I know your not backing him. But to highlight this, he did that batting at 3. 3 out of his 4 50+ scores in England came batting 3 or 4 and also scored in Southampton.Crawley is a below average test match opener, we all know that. There is an argument that even at his current level, he's about as good as we've got. I don't agree with that.
I think he's in the side for 2 reasons:
1. He scores quickly and that obviously fits in with the way Key, McCullum and Stokes want the team to play.
2. He's inconsistent but the management feel he is capable of playing big scores as his 267 against a good Pakistan attack shows.
You can't score 267 in a test match without having significant ability.
I also wonder how much Rob Key sees himself in Crawley and I don't mean the Kent connection.
Key's test career included 1 big score, his 221 against The West Indies. I wonder if Key wants to give Crawley more of an opportunity than he feels he got.
And of course Key plays golf with Zak's Dad. ?
I wouldn't play Crawley. I'd have move Oli Pope up and played Foakes but I think the points I've outlined are why he's continued to be selected.
Backup for Woakes,Potts and Broad as were not going to risk Jimmy or Robinson.Whaaat? Seems like a try on. That's the equivalent of us calling up someone like Lawrence Neil-Smith.
My personal favourite is:I heard the press have been pushing his cart pretty hard because his name is such an absolute gift to headline writers:
Tongue licks the Micks
Tongue has taste for Aussie blood
Aussies get Tongue lashing