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