ENGLAND CRICKET team has recently announced their squad selection for the first test of the summer, and with the return of Jonny Bairstow comes the return of the debate as to whether keeping faith in the incumbent players (such as wicketkeeper Ben Foakes), or inserting quality players with a good record, in the England team or County Championship, is the best way forward.

Twist

There is a clear argument to drop players from any team who have not performed to a high level, and replace them with players with measurable and demonstrable qualities or stats that show they are an upgrade. But where to draw the line? If an England batter has an average of 44.00 with England, they are worthy of their place. ...But what about when they have not scored double figures for eight innings? Are we best advised to introduce a county batter who is on fire, with 5 centuries in their last 7 innings - even if they are an unknown quantity at Test level? Do we pick based on past performance and show faith, or based on current form? The argument to twist says that past performance is irrelevant in today's match. Three centuries last year are irrelevant if the player is a walking wicket today.

The merit to switching and twisting is, of course, the short-term pragmatism of removing a player whose form and confidence makes them a passenger, or at worst, a liability to the team. It also offers opportunities to up-and-coming players who are working hard to get their chance. It may give the struggling player the chance to step out of the limelight and work on elements of their game and come back stronger - see Ian Bell in the 2007-2009 period, and how he excelled on his return to the side, being one of the stars of the 2013 Ashes series.

Stick

However, past performance and averages do indicate in very concrete terms what this player is capable of. It may indicates a resilient mentality and sound technique. Many players who remain in a team through a sticky patch of form do so because they are high-level performers, and bring other things to the team, like leadership and example.

It is often these hidden aspects that make judgements like sticking or switching a decision that has to be made from the inside - those in the know. It is easy to compare the average of two batters and decide one is better. But context is everything, and one statistic doesn't give you that.

Zak or no Zak?

The case of Zak Crawley is an interesting one to dissect here. At the time of writing, ahead of the summer schedule of 2023, he has scored 1,656 runs in 61 innings with an average of 27.60, with three centuries, including one double-century. His average is low. Especially in the 'Bazball' era of ultra-aggressive batting, and especially for a top-order batter. There is a clear and solid argument to drop him. Recently, England have enjoyed a degree of stability with Rory Burns opening, and have tried-and-tested options in Haseeb Hameed and Dominic Sibley - albeit not in the 'Bazball' era. They also have too many good batters - with the emergence of Harry Brook at 5, and the return of Jonny Bairstow, coupled with the fact that Ben Foakes has not put a foot wrong, England essentially have 8 batters for 7 slots - and that's without introducing new prospects. On the face of it, Zak Crawley is eminently droppable.

But, context...

In this era of ultra-aggressive batting, the opener has a new role: not to meekly see off the new ball and bat for 6 hours, but to set an early pace and take the game to the bowlers. Zak Crawley has excellent white-ball shots in his arsenal and is enjoying his role in this new approach. It's not about getting his average up: it's about playing his role in the team. His coach, Brendon McCullum, has admitted that "his skillset is not to be a consistent cricketer." Crawley has understood this to mean "make sure your best is still very good. Don't lose your best to be more consistent. It is fine, a couple of failures, if i can produce a 170 or a big, quick hundred."

In other words, Crawley's role in the team isn't to be consistent, but to unleash his excellence when he can, and to make sure that he has a game-changing innings up his sleeve.

There is another element to the decision to stick with Crawley, and that is the effect of a coach and selectors keeping faith with a player - and, conversely, the damaging effect on a player's confidence when dropped. It's not to say that poor-performing players must never be dropped. But we rarely consider sportspeople as human beings who train every day and are capable of working on flaws, refining technique, and eliminating errors. An alternative to being dropped is to improve. And in cricket as much as in any sport, confidence and mentality are key.

Crawley himself has admitted that reaching his best is dependent on freedom and security: "My failings in international cricket have been from putting too much pressure on myself. That is the only reason. Whenever I have gone out there with the right attitude I have done well. I have done a lot of thinking about my game, especially in the last couple of months. I look back at times I have played well and I take the expectation away from myself and I just try and play."

The best Crawley is free, confident, and backed to do his job, with permission to fail.

The opposite case is that of Steven Finn...

Unselectable

In the 2013-14 Ashes series in Australia, Finn struggled with his bowling technique and was allowed to return home from the tour, with selector Ashley Giles telling the press Finn was "not selectable".

Finn doubts the need to publicise the struggles: "Whether everyone needed to know that and for it to be back-page news, I'm not sure."

The result was "three months of heartache and embarrassment" and a long road back to the England team. A rule-change had meant the need to change his run-up and technique, to change "the fundamentals of what made me a good bowler at the time." He says that "it should have been so simple to fix, but it would need a few weeks to be able to do it. I was not afforded that luxury."

By his own admission, then, to be dropped to work on an aspect of technique would have been beneficial, but to be given a public vote of no confidence is damaging. The issue of stick or twist is not so straightforward, but what players do need is backing, confidence, and the freedom - and time - to work on technique. If that means a spell in the nets, it is worthwhile, but players are not commodities, but people, and need to know they have the support of the leaders.

Summer 2023

Back to this summer - it looks as though Zak Crawley, with the faith of McCullum and the selectors, will keep his place as Test opener, likely alongside Ben Duckett - another player who has previously been dropped, adjusted technique, and returned with a vengeance. The casualty of England's dearth of batters appears to be Ben Foakes, who has been backed by captain Ben Stokes as "the best wicketkeeper in the world", yet has lost his place to the returning Jonny Bairstow, as Harry Brook seems to have cemented his place at 5. It was always going to be a hard one, with both Brook and Bairstow in good form for England and demonstrating the explosive, big-hitting qualities demanded by McCullum and Stokes. The question of stick or twist isn't a luxury option here - someone had to go. Eyes will be on the England camp this summer to see how it pans out in matches, and how England can continue to back Foakes' career.