Wicketkeeper

[Hong Kong Blue]

Personally, I think they should stick with Jones.
If he's deemed a failure my next choice would be Prior, followed by Foster.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

The only change I would countenance making for the Egbaston test would be Collingwood for Giles - and that would be done purely on the wicket. Depending on how green it is, you could drop Giles in a face-saving manner by saying "it's a green wicket, much more in it for a seamer."

Other than that, I wouldn't drop any of them. They have all got something to prove now - they must all atone for their errors at Lord's.

So, I've voted for Jones for now. If he fails again, then (personally) I would pick Foster; but I can't see the selectors looking beyond Read.

Matt

 

[sufcintheprem]

I reckon Jones is decent value for one-dayers but concentration and wicketkeeping ability is surely paramount. We can't afford dropped chances unless Jones plays like a genuine batsman.

I reckon bring in Reed but I'd be happy for Jones to take one more game. That said, it could be all but over after one more game!

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Got to say I think it would be an incredibly backward step to recall Read at the time every other team in test match cricket has realised the importance of the keeper being able to bat.

Its not just Gilchrist (ave just under 55) and copying Australia. Its Sangakkara (ave 47) for Sri Lanka, McCullum (ave 30+) for New Zealand, Boucher (ave 30+) for South Africa. Both India and Pakistan have opted for young keeper-batsmen who have already made an impression with the bat against decent opposition. Even Zimbabwe can boast a keeper who can make test match hundreds.

In contrast Read has yet to make 200 runs in test cricket and is already into double figures in terms of tests played - and he has played the weaker teams, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. He is still to make a test match 50 let alone a century. His top score is a meagre 38 against Bangladesh. More worryingly, he hasn't looked like making a score.

Yes, a keeper must be able to catch, but they must be able to bat as well. If Jones isn't the answer, neither is Read.

 

[Grayson]

I'd be interested to see how many county 100s Read has as well, i dont think it's many. That's why I'd go for Foster or Prior, mainly because they have good keeping ability and bat well.

 

[C C Csiders]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ July 26 2005,10:27)]Got to say I think it would be an incredibly backward step to recall Read at the time every other team in test match cricket has realised the importance of the keeper being able to bat.

Its not just Gilchrist (ave just under 55) and copying Australia. Its Sangakkara (ave 47) for Sri Lanka, McCullum (ave 30+) for New Zealand, Boucher (ave 30+) for South Africa. Both India and Pakistan have opted for young keeper-batsmen who have already made an impression with the bat against decent opposition. Even Zimbabwe can boast a keeper who can make test match hundreds.

In contrast Read has yet to make 200 runs in test cricket and is already into double figures in terms of tests played - and he has played the weaker teams, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. He is still to make a test match 50 let alone a century. His top score is a meagre 38 against Bangladesh. More worryingly, he hasn't looked like making a score.

Yes, a keeper must be able to catch, but they must be able to bat as well. If Jones isn't the answer, neither is Read.

Jones may be averaging 30 with the bat at Test level but the runs he costs us with untidy glove-work in terms of byes, and more crucially with dropped catches is significant.

As stated in the Ashes thread having Collingwood in for Giles negates the need for a wk/batsman.

Bob Taylor wasn't the best batsman by any stretch of the imagination when he successfully kept wicket for England in the late 70's early 80's while other countries had wk/batsman like Rod Marsh, Deryck Murray and Ian Smith.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Surely the argument for Collingwood was to strengthen the batting, not to strengthen the fielding?

England lost that test match not because Jones dropped two tailenders (by which time England had all but lost already), but because England failed to score enough runs in both innings. Replacing Jones (average 30) and Giles (average 20) with Collingwood (ave 35) and Read (ave 15) means the batting is probably no stronger than before.

If Jones' glovework continues in the vein of Lords (rather than the one-dayers where it was immaculate) then England need to look at other candidates, but just not Read who doesn't look like cutting it at test match level. I don't know if Prior is made of the right stuff, but he'd seem to be the next best option. If not Foster has shown in Australia and in India that he has the temperament to play test cricket.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I really can't work out why everyone wants to make changes all of a sudden. We've lost one game in which we dropped 7 catches, I would guess that if Pitersen had held the one off of Clark the other 6 would have been irrelevant. However he dropped it and we ended up on the wrong end of a hiding. This does not automatically make us a bad side. Stick with what we've got, try and prepare a pitch that isn't going to turn square on the 3rd day, and then try and see them bowl us out with 2 bowlers. We've proved we can bowl them out twice, but I'm not sure that McGrath and Warne will be able to do it every game, as nobody else is going to get any wickets for them. Sure Lee is quick but the fact that he hasn't played Test cricket for 18 months prior to this tour tells you something, Gillesipe is shot, nothing more than a brisk medium pace now. So to sum up, don't bottle it, stick with what we've got and we'll be OK

 

[C C Csiders]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ July 26 2005,11:45)]Surely the argument for Collingwood was to strengthen the batting, not to strengthen the fielding?

England lost that test match not because Jones dropped two tailenders (by which time England had all but lost already), but because England failed to score enough runs in both innings. Replacing Jones (average 30) and Giles (average 20) with Collingwood (ave 35) and Read (ave 15) means the batting is probably no stronger than before.

If Jones' glovework continues in the vein of Lords (rather than the one-dayers where it was immaculate) then England need to look at other candidates, but just not Read who doesn't look like cutting it at test match level. I don't know if Prior is made of the right stuff, but he'd seem to be the next best option. If not Foster has shown in Australia and in India that he has the temperament to play test cricket.

The reasoning behind Collingwood is to strengthen all areas of the side. Batting certainly, fielding undoubtedly, and as an additional bowler in place of the ineffective Giles - Collingwood is just as likely to dismiss an Australian as Giles. Therefore, his inclusion negates the need for a wk/batsman - and Read is IMO far and away a superior wk then any other rival. So, his batting may not be much, but neither was Bob Taylor's.

Comparing the averages of Jones/Giles with Collingwood/Read is a bit misleading in that the J/G partnership have played 62 Tests between them (16 and 46) whilst the C/R partnership have played just 13 (2 and 11 respectively).

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ July 26 2005,11:45)]Surely the argument for Collingwood was to strengthen the batting, not to strengthen the fielding?

England lost that test match not because Jones dropped two tailenders (by which time England had all but lost already), but because England failed to score enough runs in both innings. Replacing Jones (average 30) and Giles (average 20) with Collingwood (ave 35) and Read (ave 15) means the batting is probably no stronger than before.

If Jones' glovework continues in the vein of Lords (rather than the one-dayers where it was immaculate) then England need to look at other candidates, but just not Read who doesn't look like cutting it at test match level. I don't know if Prior is made of the right stuff, but he'd seem to be the next best option. If not Foster has shown in Australia and in India that he has the temperament to play test cricket.

The dropping of the two tail enders was not as crucial as Pietersen's dropping of Clarke. Who knows what could have happened at 100/4 with an overall lead of 135.

People have made the point with Jones that he concedes loads of byes, which i think is not completely the case. If you get Harmison firing a 90mph thunderbolt down the leg side or on a bouncer on a hard surface, then the wicket keepers task becomes very difficult. Gilchrist conceded a fair few byes at Lords, it is also worth remembering with Jones, that on debut Lara scored 400not out, and Jones did not concede a bye until Lara had apssed Haydens record of 380.

The difficulty England have is replacing their genuine all rounder (Alec Stewart), Stewart was a world class batsman and no mean keeper as well. England have invested time in Jones and I think in the short term he should be persevered with. Although I feel James Foster is better with both bat & gloves.

On the subject of Collingwood i think it is a bit of a negative move to bring him in just to strengthen the batting. However at Edgbaston it may be no bad thing to pack your line up with batsmen and seam/fast bowlers. Edgbaston is not a great place for spinners, though it may be different in August. Plus England will go in with 3 genuine quicks, plus Hoggard. There can also be variety of sorts with Collingwoods dobbers & Vaughan & Pietersen's little used off spin.

There is not an awful lot wrong overall with our bowling attack, apart from the fact that we do not have or have for years a world class spinner. There are very few in the county game that inspire confidence, and only 3 that i can think of with potential to move forward. Oddly they are all current or ex Northants - Graeme Swann, Jason Brown & Monty Panesar. Swann is a better bat and a good fielder, Brown went on tour to Sri Lanka a few years ago, he can barely hold a bat. While Panesar has been at Uni though he got (i think) a 7 for against Essex a week or so ago.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Good post canveyshrimper.

Interested to see that you rate Foster a better bat than Jones, otherwise agree with all your points on wicketkeepers.

With regards spinners, I think Ashley Giles is by far the best English spinner around at the moment, as evidenced by the way he topped the county averages, even in May, during a rare step down into county cricket.

I suspect the reason for the Northamptonshire connection is that Northants have one of the most spin-friendly surfaces in the country, hence they take the most wickets, which is why so many seamers come from Yorkshire and batsmen from Surrey.

Monty Panesaar does however look a real talent. I saw him a couple of years ago in the nets up against acknowledged good players of spin like Vaughan and Hussain and he caused them all sorts of problems. I've been waiting for him to progress for some time, and in the last couple of weeks he's finally started to take wickets. Hopefully he can keep progressing.

Otherwise I agree with BB. England should stick with the formula that has won them 12 out of 15(?) tests. You spend two years building up to an Ashes, developing a game plan, its madness to throw it away on one bad performance (which is also why I'd have stuck with Thorpe).

 

[canveyshrimper]

Thanks Hong Kong Blue, and the same for yours as well. Based on the averages Giles is the best available English qualified spinner there is.

You are also right about the pointlessness of making wholesale changes. The whole point of the contracts system is to build continuity, and foster a team ethic, which Fletcher, Hussain and now Vaughan have succeeded in doing. To dismantle this because we may/will get beat by the best team in the world is ridiculous and will take us back to the bad old days. You rightly pointed out our record of 12 wins out of 15. I have seen this denigrated by people who have said this is only against NZ, WI, Bangladesh & S.Africa, well that does not leave many more. Also it is worth mentioning that South Africa have only lost at home to Australia before England won there this winter. Also if Smith, Gibbs, Kalllis, Pollock & Ntini are not top of world class then i don't know anything about cricket. They also have Nel & De Villiers coming through two more fine players.

Now to Michael Vaughan - as captain he averages 36 (Hussain averaged 37 for his career) his overall average is 45 (ish), although i may be wrong he has i think around 5 test centuries in the past 15 months or so, better than most. Apart from Bradman i cannot think of one player who did not at one time in his career have a blip.

I agree with you about Thorpe, short term against the Aussies would be right. However the selectors decided on Bell and should stick by him. On the basis of the moaners saying he should be dropped then Hutton at 364 Englands highest individual scorer with 0 & 1 on debut, and Gooch highest total with a pair on debut would never have played for England again.

So i would say support the team ignore the tw**s who obviously do not know a thing about the game, and finally ignore the cretins in the press. In particular the it was always better in my day brigade.

 

[Grayson]

Not everyone forms their opinion on one game, which is what I feel you were trying to say there. I've had the opinion that Foster is better than Jones for some time, so would it make me a $%&* for saying that just because we've lost one game? No. I do, however, agree with you saying the press are tits, they only speak their opinion once events support it, which is why we are only seeing the <<insert name here>> out calls coming now.

 

[C C Csiders]

I'm certainly not for making wholescale changes. I just see no point in playing a spinner for the sake of it, and a wk who cannot wk. We have got away with G. Jones because we have been superior to the teams we have been playing, now we are up against the best - pick the best.

Two other names into the hat Flahavan and Griemink (he must be England qualified in the cricket sense).

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (Museshrimper @ July 26 2005,13:29)]Not everyone forms their opinion on one game, which is what I feel you were trying to say there. I've had the opinion that Foster is better than Jones for some time, so would it make me a $%&* for saying that just because we've lost one game? No. I do, however, agree with you saying the press are tits, they only speak their opinion once events support it, which is why we are only seeing the <<insert name here>> out calls coming now.

You are right muse i may have phrased that better, but i was running out of steam at the end of that post. Having said that i think that England should look at those players who did not perform well at Lords to front up at Edgbaston.

I genuinely feel that some of the moaners and groaners in the press really want to see England fail (not only at cricket but any sport). In particular the moaning, groaning, whinging soporific monotones of Willis & Allott, i sincerely hope that when Sky take over the contract next year they out this pair. Also it may help kick their Lancastrian bias into touch.

 

[C C Csiders]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 26 2005,14:02)]I genuinely feel that some of the moaners and groaners in the press really want to see England fail (not only at cricket but any sport). In particular the moaning, groaning, whinging soporific monotones of Willis & Allott, i sincerely hope that when Sky take over the contract next year they out this pair. Also it may help kick their Lancastrian bias into touch.

Has always been the case specifically in cricket. Think back to the Yorkshire moaners like Illingworth, Trueman and Don Mosey. Never happier than when they were moaning "I don't know what's going on out there" and "it wouldn't have happened in my day."

Fair play to Boycks he moans but at least its constructive moaning.

Back in the days of the Yorkshire moaners one I.T. Botham was always (rightly) complaining about their moaning, and putting down of the England team. But, in true poacher turned gamekeeper style, he has joined the list of moaners, and he is one of the biggest. How long before Nasser joins in I don't know.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

By the way, Read misses Notts' game through injury, Prior was out for 6 and Foster 32.

Thorpe was also missing for Surrey.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (C C Csiders @ July 26 2005,15:16)]

Quote[/b] (canveyshrimper @ July 26 2005,14:02)]I genuinely feel that some of the moaners and groaners in the press really want to see England fail (not only at cricket but any sport). In particular the moaning, groaning, whinging soporific monotones of Willis & Allott, i sincerely hope that when Sky take over the contract next year they out this pair. Also it may help kick their Lancastrian bias into touch.

Has always been the case specifically in cricket. Think back to the Yorkshire moaners like Illingworth, Trueman and Don Mosey. Never happier than when they were moaning "I don't know what's going on out there" and "it wouldn't have happened in my day."

Fair play to Boycks he moans but at least its constructive moaning.

Back in the days of the Yorkshire moaners one I.T. Botham was always (rightly) complaining about their moaning, and putting down of the England team. But, in true poacher turned gamekeeper style, he has joined the list of moaners, and he is one of the biggest. How long before Nasser joins in I don't know.

Well said, i agree about Boycott, he is normally constructive. However you get Boycott, Trueman, Illingworth & Close in one room you have 4 people whose views are diametrically opposed, yet none of them are wrong.

The problem with Botham is that he forgets what he says, he has one hobby horse one day, then another one the next which contradicts the previous view.

I like Hussain & Atherton, and think that their thoughts & comments are in the main constructive, long may it continue.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Good spot with Panesar - definitely England's big spinning hope for a couple of years time. With the likes of Ali Cook and Panesar in the wings, we'll do OK I reckon.

Matt

 

[Grayson]

Is Panesar a leggy? Hope so.