Fallacies regarding Read/Jones

[sostenurter]

That is true, although he came in at 3 in one of the recent SL Tests and scored a big century, showing that he's not just the fluky cameo player some people think he is...

[James M]

I have unlimited respect for Stewie. He has saved England on countless occasions in a way only he, amongst modern English keeper-batsmen, can. As you say, there have been countless better pure keepers and I include Read in that list. Strudwick was perhaps better even for Surrey. But being a southern softy I get quite carried away when a chap plays his 100th Test and to have batted in the top five for a lot of that time he deserves way more credit. His average would have been higher had he played the Gilchrist role for his whole career. What defines a great keeper? In my opinion Stewies not one, OK, but he is certainly a great man who has given me much pleasure over my few cricket watching years.

[James M]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

That is true, although he came in at 3 in one of the recent SL Tests and scored a big century, showing that he's not just the fluky cameo player some people think he is...

You show me a Gilchrist, I'll show you a Sangakkara. Sangakkara recently said he wanted to give up the gloves to become an opening batsman when Jayasuriya stepped down. Now that's a different story. Sangakkara averages 50 from the top of the order. I never said Gilly was a fluky cameo player. I just say that you cannot compare players from different teams and different eras as if there is no contexts anymore. Stewie scored his runs when England were in the doldrums. Gilly scores his in a team where his contribution, though tremendous, would 7 times out of 10 mean little to his teams score or the outcome of the match.

[Rachael]

I stil don't know what to make of Gilchrist. He did very well that day when he came in at 3 in Sri Lanka... but that was in the second innings... on a track that had dried out and become as flat and lifeless as the one Lara batted on - in the first innings (when everything was damp enough for the SL seamers to get serious sideways movement in the air) Gilchrist did sweet FA.

I've no evidence that the guy can't hack it when the chips are down.. but I'm not sure anyone else has any evidence that he can: the only thing that can be said with certainty is that on a true wicket, when he is licensed to throw the bat a bit, he can be devastating.

What I'd really like to see is how he does when the batting is desperate: when guys like Kirsten come into their own... under pressure, scratching around, frustrating the bowlers and just not getting out. Sadly... Australian wickets seems to be so true that it ain't ever going to happen at home... and the chances of seeing it overseas are less good than they once were.

[Farmer Giles]

Morning James. I have a sneaky feeling that Gilchrist has opened the batting in ODIs, but Stewart certainly did in Tests for England. He was a very good batsman, with an average in the 40s, approaching 50, and his glovework was good enough to keep a specialist keeper, who was not so good with the blade, out of the side.

[Mark Kidger]

It's nice to see someone speaking sense about this issue! Read has had a good run in the side and has batted well up the order and has been given every chance to do well. It's a pity that he has not managed it, but the sad fact is that he has not. If you compare his early Tests to those of Jack Russell, who came in as a specialist 'keeper, and also had the disadvantage of playing in a side that was consistently losing heavily, his first 3 series in the side produced a century and 3 fifties (in 11 Tests) and that was having started out batting as low as 9 and never getting higher than 7, except as a nightwatchman. Russell almost always came in in a crisis and in those first three series ten of the eleven Tests were against rampant Australians and West Indians.

It's a tough world and a tough comparison, but that is the sort of standard that Read has to aspire to to beat off the competition.

[Mark Kidger]

It's nice to see someone speaking sense about this issue! Read has had a good run in the side and has batted well up the order and has been given every chance to do well. It's a pity that he has not managed it, but the sad fact is that he has not. If you compare his early Tests to those of Jack Russell, who came in as a specialist 'keeper, and also had the disadvantage of playing in a side that was consistently losing heavily, his first 3 series in the side produced a century and 3 fifties (in 11 Tests) and that was having started out batting as low as 9 and never getting higher than 7, except as a nightwatchman. Russell almost always came in in a crisis and in those first three series ten of the eleven Tests were against rampant Australians and West Indians.

It's a tough world and a tough comparison, but that is the sort of standard that Read has to aspire to to beat off the competition.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Welcome aboard mark. I've an inkling that read will hold on to the one day spot over jones regardless in a mike-bevan sort of way. Read cant deal with fast bowling, certainly not short stuff just like bevan, and bevan became on of the finest ODI players the world has seen. That situation might just suit read better.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Welcome aboard mark. I've an inkling that read will hold on to the one day spot over jones regardless in a mike-bevan sort of way. Read cant deal with fast bowling, certainly not short stuff just like bevan, and bevan became on of the finest ODI players the world has seen. That situation might just suit read better.

He did look more comfortable in the ODI team. With the lunatic amount of cricket this summer having two 'keepers is also a sound idea. You burn them out less and if one breaks a finger the other is ready to take over.

[Oliver]

On the other hand Read's career started comparably five years before Jack Russell's.
That's a side issue I know however, as they are now the same age...eerrr...comparably.
Um if you see what I mean. Russell was 25 when he began, and Read is 25 now.