Fallacies regarding Read/Jones

[sostenurter]

Fallacy No. 1 - Tres and Vaughan have done just as badly as Read with the bat, so they deserve to be dropped more than him.



- Tres and Vaughan are established top-order batsman, two of only three current English batsman to average over 40, are proven class and are simply going through a spell of bad form. Read, on the other hand, has never scored more than 38 in Tests, and has never looked like scoring many more than that.

Fallacy No.2 - Jones is a batsman who has been converted into a keeper whereas Read is a proper specialist keeper. The extra runs Jones makes will be cancelled out by the byes/missed chances he concedes.

- Jones IS a specialist keeper. Yes, Read has kept beautifully this winter, but Jones is certainly no slouch with the gloves, as is shown by the fact that he has kept to Murali at Kent, and that Kent let Paul Nixon go in order to play him. The fact is, England are very fortunate to have two keepers who are so proficient with the gloves. Many sides, like India, don't have one keeper who is so good. Hopefully, the competition between the two will keep the keeping standards high and help drive the batting standards up.

Fallacy No.3 - Read has been coming in at awkward times, under pressure against high-quality attacks, unable to play his natural game.

- In Bangladesh and WI, Read has faced the two most inexperienced and probably weakest Test attacks in the world. If he has performed poorly against them, what will he be like against the attacks of Aus, SA, NZ and Pak? Yes, he has faced pressure, but none that is exceptional for a No. 7 in Test cricket - looking back over the past five years, England No.7s generally come in at awkward positions.

Fallacy No.4 - It is a sign of the decline of the modern game that keepers need to score runs. In the past, specialist keepers were played regardless of their run-scoring ability, and the game was the better for it. - As far ago as the 1930s, England were ditching the better keeper (George Duckworth) in favour of a converted keeper (Les Ames) who could score runs. The need for a No.7 to score runs is a perennial one. There is a very good article in the current Wisden about this - you can find it on the cricinfo website here: http://statserver.cricket.org/almana...=alm;alm=17490

[Vinoth]

Drop Both Of them And Then Select Men Who Can Bat And Keep Well.


The World Has Seen Some Of Them Like,


R. Dravid

A. Gilchrist

[cantplaycantalk]

Well Gilchrist is something special, but dravid is about as capable with the gloves as Marcus Trescothic.

This seems to be another case of Indian Rose coloured sun glasses.

I would be happy if Jones bats and keeps as well as Boutcher, a good wicket keeper batsman.
Who knows he may even prove to be a more capable batsman than that but we will have to wait and see.

[Rachael]

"I would be happy if Jones bats and keeps as well as Boutcher"...

Your standards are rather lower than mine Cantplaycantalk: Boucher is a disgrace to the game. Ridley Jacobs is not much better. Dravid can't keep, period... though Patel seems passable.

For a year or so I completely gave up watching England when Stewart took the gloves from Russell... I was too disgusted to bother... and even though he eventually got better (at least standing back) I never considered that Stewart did a good enough job to be passable: Jones MUST get better than that.

The trick is going to be getting bowler-keeper combinations which actually get something FROM the keeper: slow Hoggard and Anderson down enough so that Jones can stand up to them (might only mean maybe 4-5 mph)... and sort out the wickets so that Giles, Batty and the young pretenders are bowling 50% of the overs.

Read's downfall has not been his batting.. it's been that no-one has worked out a way of taking advantage of his glovework: with most Test nations having appalling keepers and English county cricket doing quite well in that department (Russell, Piper, Read) we really ought to be focussing on making the strengths we have relevent: playing a batsman who can keep just makes us pale imitations of everyone else.

Best option: get Jones, Prior AND Read in the side: the first 2 as batsmen who are also awesome fielders... the latter as a specialist 'keeper - then focus on bowling plans, pitch preparation and field placements to take advantage!

[sostenurter]

The article in Wisden I referred to in my above post contains this from Micky Stewart. "I honestly believe that Alec became a better keeper standing back than Jack Russell. Jack was of course a natural and Alec had to work at the job, but there were times when Jack would spill a straightforward catch for some unaccountable reason when standing back. Alec, once he gave as much time to his preparation with the gloves as his batting, was very consistent."

Now fair enough, Micky Stewart is Alec’s dad, but I think he has a fair point, and I also think that Alec Stewart is/was a far better keeper than you make out. I can remember a number of quite classy stumpings from him that any keeper around the world would have been proud of. (There was on in a one-day match against SL in 2002 where he paused for a fraction of a second for the batsman to step out of his crease before whipping the bails off.) For you to say he was just “passable” is harsh, I think. He was a very good wicketkeeper.

As for the idea that Read/Jones should stand up to Hoggard and Anderson: well, I think this would require both bowlers to make far too many changes to their natural game to be worthwhile – remember also that a large part of their game is based on pace, and even if you take away 5-10mph that would seriously affect their wicket-taking potential. However great a wicket-keeper is, he doesn’t take wickets. Bowlers take wickets, keepers support them. If England had a great spinner, then a great keeper could show his worth., but they don't. I completely agree that England have to play to their strengths, and their main strength at the moment is fast and hostile bowling.


As for playing Jones and Prior – if they’re to justify their place as specialist batsman, not as wicketkeepers, they’d have to average 40ish in Tests. They’d also have to do enough with the bat to elevate them above people like Pieterson, Bell, Strauss, Collingwood, not to mention the current top six.

[Rachael]

I'll certainly concede that Stewart was competent behind the stumps by the end... but he was no major wicket-taking threat there: he was essentially defensive rather than aggressive. The stumping you mention was perhaps his high point... but the emphasis was always on being "tidy".

I was very taken with a post Goatman put up on the BBC board a few weeks back... reporting his father's view that Knott was the worst thing that ever happened to English 'keeping... because he focussed on stopping the byes not taking the wickets... and I think there is a lot in that.

The trick has to be the bowler-keeper combination: Bedser-Evans would seem to be the best there has ever been... but with guys like Piper and Read available I'm deeply saddened that we show no sign of getting aggressive on the 'keeping front.

I'm not sure if Evans could have stood up to Hoggard. He would apparently have stood up to Bicknell quite happily... but as Hoggard's strength is pitching the ball up to maximise the swing... a keeper breathing down the neck of the batsman and pinning them in the crease would be worth a few mph: the lbw possibilities would be up, there would be a lot more driving without getting properly forward and any ball that beat the bat on the drive would provide a stumping opportunity.

Key thing: few modern players would be used to that sort of pressure - and I doubt many would be comfortable with it.

[Richard Jenkins]

200 up Rachael( thats 1/4 of the total posts!)

[yorkie_from_rotherham]

As a wicketkeeper batsman myself Alec Stewart has always been a great idol of mine, someone who i have wanted to emulate. He was a very consistent and professional performer with the gloves and any mistakes or "lack of wicket-taking opportunities" were more than made up for with his 8000+ test runs he scored. He has been our greatest all rounder since ian botham and he sacrificed becoming one of England's greatest ever batsman in order to help the selectors with our often inept bowling unit. Just look at his record when he wasn't keeping.

And also, in what way is Mark Boucher a disgrace to the game?

[Rachael]

Um - despite not being particularly attracted to his bullish approach to batting (being more of an Atherton fan) I'm not blind to Stewart's contribution.. but I try an avoid passing comment on Stewart because he always irritated the hell out of me at a personal level: not that much of a cricketing thing... just that military bearing, the very proper talk from behind the stumps, the focus, as captain, on "character" and "spirit"... those awful interviews... everything really.

Like I said: nothing much to do with his cricket.. just not a guy I ever took to.

I don't really criticise Stewart for what he did behind the stumps: it wasn't his choice to take on that role, and he did better than anyone could have expected as a gloveman... but the bottom line remains, for me, that Jack Russell should have kept the gloves... and if not him then Piper: someone, somewhere, should have seen to that and then worked out a way of making that sheer class behind the stumps really count (most obviously by getting them standing up to Bicknell: something Stewart never, as far as I know, ever attempted even for Surrey).

Boucher just plain irritates me though: he leaps around excessively... and even when standing back he lets balls through him, drops catches and just looks out of his depth. I'm not mad keen on his batting either: pretty thugish. A man who actually irritates me more than Stewart.

Few cricketers do irritate me.. I'm happy with everyone from Atherton to Caddick, Hussain to Ramprakash and Johnty Rhodes to Steve Waugh: only Graeme Smith and Mike Gatting of the usual suspects really get my back up - I guess these two just hit a raw nerve!

[sostenurter]

I can see what you mean about stewart's actually. Nevertheless, he was a fine keeper/batsman and I wish we had someone around like him now. Hopefully, Geraint Jones will in time score as heavily.
Talking of Jones, did you see today's play? I thought he kept very tidily, conceded only four byes just before lunch today, which, out of a mammoth 750+ total, is very impressive. Until he conceded those byes, it was the largest Test total ever with no byes conceded. When you consider how well Read kept earlier on in the tour, England are certainly lucky to have two such good keepers.
However, I heard on the BBC website that Jones dropped Lara off a difficult leg side chance when he was on 359. Despite watching most of today's play, i didn't see this, and none of the replays on Sky showed it, so I'm wondering if it really was a chance, or if the BBC are being exacting in their demands of a wickie. Can anyone who saw it help?
Also, sensible knock by Jones, pretty nasty situation to come into in your first Test match!