Zak Crawley cricketing WUM

[StephenZA]

This is fair enough. I agree with this part, I was just pointing out that in general, I feel if its a batsman who is accepted to be a good/great one, people tend to gloss over the lucky parts of their knocks while not doing the same for ones that they regard as not that good. I suppose I am guilty of it it too with some Lara, Laxman etc. knocks.

In playing cricket an element of luck does occur... but it should not be the primary skill of a player.

 

[91Jmay]

In playing cricket an element of luck does occur... but it should not be the primary skill of a player.

I mean I still don't think Crawley is a long term player and he was obviously very lucky but it clearly isn't his primary skill. He's a super clean striker of the ball who can punish good balls as well as bad.

Nassar made an interesting point on comms he thinks that Aus tactics in general with fielders back early isn't too bad but is for Crawley. In the past he has had that Watson/Guptil annoying thing (obviously he isn't as good as either despite neither of them being particularly great) where they keep pinging lovely shots straight at fielders for dots but the extra gaps in the ring helps him rotate and is why he's had a lot of good starts.

We also have no one putting pressure on him, and Duckett is more at risk you'd say now.

 

[honestbharani]

In playing cricket an element of luck does occur... but it should not be the primary skill of a player.

I am not even talking about the player here though. My point is the innings itself should not be degraded because it was by a particular player.

 

[StephenZA]

I mean I still don't think Crawley is a long term player and he was obviously very lucky but it clearly isn't his primary skill. He's a super clean striker of the ball who can punish good balls as well as bad.

Nassar made an interesting point on comms he thinks that Aus tactics in general with fielders back early isn't too bad but is for Crawley. In the past he has had that Watson/Guptil annoying thing (obviously he isn't as good as either despite neither of them being particularly great) where they keep pinging lovely shots straight at fielders for dots but the extra gaps in the ring helps him rotate and is why he's had a lot of good starts.

We also have no one putting pressure on him, and Duckett is more at risk you'd say now.

I am being flippant... As a neutral, I`m allowed to have a bit of fun! It has been a fun series really, one of the more enjoyable Ashes I`ve kept an eye on. I do not think the Aussies bowled well enough. I think the loss of Lyon could lose them this series.

But I`m also a bit surprised at the Crawley apologists... he really is not a great player. But heh!

 

[honestbharani]

he really is not a great player.

I am also a proud fan of Ajit Agarkar, as evidenced in my sig. Clearly, greatness is not a factor when it comes to which players I like.

 

[Ali TT]

I am being flippant... As a neutral, I`m allowed to have a bit of fun! It has been a fun series really, one of the more enjoyable Ashes I`ve kept an eye on. I do not think the Aussies bowled well enough. I think the loss of Lyon could lose them this series.

But I`m also a bit surprised at the Crawley apologists... he really is not a great player. But heh!

Guy averages 31 with 4 test centuries. As an England opener of the past decade this is beyond GOAT level performance.

 

[StephenZA]

I am also a proud fan of Ajit Agarkar, as evidenced in my sig. Clearly, greatness is not a factor when it comes to which players I like.

Hey I can appreciate, I`m a Kallis* fan... and according to many he is not a great player...



*(new Godwin law for me!)

 

[91Jmay]

I am being flippant... As a neutral, I`m allowed to have a bit of fun! It has been a fun series really, one of the more enjoyable Ashes I`ve kept an eye on. I do not think the Aussies bowled well enough. I think the loss of Lyon could lose them this series.

But I`m also a bit surprised at the Crawley apologists... he really is not a great player. But heh!

Yeah he for sure isn't, if you play him + this many dashers it makes it utterly ridiculous having such a dogshit tail first two Tests. Not picking Woakes has genuinely probably cost us series, in tight games his run potential and class in England (and only England) with the ball could easily have made difference at Edgbaston at the very least.

His numbers at Lords are also scarcely believable and not a tiny sample size either. That slope helps him dramatically challenge both edges.

306 @ 61
27 @ 11 SR 25 (!)

 

[Owzat]

Guy averages 31 with 4 test centuries. As an England opener of the past decade this is beyond GOAT level performance.

doesn't really matter, he attacks, averages of openers has largely been redundant over the past decade because they all come in and largely average mid to late 20s, early 30s. It isn't like there is a cue of openers in waiting who'd nailed on score 40+ average, although the main weapon of the internet provocateur is the unknown, "X should be selected and would have done....." (better)

like had Foakes been picked this series England would be 14-0 up already having played 3.5 Tests, the fact that England should have won the opening Test but declared when Root and Robinson were going well (run a ball, nearing 50 partnership) and then couldn't take out the tail from 209/7 with the target 281 makes no never mind. Chances were missed and that isn't ignoring those, it is mainly the theory that 'best keeper' means win every time that ignores all other factors in losses



I don't care one way or the other re Crawley, or Bairstow keeping (I just hate the repeated flawed arguments re who should keep, including Bairstow to open or bat 3 to make way), but they're in, and the people that know their onions aka the coaches have decided on who they picked.....

 

[trundler]

doesn't really matter, he attacks, averages of openers has largely been redundant over the past decade because they all come in and largely average mid to late 20s, early 30s. It isn't like there is a cue of openers in waiting who'd nailed on score 40+ average, although the main weapon of the internet provocateur is the unknown, "X should be selected and would have done....." (better)

like had Foakes been picked this series England would be 14-0 up already having played 3.5 Tests, the fact that England should have won the opening Test but declared when Root and Robinson were going well (run a ball, nearing 50 partnership) and then couldn't take out the tail from 209/7 with the target 281 makes no never mind. Chances were missed and that isn't ignoring those, it is mainly the theory that 'best keeper' means win every time that ignores all other factors in losses



I don't care one way or the other re Crawley, or Bairstow keeping (I just hate the repeated flawed arguments re who should keep, including Bairstow to open or bat 3 to make way), but they're in, and the people that know their onions aka the coaches have decided on who they picked.....

Don't you hate it when people argue about cricket selection on a cricket forum

 

[Chin Music]

Yesterday’s innings was actually really good. He will never be an elite player but he’s had a fine series by any estimate.