John Crawley

[Rachael]

Steve James would have been in my top 10 overlooked players.. as would Maynard.. but possibly towards the bottom of that list: neither looked significantly better than (say) Tresco and Hussain.. but they certainly looked just as good.

I've long maintained that few players really stand out from the crowd: in recent years Atherton, Thorpe, Russell, Gough and Caddick... with White in there as well, but only for that brief eriod between hitting his peak and getting injured.... and Vaughan a candidate who needs to perform in England against attacks managing a lot of lateral movement.. and Harmison a candidate who needs to show he can find and sustain a good line and length each and every time instead of for the odd spell in every innings.

Other clearcut candidates I've seen have been few and far between: Tuffers and Ramps were the only two who unquestionably stood out (having the talent but being incredibly badly handled) with only Bicknell and Crawley having the talent and just being downright neglected.

The chasing pack strikes me as having always been a long, long way behind... and full of people who could have disappeared without trace as easily as they flourished: I'd head the list with Stewart, Hussain, Butcher and Cork... and just keep it going until you hit guys like Read and Anderson - all guys who could do a job for the team... but neither any better nor any worse than some obvious alternatives

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

with only Bicknell and Crawley having the talent and just being downright neglected.

Crawley has not been neglected in the same way as Bicknell. Crawley has had 37 matches numerous tours. Plenty of opportunities, and has not lived up to the big things that his talent promised.

Bicknell, has only had 4 test matches (two of which have happened in the last year when he is in the Autumn of his career). He has been on just the one tour.

I really don't think that you can say that Crawley has been neglected in the same way as Bicknell.

My views is that 37 test's is ample opportunity to establish yourself. The fact that he hasn't done it, is not anyone's fault but his own.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

It's worth bearing in mind that this guy is one of the best leg-side players (some would say THE best) we've seen in a generation...

If you mean the best in England, I may agree, but certainly not in the world. Mark Waugh was much better. However, strength on the leg-side is good, until you rember that most good bowlers will be pitching it just out-side off stump, the best bowlers like Pollock and McGrath, will not give you a ball on the legs. This means that his major stroke was to bad-ball. Every batsman should be able to play the bad-ball.

He is 33 and not proved himself, I would agree with you if he was 28. But 33 and still not established is not a good omen.

[Trescothick's Footwork]

Move on people, no way should we go back to Crawley. Strauss, Collingwood and Pietersen are the heir apparents, and if we get an injury or form crisis next summer against the Aussies, Stuart Law may get a few tests. Can't see beyond those 4 though as newcomers to the side. Ramps and Crawley have always been consistent in county cricket, and always lacked the top class at test level. We won't look back, England's selection policy is superb now, let's not all come across as clueless armchair critics. The days of county cricket being a barometer are long gone thank god.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If we'd not gone with Hussain as captain (and gone with the only other candidate of the time, who was Ramprakash) then who knows what the line up might be today: Crawley, White, Vaughan, Thorpe, Ramps? That would make as much sense as the current lot do (and I say that as a known backer of Butcher and Hussain): we've only Thorpe (though arguably Vaughan) absolutely DEMANDING a place.. the rest are much of a muchness.

I agree with Peter Foy that Crawley is currently at the peak of his game, has at least another 4-5 years in him at that level... and should be no. 1 choice to open the batting for England. He certainly inspires more confidence than Strauss and Collingwood (but then, so does Ramps.. and even an aged Hick would make a more convincing case for a one off game).

Rachael - I have had this argument with you before, and we probably won't agree, but for what it's worth...
Crawley averages 35 in Tests. Vaughan and Tres average over 40. I know you will say that Tres's average is flawed because he doesn't bat long enough/consistently enough. However, to my mind, Crawley's averages are equally flawed because of the number of NOs, due, as I pointed out before, not to his brilliance at carrying his bat but due to his utter selfishness at batting with the tail - focussing entirely on his own average and not on the team's good, and hardly ever farming the strike/flashing the blade.
I also don't see why you think Crawley should open. He has opened only in one Test innings, due to an injury, and he scored 11 on that occassion. In fact, even batting at three, where he did for a while, he was not that successful. All his (limited) success has come batting no higher than 5. I can't see any argument for him opening, and I think Crawley himself would be surprised if you suggested it. I can understand how you might think he is suited for it - he is a gritty player who can stay the crease for long times, but the stats do not back this up, and in fact, his proficiency at spin (and accompanying weakness with pace) suggest he is more suited to a place in the middle order.
And in the middle order, I just don't see where he fits in. Thorpe is the first name on the team sheet. Butcher is also good and averages over 40 in his second spell in Tests, and I think everyone will agree he is a different player from his first spell. Hussain's low average is due to having the added pressure of captancy - I can't agree that all the current players are "much of a muchness". They are all better than Crawley, and have proved it in Tests. I don't see how Crawley deserves a place above of even Collingwood, who also plays the anchor role, and in addition has an attitude that suits Tests.
I must say, owing to Tres's recent poor form/scores, I can understand how you would want someone more solid opening. But I think Mark's analysis of Tres's scores is very illuminating, and in any case, as I have outlined above, Crawley is NOT an opener.

[Nikhil]

As a rank outsider to county scene, I don't really have any right to post my opinion here, but just looking at Crawley's career and his age, I think England would be much better giving their young players a chance.

It's always good to have experience, but experiece really matters when it inspires confidence in the young one's. In case of Crawley, I think you can't say that with confidence. Also if a young guy fails, he can go back to the domestic level and hone on his skills and come back as a better player. Now if Crawley fails, there are no such issues. It's just a waste of time and position in the English squad.

I think Peterson should get a nod sooner than later. I saw him performing in India and he was good. I also think Sajid Mahmood should get a peak in the ODI's atleast. He will be a good prospect for England in the coming WC.

[Irish Left Armer]

Originally Posted by Trescothick's Footwork

Move on people, no way should we go back to Crawley. Strauss, Collingwood and Pietersen are the heir apparents, and if we get an injury or form crisis next summer against the Aussies, Stuart Law may get a few tests. Can't see beyond those 4 though as newcomers to the side. Ramps and Crawley have always been consistent in county cricket, and always lacked the top class at test level. We won't look back, England's selection policy is superb now, let's not all come across as clueless armchair critics. The days of county cricket being a barometer are long gone thank god.

Just my opinion but if England resort to picking Stuart Law I will consider them to be a laughing stock. He is 36 and has played for Australia, he is probably good enough to play for England but selecting him would be an admittance of how far behind Aus they are and the Aussies will laugh about it forever. It surely wouldn't make the team feel good about themselves that they had had to pick an Aussie. Don't get me wrong I support England but I just think it's a bad move. England would be better to pick their young up and coming players.

[high_on_linseed]

In reply to Trescothicks footwork, I was not defending Crawley just on the basis of county form, but on the fact that he has, like it or lump it, already scored 4 test centuries and nine fifties. You can pick them apart and deride the attacks he made them against, but the fact is, he has proved, to some extent, that he has what it takes to succeed at test level, whereas the Keys, Pengs, Strausses of this world have so far proved nothing.

Not that Im saying we shouldnt give them a go, IF they really are good enough. I am a firm believer that you cant deride a player until he has been picked. But in the case of Crawley, he has been picked and hes done ok in my book. Certainly, not much worse than Butcher or Hussain, who some people would be at my throats if I suggested we dropped them, and better than guys like Hick, Ramprakash, Fairbrother, and Maynard, all of whom we can agreee are very talented players.

And unlike Rachael, I do not believe Crawley is an opener. At test level, he would be a good option in the middle order (5 or 6), especially in spinning conditions. Well, again, this has already been proved IMHO.

Partly, I was being provocative, and playing devils advocate, because the rejection of Crawley at 32, like that of Croft at 33, is indicative of the obsession England have with "youth" at the moment. Sure, I think it is necessary to bring along young players. Sure, I think the Academy is a great thing. But, simply picking youngsters without the experienced players there to back them up so often ends in disaster. In football, Monaco (now) and Man Utd (in the past) have proved this wrong. But in cricket, Pakistan (now) and West Indies (in the past ten years, resulting in the current calamity) are proving me right. I think the Pakistanis are mad to overlook Saqlain, for example, or cut short the career of Waqar in an all-consuming pursuit of youth. This is test cricket, There are no Busby Babes here. When Mark Taylor and the Waugh brothers bowed out, as Hussain, and (I suspect) Thorpe soon will, who did they turn to? Players like Matty Hayden, Damien Martyn, and Darren Lehmann, who already had considerable first-class, one-day, or test experience. It hasnt turned out so bad for them has it? Of course, I wouldnt put Crawley in their class, but neither would I put England in Aussies class in general. Of course, they develop new players like Michael Clarke through their one-day side too. But Clarke has scored a mountain of runs in first class cricket already, not just a few quick fire fifties (read Peng, Bell, etc, etc).

Now, what happens so often these days with England, is that we put faith in youngsters with potential, like Solanki, Afzaal, Key, Read (the batsman) etc, in the hope they will somehow improve into world-beaters, only to find they didnt have the aptitude or attitude, in the first place. Off they go back to county cricket, in a desperate attempt to prove their form and fitness, concentration, attitude, or whatever it is Fletcher was looking for in the first place. Fact is, they were either undercooked or probably not good enough in the first place. This was of course, reflected in their county averages, but was conveniently ignored, as Fletcher (because hes had one such success with Tresco, and potentially another with Collingwood) believes he has the magic eye to spot a test player where others see merely mediocrity). The stats dont lie. The county averages say Pieterson is miles ahead of his contemporaries, and then the A tour proved that. Of course, sheer weight of first-class runs will not guarantee success at test level - Ramprakash is stark testimony to that - but they are a fair indication.

Bottom line: to be blunt, not selecting Crawley and Croft for the tour of Sri Lanka was a pile of **** and everyone wih an ounce of sense knows it.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

I thought Crawley did quite well last time they picked him, subsequent to his move to Hampshire. Then he got injured in Australia, and may have upset the management, according to my vague recollection.

I think we should try the best of the next generation of batsmen out before going back to Crawley. I would have loved to have had him in Sri Lanka, but we have NZ, Windies, and South Africa coming up next. No room for someone with a poorish record against pace.

As for his being a great legside player, this was one reason for his early neglect: Ray Illingworth claimed he whipped everything through the legside. Whether this was right or wrong, it's too late to turn the clock back now.

[Kirsty Harris]

Crawely is a decent player, but although he has had some good moments for England, he has never quite played an innings that has made him a natural choice for England. Perhaps has Thorpe not come back into the thick of things, Crawley might have had more of a shout...

I think Hussain has proved his worth to England time and time again, espcially when the heat is on..I'm not sure Crawley quite has that inner steel.