Geriant Jones or Chris Read

[Mike Small]

I'd have Read eyes closed any time any day.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mike Small

I'd have Read eyes closed any time any day.

Tell yu what, I have voted just for your cheek at bringing this one up, I normally do that

Ern

[Rachael]

Interesting timing for the poll: I've not seen this one revisited in quite some time.

My feelings are actually pretty mixed: in terms of straight cricketing ability then I don't doubt for one moment that Read is the better gloveman, that Read is a decent enough long term prospect with the bat, and that Read should be given the job.. it's just that it's Vaughan's team... and he's trying to stamp his mark on it through personalities that gel and through style of play.. and on those grounds Jones IS his man (just as much as Flintoff, Hoggard and Giles).

I have alot of time for Vaughan as a captain: I like the laid back demeanor and the general persona.. but that said... I reckon Hussain's more cautious approach to getting results in Test cricket was more sound. Vaughan's seemingly taken (n the manner of a youngster, lacking in experience) with the Aussie approach... basically playing a 5 day version of the ODI game.. whilst Hussain seemed keener for us to plough our own furrow and build on our own strengths. If we were sticking to the more promising "Hussain" approach I'd say Read wins EVERY argument. If we're going to play Vaughan's way.. I really am not sure.

I'd get back to what we do best... remind Vaughan that he is more Mike Atherton than Andrew Flintoff... concentrate on the resillience of Strauss, Butcher, Thorpe and Bell... concentrate on the mean-ness of Harmison, Flintoff, Hoggard and Giles.. make ourselves hard to beat.. and capitalise on the best glovework in International cricket... but if Vaughan (backed by Fletcher) is determined that we try and bat the Aussies and Indians out of matches on a regular basis then we might just need Tresco, Key... and Jones.

[Andy Mellon]

I've gotta vote for Jamie Foster! Much improved keeping and batting in the past year including a double hundred against Leics. Have Read or Jones scored a double hundred? Also, he showed when he played for England in the past that he's got the guts and ability to be a worthwhile bat (average of 25); at the time, it was his keeping and unfortunate broken arm that saw him out of the team.

Still, I've gotta wait for either both Read and Jones to have unfortunate injuries or both to start playing badly before Jamie gets back in the team. And Essex could survive if he was called up for England. Either Andy Flower or youngster Mark Pettini could take over the glove work.

[Lee Johnson]

before people criticise Jones too much, i'd just like to point out that he has only played 37 first class games in total, compare that to 72 for foster and 139 for read and you will see why jones is a bit rough around the edges. Jones has had a good start to his England Career, despite what some will say and hasnt made too many mistakes along the way. In two years time when he's played as much cricket as foster and read have you will see a much more rounded cricketer.

[flanflinger]

There is a great article in the latest Wisden Cricketer on the Evoloution of the keeper.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

There is a great article in the latest Wisden Cricketer on the Evoloution of the keeper.

You are allowed to qualify your comments with quotes from the great and the good...
... go on tell us, what did it say?

[Kirsty Harris]

I'd have to go for Jones.

It's no good to keep chopping and changing - unless Jones has a really bad run, he should stay in the side. I still have concerns about his keeping at times, but hopfully it will continue to improve.

It's very unfortunate for Read and Foster, who are both excellent keepers. And, of course, Read deserved to be treated much better for all his efforts than being dumped from the side in such a disgracful manor, but it has been done now..

[flanflinger]

Will read the article again. But the thing I find most intresting is that Jones see's himself as first and foremost a keeper, many on this board will say that he is a batsman who has been taught to keep.

The fact is that if we went for Read, we would then have to put him at no 8, I really cannot see him getting as consistent with the bat as Giles. This would then mean that when Flintoff comes into bat at No 6, one wicket down and he is batting with the tail. I would say that this will severally effect the succes of the England team. The other option would be to lose a bowler and obtain another batsman, however this would increase the work-load on Harmison and Flintoff.

I feel Jones is not the Muppet with the gloves that so many people make him out to be. The role is a specialist role, but ultimately the keeper's role is to take catches, be aware of stumpings and prevent runs. Their role is primarily* a reactive role, and is often reliant upon the skill of others. Read is a good keeper, but Jones is more than capable at fulfilling the role required, so why change.

PS My opinion would be very different if we had a spin-bowler of the class of Warne or Murali in the side, as I believe for them to be as effective as possible you need to see a very good keeper in the side.

*by using the word Primarily I recognise that some keepers can effect chances that lesser keepers would miss.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I feel Jones is not the Muppet with the gloves that so many people make him out to be.

I could be offended by this particular line.