I haven't read it yet, I find it hard to make time to read 1000+ page long history books these days, but the academic reviews I've read of it have all been quite positive. Tyerman is a respected historian of the Crusades and the book is apparently well put together and researched.

There are only two qualifiers I'd put on it, both of them pretty minor. Firstly, you should probably only get it if you like the idea of reading a 1000 page history of the Crusades. If that seems like it's too long to keep you engaged, and there's nothing wrong with that, Thomas Asbridge and Jonathan Riley-Smith have written excellent, and shorter, general histories of the Crusades.

Secondly, if you expect that 1,000 pages to contain much information on Crusades in Spain or the Baltics you will be disappointed. Part of Tyerman's argument is that 'The Crusades' were focused on Jerusalem and events like the Reconquista and the Baltic Crusades were significantly different from those targeting Jerusalem. This is not a point that is universally agreed upon by all historians of the Crusades but it's also not without its merits as an argument. It does mean that his book does not include much, if any, discussions of those theaters of war.