Hong Kong Blue
Guest
Personally, I think they should stick with Jones.
If he's deemed a failure my next choice would be Prior, followed by Foster.
If he's deemed a failure my next choice would be Prior, followed by Foster.
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.[b said: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.
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.[b said: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.[b said: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.
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.[b said: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.
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."[b said: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.
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.[b said:Quote[/b] (C C Csiders @ July 26 2005,15:16)]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."[b said: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.
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.