• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

John Crawley vs Jonty Rhodes

Who the better test match batsman for you

  • John Crawley

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Jonty Rhodes

    Votes: 6 66.7%

  • Total voters
    9

91Jmay

International Coach
:laugh: Love these threads. I think Crawley was probably better player, Rhodes had better/more impactful career.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Must be a forgotten multi that someone has just remembered - am thinking possibly GIMH or one of his step brothers
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I was surprised to find that Crawley at least averaged mid 30s and had a few tons in Tests. People talk about him like he was a complete flop.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was surprised to find that Crawley at least averaged mid 30s and had a few tons in Tests. People talk about him like he was a complete flop.
He was to be fair as when he scored a ton against the Aussies on the 93 tour and everyone expected him to go on and be the next big thing. It never happened, maybe like Hick and Ramprakash he would have been better under a different regime but you can't always use that as an excuse for not being good enough.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I was surprised to find that Crawley at least averaged mid 30s and had a few tons in Tests. People talk about him like he was a complete flop.
For someone who was Mark Waugh lite off the legs, it's a fair conclusion.
 

Stefan9

International Debutant
Jonty, higher average compared to crawley and he added 10-15 runs each innings due to his fielding.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Jonty, higher average compared to crawley and he added 10-15 runs each innings due to his fielding.
He 100% didn't. He might be the best fielder ever and his runs over replacement (for want of a better fielding mark) number won't be above 5. People always pretend great fielders are saving 5, 10, 15 runs every innings and it is a total fallacy. On a great day if they get double digits that is rare.
 

Bijed

International Regular
Regardless of the exact number of runs they save directly, is it reasonable to say that the reputation of a fielder like Rhodes might have other indirect benefits like a batsmen not going for a quick but pretty safe single just because they think 'that's gone near Jonty, not taking the risk', or something like that. I guess this also wouldn't affect more than a few runs per innings, but it all creates pressure. Obviously the difference between pulling off a stunning catch/run out and just missing one despite a great effort is pretty night and day - for example if Stokes hadn't caught Voges at Trent Bridge last year, no-one would have been able to criticise him for it but that innings could have taken a very different dynamic from that point onwards.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Yeah, that is also irrelevant to their discussion as batsmen though. It is a more than fair enough call to think Rhodes is better though.

Mine was a more general point about great fielders. I've seen people claim Glenn Maxwell saves 10-15 runs an ODI as well. Just preposterous stuff.
 

Stefan9

International Debutant
He 100% didn't. He might be the best fielder ever and his runs over replacement (for want of a better fielding mark) number won't be above 5. People always pretend great fielders are saving 5, 10, 15 runs every innings and it is a total fallacy. On a great day if they get double digits that is rare.
Actually they once had a fielding comparison comparing rhodes and ponting here in series for SA vs Aus. Taking into consideration stops,catches,runouts, ect. Both came out above 10 points per game (ponting was slightly higher as he hit the stumps more often).
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
He was to be fair as when he scored a ton against the Aussies on the 93 tour and everyone expected him to go on and be the next big thing. It never happened, maybe like Hick and Ramprakash he would have been better under a different regime but you can't always use that as an excuse for not being good enough.
Are you sure about Crawley making a ton against the Australians? Maybe you meant for Lancashire in one of the tour matches. Shades of Bopara in 2005, in that case.

Perhaps it's fair to say that Crawley under-achieved whereas Rhodes over-achieved. I'd agree that he'd have probably done better if he'd been a fixture in the side like Rhodes was for SA. As it was he was never world class, so was forever being rotated with 2 or 3 others of a similar capability.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Are you sure about Crawley making a ton against the Australians? Maybe you meant for Lancashire in one of the tour matches. Shades of Bopara in 2005, in that case.

Perhaps it's fair to say that Crawley under-achieved whereas Rhodes over-achieved. I'd agree that he'd have probably done better if he'd been a fixture in the side like Rhodes was for SA. As it was he was never world class, so was forever being rotated with 2 or 3 others of a similar capability.
Yeah it was for Lancashire, that was where the hype came from. He didn't play for England till the following year. Was a shame he never made it but like Hick and Ramps probably never had it up top.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Since Murali is the greatest bowler ever, and he considers Crawley one of the best he bowled to.... I think I know who I will vote for this one
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
both interesting cases

I think Crawley still had a way lower ceiling than Hick and Ramps tho
 

jcas0167

International Debutant
Crawley looked quite classy and was a stand-out at youth level and as people have said, with his century against the touring Australians in 1993. I remember Bill Lawry observing he had a "beautiful stance" when he made his ODI debut. Rhodes wasn't as technically accomplished, but was gritty and effective from memory. Scored crucial runs in that low scoring test win at the SCG in 93/94.
 

Top