John Crawley

[high_on_linseed]

Crawley reminds me a lot of Bill Athey. they both obviously has quality, but underperformed. however, i think Crawley is a better player than Athey, and I would not wirte him off.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

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.

HOL...I will agree that there might have been a case for playing Crawley in SL, but that would only have been because Nasser was injured for the first match, and Crawley is so good against spin. However, I can't possibly think he deserves a recall now with Tests against NZ and WI coming up.

Fletcher didn't only spot Trescothick and Collingwood, he spotted Vaughan, who also had pretty poor figures in county cricket. Anderson was also picked out before he had played much Test cricket. County form isn't actually as reliable as you think it is. Not only do players who do well domestically do poorly internationally, but very often players can do poorly domestically and well internationally. At the moment, England are picking players based on talent, not necessarily on domestic averages. This is the way it should be.

You must also remember that Collingwood, who is next in line as a batsman for England, is not a complete shot in the dark, and is not that young. He's 28 and has plenty of international experience in ODIs. In fact, the way we have developed him is quite similar to the way the Australians introduce a new player - gradually brought into the set-up.

We must also remember that the Australians aren't averse to playing youth when they think it's talented enough - Ponting made his debut at about 22, is now just a bit older than Collingwood and has 80 odd caps! I'm not saying that Collingwood should have some into the side earlier - he clearly wouldn't have done well - but we mustn't automatically assume a player can only start for England if he's over 25. I really don't think we are gong crazy about youth though, especially not in the batting, where Vaughan and Trescothick are in their late 20s, and the rest in their 30s. All five are more experienced in Tests than him. Collingwood and Strauss are about 27/28 - not exactly raw! It is these players Crawley has to get past to get into the Test team, and I just don't think he is better than any of them. It's not about age - it's about talent, and that's as it should be. If you're good enough, you're old/young enough. On this basis, I agree that the Pakistanis were crazy to force Waqar out so soon.

[dezz]

it just ********** me off when crawley got ahead of ramps for the last ashes ttour. crawley has the most flappable temperament. the reason why ramps' average is so low is coz australia are the only side he ever got consistent runs against! he would have been invaluable on that tour. and he could have finished his stint at test cricket quite respectively. But crawley only has his spin playing variable to offer yet he never went to sub-continent. messed up again. but it's too late now. we need to move on...

[dezz]

...to young players.

[high_on_linseed]

Sigh! The fact is Crawley was dropped for no good reason. He had scored heavily in test matches in 2002, then in the 02/03 tour of Aus was third in the English averages, having played a coupe of gritty not outs against a superlative Aussie attack.

I am a supporter of Collingwood, I have backed him on the beeb to the derision of some of the more cutting posters. But he is not as good as Crawley, by whatever criteria you choose to define "good". Everyone here is saying Crawley was tried and failed. Well, to re-iterate, yes he DID fail in the early part of his test career when he was expected to prop up a failing middle order against Donald, Pollock and De Villiers, Wasim and Waqar. But he was actually coming good when, all of a sudden, he was dropped again.

Im sure if you did a straw poll of all the county players, Crawley would be an automatic chocie in the top six batsmen. I think its just the case that some guys face fits, like Hussain, Butcher, and Trescothick, while Crawleys doesnt.

As for county averages, Ive had this discussion before, but they ARE relevant. It is no coincidence that the guys with the highest averages - Hick, Law, Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Cox, Ramprakash, Maynard, Fairbrother, Crawley, Hussain, Thorpe, Pieterson (shall I go on?) are also generally acknowledged as the best out there. I agree that doesnt mean all will make great test players. But, in Englands case you have to put a lot of that down to man-management. Hick was dropped ten times by England! Crawley was dropped at the peak of his form. I remember them dropping Chris Broad after he made a century just cos he had batted "too slowly". They dropped Fowler just cos Gooch came back, as I recall, and despite a decent test record he never got another sniff. He was another player who was at least as good as Trescothick and Butcher.

Then look at all the guys they tried in the bad old days for just a few tests then jettisoned - Maynard, Fairbrother, Bailey, Larkins, Aftab Habib, Steve James...the list goes on...fine players all...again, all at least as good as Trescothick, Butcher and Collingwood, but they were just not given the time and backing to adapt to test level. Weve also tried some players who did really well in the counties but obviously werent test class like Barnett, Curtis, Hugh Morris and so on, so yeah (you are right) it cuts both ways.

But just picking players on talent alone is a risky affair - Vaughan is an anomoly cos he bats so much at Headingley, which lowers his county average. But, for every success you mention - Tres, Collingwood (actually what has he done at test level yet?), there are other guys theyve tried based on talent alone who have fell on their arses - Key, Afzaal, Tony McGrath, Chris Read (as a batsman)...

Besides, if we were picking on talent alone Crawley WOULD be in there. So that just backs up my assertion, that either his face doesnt fit, or for some reason at 32 he is too old, whereas Stewart, and Hussain, in the eyes of England management never were.

Just as an afterthought, Crawley was not, by any means, a terrible wicket-keeper either. Lets just say, for sake of argument, all those years the gaffer was keeping in tests, we had handed the gloves to Crawley for the one-dayers. Do you think we might have had a ready-made replacement keeper-batsman by now?

[high_on_linseed]

Crawley wasnt failing. He scored heavily in tests in the 2002 domestic season, and averaged 40 on the tour of Aus 02/03 with McGrath, Warne, McGill, and Gillespie in their pomp. Its like saying, Jayawardene or Rudolph are "failing" now. Thats how ridiculous it is.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

Crawley wasnt failing. He scored heavily in tests in the 2002 domestic season, and averaged 40 on the tour of Aus 02/03 with McGrath, Warne, McGill, and Gillespie in their pomp. Its like saying, Jayawardene or Rudolph are "failing" now. Thats how ridiculous it is.

Yes, as I said earlier, he did well when he was last picked for England, after moving to Hampshire. He got dropped after being injured in Australia. I vaguely recall he fell out with the management around this time. Is this true or is my memory faulty?

As I also said, I wish he'd been in the team in Sri Lanka. Maybe if Thorpe hadn't returned to the side, he would have been there.

I just think it's probably too late to try to right the wrongs of the past in Crawley's case now. Even last time he was picked, it was vilified in the press as a retrogade move. However, Crawley proved the pundits wrong with some decent performances. But I can't see him getting another chance.

[Richard Jenkins]

My memory plays tricks but didn't he say he was no longer available for tests? or was that Nick Knight? My memory plays tricks, so apologies if he is still available.

[flanflinger]

Don't recall him retiring.


It's all about taking and making a chance. Thorpe at the Oval in 2003 is a classic example. Once you take that chance then you establish yourself. Crawley has never converted an opportunity properly.

Secondly, talent has to be backed up with something more. When Thorpe made his debut, he was not alone, Mark Lathwell also played his first game (along with Illott and McCague) but comparing the two batsmna, one was considered to be the really talented one. However, that one was Lathwell. The difference was that Thorpe took the opportunity scored a debut hundred. Lathwell failed and then sank without trace, no longer playing county cricket.

Steve Waugh was never the most talented batsman, his success was due to pure determination combined with his ability.

[Richard Jenkins]

Yes I agree.When you get the chance, grab it and enjoy.Pressure is a hard thing to overcome.