England Cricket 2023

mid_life_crisis said:

Don't completely discount them moving Brook up the order.

I got laughed at when I suggested that a few months ago when the re-introduction of Bairstow was last debated! I did point out that he had done the job early in his career and has said that he would be happy to do so.

Cafc43v3r said:

Bairstow needs to bat at 6 or 7.  If your recalling him, rightfully, on last summers form you need to bat him where he had that form.  If you really want to drop Crawley for him put him at 6 and push everyone else up one.

So Pope would open, having just established that he is England's current and future number 3? Root goes to 3 having categorically stated he doesn't want to bat there? I'm not sure that we should disrupt all of 3-6 to accommodate Bairstow? 

Crawley has had the unrelenting backing of the England management. However, as Atherton, Hussain and in this last Test, Gower have all said there are only so many chances you can give someone - he averages just 28.10 from 59 innings but, more to the point, he has never made a contribution that can be defined as the difference between us winning and not winning. He averages 69.37 against Pakistan because of his 267 out of 583-8 in a drawn game and his 122 when he was one of four centurions in a total of 657. His other ton (121) came in a drawn game against the West Indies. Those are the only three of his 32 matches when he has reached 100, in total for both innings, in a game. Take those three scores out and Crawley has scored 1,120 runs in 56 innings at an average of 20.36 with no less than 30 single digit scores. He's never managed a big one on a tough wicket, was 9th in the Kent batting averages in the CC last season with 467 runs at 27.47 and has a lifetime First Class average of 30.22. All of that says more than enough about his lack of a solid technique. Yes he will come off occasionally when the stars align but, more often that not, he will get out to the moving ball. We also shouldn't forget that he dropped three catches in the last game and It is only the fact that we are on this winning streak that more analysis of that hasn't made. 

If Crawley has been given 32 matches then I'm sure that Duckett will be forgiven more than the odd failure - his totals of 107, 142, 108 and 109 in the four matches since he returned should have bought him plenty of time. The fact that he is left handed is important too given Stokes is the only other one in our top 7. 

Australia, in their pomp, would always pick the best six batsmen available and the best keeper plus the four best bowlers. That famous West Indies side did very much the same. Bairstow is one of our best six batsmen and Foakes is our best keeper. One shelled catch or missed stumping could make the difference between winning and losing and handing the gloves to Bairstow when he hasn't kept in red ball in years is a big ask. Bairstow regularly opens in white ball. He is one of our best six batsmen. Crawley simply isn't. 

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Foakes isn't the "fall guy". Coaches and management like to give the most chances to those that they think will make the difference (especially when there are special "connections" with the player in question) and the least to those that they consider expendable. This wouldn't make that decision a correct one, in my opinion, on either  cricketing or moral grounds.