Thread: Nixon & Foster
View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2007, 02:11 PM in reply to Rachael's post starting "I disagreed with Read being dropped in..."
Speedboy Salesman's Avatar
Speedboy Salesman Speedboy Salesman is offline
WAT Journalist
(ENG-captain) Passed W.G. Grace's 1098 Test runs
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Birmingham, England
My main national team: England
My other team/s: India, Canada, Warwickshire
Posts: 1,138
Send a message via MSN to Speedboy Salesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael

So Jones didn't get runs: big deal. THAT'S NOT HIS JOB! I don't expect Read to rack up a sackful either... but that ain't going to be his job either! Jones should NOT be getting stick for the shortcomings of a side which has come up short principally for not being able to strangle the opposition batsmen with consistent, accurate bowling on a good line and length and sharp, incisive fielding focussed on preventing singles rather than scurrying after well-hit four-balls!
Well hasn't the time gone where we had specialist wicketkeepers? Aren't most wicketkeepers supposed to bat as well in this day and age? Are you suggesting if Jones came back, put him in at 11, after Panesar? I don't expect Read to rack up "a sackful" either, but I think the only way now for decide of Read vs Jones, give Read now a run in the side as long as Jones had, and we'll see what happens. But I would start looking for a different keeper, give a choice between Jones and Read (just don't mention Prior).
__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"
Reply With Quote