Zak Crawley's FC numbers

[rageaddict]

I am rooting for a Crawley 300 . Considering his stats he may not get another opportunity to get a big score in the future.

[SecondSlip]

@Gollum 

 

Both Gill and Pant would have been playing all 3 formats had they played for Team England. 
 

Virus Kohli is such an undeserving and useless person to have as our captain. He’s just a plague on Indian Cricket 

[BacktoCricaddict]

It just occurred to me - What if he turns out to be another Kambli?  

[Trichromatic]

Batsmen rarely succeed with poor FC numbers.

 

Check records of all batsmen who have done well in international cricket. You will hardly find 3-4 examples of players who did far better than what their FC numbers are.

 

Someone averaging 35-40 in FC would eventually end with international avg of 40 at best no matter how well they start. If someone averages 50+ in tests then their averages would be in high 40s to high 50s in FC cricket.

 

Batsmen need to hone their skills domestic cricket. Unlike bowlers, batsmen don't succeed on basis of talent. Bowlers need basic ingredient - pace, bounce, ability to swing, turn and rest can be improved in international cricket, but batsmen don't have that option. They have to practice batting for long hours, no matter how good their strokeplay is.

 

Gill and Pant not getting chances is unfair, but Crawley's one inning success doesn't serve as example to pick batsmen based on talent.

Clarke's success is more of exception.

[rkt.india]

7 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Batsmen rarely succeed with poor FC numbers.

 

Check records of all batsmen who have done well in international cricket. You will hardly find 3-4 examples of players who did far better than what their FC numbers are.

 

Someone averaging 35-40 in FC would eventually end with international avg of 40 at best no matter how well they start. If someone averages 50+ in tests then their averages would be in high 40s to high 50s in FC cricket.

 

Batsmen need to hone their skills domestic cricket. Unlike bowlers, batsmen don't succeed on basis of talent. Bowlers need basic ingredient - pace, bounce, ability to swing, turn and rest can be improved in international cricket, but batsmen don't have that option. They have to practice batting for long hours, no matter how good their strokeplay is.

 

Gill and Pant not getting chances is unfair, but Crawley's one inning success doesn't serve as example to pick batsmen based on talent.

Clarke's success is more of exception.

Likes of Michael Clarke, Viv Richards are examples of low averaging FC batsman becoming successful in tests. Now Marnus Labuchagne has shown similar trend. FC Averages don't matter as much at a young age because a player in early 20s is learning and improving. Averages matter when a player has matured. At 30 or more, there are less chances of improving numbers. Cricket isn't just about plain stats, there are variables.

Edited August 23, 2020 by rkt.india

[Trichromatic]

22 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Likes of Michael Clarke, Viv Richards are examples of low averaging FC batsman becoming successful in tests. Now Marnus Labuchagne has shown similar trend. FC Averages don't matter as much at a young age because a player in early 20s is learning and improving. Averages matter when a player has matured. At 30 or more, there are less chances of improving numbers. Cricket isn't just about plain stats, there are variables.

Exceptions don't form trend. There is no trend in 3-4 batsman doing well at international level with poor FC performances in last 4-5 decades. Labuchange has played only 14 matches.

 

It's not just about numbers. Unlike bowlers, batsmen who haven't done well at FC level rarely perform better at international level. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 8/22/2020 at 10:28 PM, Trichromatic said:

Batsmen rarely succeed with poor FC numbers.

 

Check records of all batsmen who have done well in international cricket. You will hardly find 3-4 examples of players who did far better than what their FC numbers are.

 

Someone averaging 35-40 in FC would eventually end with international avg of 40 at best no matter how well they start. If someone averages 50+ in tests then their averages would be in high 40s to high 50s in FC cricket.

 

Batsmen need to hone their skills domestic cricket. Unlike bowlers, batsmen don't succeed on basis of talent. Bowlers need basic ingredient - pace, bounce, ability to swing, turn and rest can be improved in international cricket, but batsmen don't have that option. They have to practice batting for long hours, no matter how good their strokeplay is.

 

Gill and Pant not getting chances is unfair, but Crawley's one inning success doesn't serve as example to pick batsmen based on talent.

Clarke's success is more of exception.

I think the point is not that we must pick multiple guys regularly based solely on talent, but selectors with a good eye for talent and work ethic will pick them and give them a chance at the right time, especially in areas of current need.  

[Trichromatic]

10 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

I think the point is not that we must pick multiple guys regularly based solely on talent, but selectors with a good eye for talent and work ethic will pick them and give them a chance at the right time, especially in areas of current need.  

Maybe selectors at some point are looking for such talents, but unable to find any such player.

 

It's not like that every team has one such player or international cricket produces 3-4 such players every decade.

 

My best guess would be hardly half a dozen such batsmen in last 40 years.

[rkt.india]

On 8/23/2020 at 3:22 PM, Trichromatic said:

Exceptions don't form trend. There is no trend in 3-4 batsman doing well at international level with poor FC performances in last 4-5 decades. Labuchange has played only 14 matches.

 

It's not just about numbers. Unlike bowlers, batsmen who haven't done well at FC level rarely perform better at international level. 

You need to realise one thing that for young talented cricketers stats aren't everything. If you have an eye for talent, you know a player even if he does not have stats backing him. The most important thing is you can't read into FC stats much for players at 20-22 years of age. These stats can change very quickly.  Most important thing is eye for talent. There are many high FC averaging batsmen failing at international level.

[Gollum]

On 8/22/2020 at 1:18 AM, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Thats the job of selectors ....agar stats dekh ke hi select krna hota to koi bhi Cricinfo khol ke selector ban jata 

100% true. Are selectors being given crores of rupees to read cricinfo stats? A schoolkid will do that for free. 

[Trichromatic]

18 hours ago, rkt.india said:

You need to realise one thing that for young talented cricketers stats aren't everything. If you have an eye for talent, you know a player even if he does not have stats backing him. The most important thing is you can't read into FC stats much for players at 20-22 years of age. These stats can change very quickly.  Most important thing is eye for talent. There are many high FC averaging batsmen failing at international level.

You need to realize that i never said that stats are everything. 

 

You need to realize that set of talented batsmen who succeed at international cricket is not mutually exclusive with set of FC performers. 

 

You need to realize that batsmen who succeed in tests are proven domestic performers also. That's the trend. 

 

Rare exceptions of batsmen with avg FC performance doing well is not a trend. 

 

Fans have desire of seeing a batsman being picked out of nowhere and succeeding, but it doesn't work that way. 

 

FC performers failing at international is irrelevant. Teams give chances to top performers, some succeed and some don't. But players with poor FC record almost never succeed. 

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

100% true. Are selectors being given crores of rupees to read cricinfo stats? A schoolkid will do that for free. 

Selectors don't decide with cricinfo stats. Otherwise Jadeja and Ishant would not be playing, neither would be Pandya or Bumrah. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

 

He can play LOI as well , the bench strength for England LOI batting is outstanding 

 

1. Alex hales
2. James vince
3. Zak crawley 
4. Dawid malan
5. Tom banton
6. Joe denly
7. Livingstone 
8. Phil salt 
9. Ollie pope (he shudnt have problem to adjusting in LOI in few years)
10. Sam billings 
11. Sam curran and david willey very useful players 

[Gollum]

When will we have an inspired selection like this one?

 

Ishan Kishan has FC avg of 37.5, may never make up those numbers to get a test call, after 4-5 years may even lose motivation to play red ball cricket. Can do better in international arena compared to many guys with 50+ Ranji avg. As @zen said we shouldn't take Ranji numbers too seriously. If our selectors do their jobs based on stats on cricinfo why are they paid millions? 

[Gollum]

We have rotten sports culture top to bottom, how would cricket selectors be immune to it? Need foreign scouts to do the job henceforth I guess. 

[Lone Wolf]

11 minutes ago, Gollum said:

When will we have an inspired selection like this one?

 

Ishan Kishan has FC avg of 37.5, may never make up those numbers to get a test call, after 4-5 years may even lose motivation to play red ball cricket. Can do better in international arena compared to many guys with 50+ Ranji avg. As @zen said we shouldn't take Ranji numbers too seriously. If our selectors do their jobs based on stats on cricinfo why are they paid millions? 

Absolutely picking players based on a tourney like Ranji is not ideal.  A guy like Shreyas Iyer can look million dollars in front of Unadkat & Vinay Kumar in Ranji. 

Instead pick players based on the fact of their game against both Pace & spin.  Kishan can turn out to be better than the ones averaging 55 in FC cricket.  Identify the potential. 

[Serpico]

Too early to say if the Crawley experiment is successful. England selectors have their own biases.. they are still trying to push Bairstow as a test batsman. They got 14 matches against India and Aus in next 13 months, lets see if zak can still retain 40+ avg by the time they are over

Edited December 21, 2020 by Serpico

[Gollum]

24 minutes ago, Serpico said:

Too early to say if the Crawley experiment is successful. England selectors have their own biases.. they are still trying to push Bairstow as a test batsman. They got 14 matches against India and Aus in next 13 months, lets see if zak can still retain 40+ avg by the time they are over

Even if Crawley underperforms he can work on his flaws and come back stronger, just 22. Clearly he has the game to do well, as we saw in that Pak series. 

[Tattieboy]

3 hours ago, Serpico said:

Too early to say if the Crawley experiment is successful. England selectors have their own biases.. they are still trying to push Bairstow as a test batsman. They got 14 matches against India and Aus in next 13 months, lets see if zak can still retain 40+ avg by the time they are over

His selection wasn't an " experiment " 

It was not his young career average batting at 1- 7  that was looked  at but the last two seasons in country cricket batting at 3 and 4 with average of 44 and 45 add into that he was being scrutinized every single game by scouts on his temperament and ability to play fast bowling . England nowadays don't just experiment but before hand players will have been watched massively and have to pass a big criteria . In India I feel averages  in Ranji counts for a hellava lot 

[Gollum]

Last bold selection was of Ravi Ashwin in test cricket, since he was more well known for his unorthodox bowling, gazillion variations with white ball, E/R etc in 2010-11. He didn't have a large sample size in FC cricket but his red ball selection paid dividends for Indian cricket. Hats off to whoever it was who went against (Indian) conventional mindset there.  

 

Similarly I want to see Hardik in the reckoning for test selection, of course after he regains full fitness (too precious to lose him to relapse of injury with ICC events coming up). I am with @zen on this one, let us not take FC numbers at face value. What works against Unadkat, Kaul, Dinda on typical Indian wickets is worlds apart from what happens against top sides overseas. Also there is the motivation issue, some players care less when presented with weak opposition or when stakes are low, Viv Richards was a famous example. Higher the level of competition, more some players raise their level. Conversely many wither away when confronted with higher level than they are used to, like Ramprakash, Hick, many examples from India. 

 

We must look at team combo in terms of LHB/RHB split, grafters vs counter-attackers, ceiling of players involved, how they match up against international class genuine pace. Counter-punchers like Pant, Hardik, Kishan can make better use of the platform laid by someone like Pujara who prefers absorbing punches (with his blunting of new ball and tiring opponent quicks). 

 

Won't be a bad idea to invest in Pandya at #6 /7 role and give him a decent run, if he clicks the balance he can provide to us outside SC will result in great triumphs. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Gollum