidence and what not to be dropped after 5 tests doing pretty well). I was against Broad and Anderson being treated the way they were in the winter as there was no indications through the data that either had declined much.

But I am a little worried that Broad has looked very average this summer. Of course, all bowlers can have bad form (and in one test he bowled really well without the returns)... but you always worry post 36 years of age about whether form is permanent or not.

I'd have "rested" Broad for this game and I'd have went with Potts.