John Crawley

[high_on_linseed]

Why is this guy toast (as far as England are concerned)? Sorry. I just dont get it. And dont say cos hes boring or hes an "egg-head", or some such crap like that. Id like real reasons, if poss.



To put it into perspective, hes 32 (younger than Hussain and Thorpe), so has 5 or 6 years at least left in him. He averages 35 in test cricket - same as Butcher and a fraction less than Hussain. Averages more than Hick, and a lot more than Ramps, both of whom chalked up considerably more tests. He averages 47 in first-class cricket, bye the way.

Whats more, he started his career against the likes of Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, Wasim and Waqar in their pomp. Ignore that late start (which everyone seems more than willing to do with Freddie and Butch - and rightly so), and you have a fairly decent performing batsman, even in the test arena. He even averaged over 40 on the last Ashes tour, after which he was promptly dropped and never heard of again. He is also the best player of spin in the country by a county mile. Yet, his name wasnt even mentioned for the tour of Sri Lanka. Does anyone else, besides me and RDT find this not even a little curious?

[R W S]

I'd go for Crawley over Law! It's a good point you make about his age. I got the feeling he has fallen out with the selectors (or Fletch in particular) and hasn't been shown the same understanding as Thorpe. I always thought Crawley had the x factor. I'd like to see him go on tour in the winter. Do you see him replacing NH?

[Peter Lanky]

Being a 'lanky', I always considered that Creepy had a good future, but it just never seemed to happen. As you say, his test average is the norm for England batsmen, but he just did not appear to get a chance. Now, us 'lankys' are always being accused of being bitter and twisted, and moaning about the weather, but Athers and Freddy apart, no Lancs player has really been given a good run in the England side. Why? I do not know, but similar attitudes from the selectors probably prematurely ended the test careers of 2 of the best players in the last 30 years, namely Frank Hayes and Neil Fairbrother.

[high_on_linseed]

Well it amuses me how fans are quick to trot out the names of their county favs, or latest bright young thing, based on a few good knocks, or even hearsay (Solanki, Ed Smith, Peng, insert flavour of the month), yet here is a guy with experience against some of the best attacks ever, four test centuries, and a further nine fifties to his name, and he is not even considered as back up.

As a Warwicks fan, I have my own hobby horses in Bell and Wagh, yet I can say with any certainty at all that they would do a better job than Crawley. If Thorpe, and Hussain walkat the end of this season (which is not out of the question), experience might be invaluable...

[high_on_linseed]

sorry , for above, read "I CANT say with any certainty at all that theyd do a better job than Crawley"!

[sostenurter]

Crawley's attitude didn't impress on the last Ashes tour. He missed two Tests because he had a sore hip. As Clive once said, Steve Waugh scored 150 on one leg against us. When you consider that we now have younger players like Collingwood, whose attitude is the type Fletcher wants, I'd find it hard to say why Crawley should get another try.

Yes, he plays spin well, but he has a weakness against pace, and on May greentops against Martin, Tuffey, Cairns (Bond?) that is not what you want. Yes, his average against Australia is high, but so is Ramprakash's, and no-one is calling ofr him to be recalled. And however good his average against the Aussies is, he's never scored a match-changing, big century against them - he'd always get out at 70 or 80. Of his centuries, one was the magnificent 156* against SL that was ultimately in a losing cause. One was against a weak Zim side. The latest one was against India when we well ontop, against a weak-ish and tiring attack, when we had decided not to enforce the follow-on but instead rest the bowlers and rack up some quick runs.

Plus, I feel his average is inflated by his tendency to bat very selfishly with the tail - I have seen him on a couple of occasions to get to the tail and not care about eking out runs, farming the strike or flashing the bat, but just to preserve his own wicket and get a NO for his averages to look better. Ramprakash was another one who did that. It may, of course, be because they were uncertain about their place in the side, and so always had an eye on how their end-of-series averages would look. Whatever the case, they weren't playing for the team, another thing Fletcher abhors.

[high_on_linseed]

These are fair points. But name me one test batsmen that doesnt struggle against lateral movement on May greentops, and Ill name you twenty who do. Crawleys average in tests is moderate because of some of the attacks he payed agaisnt - Donald/Pollock/De Villiers, Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib, McGrath/Gillespie/Flemming. These have gone, or are injured/misfiring.

I admit he could have been more agressive at times, especially with the tail, but I dont think he should have the door shut on him.

[Rachael]

Crawley strikes me as second only to Bicknell in the much-overlooked stakes... and was one of several recent players to be dropped whilst playing well in favour of a succession of lesser players who did less well. He wasn't dropped for any very positive reason (we could just as easily have dropped any one of 3-4 other top order batsmen)... but more because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

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.. that he's the as accomplished a player of spin as any we've fielded in recent decades... and the he is technically far more proficient in everything he does than almost any player we've fielded in a generation.

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).

Sadly, the drive for youth (and for a core of players who can cross-over from the young-man's ODI format to the Test game) means we will probably go on trying players before they are ready and then discarding them when they actually ARE ready - which isn't just sad, it's silly.

[Rich Greenfield]

Steve James was the most over looked player of the last 10 years

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

Crawley's attitude didn't impress on the last Ashes tour. He missed two Tests because he had a sore hip. As Clive once said, Steve Waugh scored 150 on one leg against us. When you consider that we now have younger players like Collingwood, whose attitude is the type Fletcher wants, I'd find it hard to say why Crawley should get another try.

As pointed out he had a mjor opportunity to make a name for himself on the last ashes tour. The fact is that missing two matches, as he did, with a trivial injury demonstrated that he was not hungry enough. Attitude is so important to the current England set-up, and players who like Collingwood are more likely to get selected than Crawley.

Also, the man has to make a case himself, last year he failed to score a hundred in the championship, and an average of less than 35 does not indicate a man making that case for inclusion.

I think he is a good player, but sadly pure talent only takes you so far. The best players combine talent with attitude.