Time to ditch GO Jones?

[Rachael]

The idea that a 'keeper is there to stop byes is a fairly recent one: it's nice when they do.. but up until Knotty I believe English glovemen regarded that part of the job as incidental to the main role of pressurising batsmen and taking wickets.

Goatman's father had a few choice thoughts on this a while back... saw Knotty as the worst thing that ever happened to 'keeping in this country. By curious co-incidence.. Jack Russell came clean around the same time as having made a conscious decision, last season, to go back to the pre-Knott focus.

The key questionis where do you stand most chance of making a match-winning contribution... and it has to be said that at times that place is standing back: when the seam bowlers are on top and beating the bat regularly WITHOUT the 'keepers help.. the priority HAS to be giving yourself the best chance of pocketing the catch.

That said.. the constant failing of England for almost a generation has been winning when the bowlers are NOT on top.. and that's where a great gloveman... standing up to someone like Waqar.. pegging a batsman at the crease... can really earn his keep.

No worries on keeping to the yorker / leg-side balls though: that's exactly where the great 'keepers earn their keep. You don't want to be standing up to a guy who'se metronomically accurate just probing away outside off stump.. you want to be stood up to a guy who mixes up line, length, pace and the rest... who is angling for LBW decisions (easier if the batsman feels inhibited about getting forward).. and who is not afraid to offer tempters.

That's why I tend to mention Anderson in this context: right now, with the keeper stood back, he's not only behind the current trio of specialist seamers... he's considerably behind Caddick.. and arguably behind Johnson and 2-3 others. Where he COULD triumph is in developing the sort of understanding with Read (in the ODI arena initially) that really capitalises on his Gough like mastery of variation.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The idea that a 'keeper is there to stop byes is a fairly recent one:


That said.. the constant failing of England for almost a generation has been winning when the bowlers are NOT on top.. and that's where a great gloveman... standing up to someone like Waqar.. pegging a batsman at the crease... can really earn his keep.

No worries on keeping to the yorker / leg-side balls though: that's exactly where the great 'keepers earn their keep. You don't want to be standing up to a guy who'se metronomically accurate just probing away outside off stump.. you want to be stood up to a guy who mixes up line, length, pace and the rest... who is angling for LBW decisions (easier if the batsman feels inhibited about getting forward).. and who is not afraid to offer tempters.

Rachael
The keeper has to stop byes in this day and age,dont forget the amount of ODIs,were byes count,and if you have a team who's batting line up is not the best,then you cant afford to give away byes,even in Test Matches.

No worries about keeping to a yorker so long as the bowler is accurate,a yorker is the hardest ball to bowl.

I might be persuaded more to your way of thinking if we had a keeper who could stand up to a bowler like Waqar,I cant see Read or Jones being able to do that,and then there is the state of the pitch,with indiferent bounce.

You say ,and I take your point,you dont want to be standing to a guy who'se metronomically accurate,but if I was a keeper I would sooner do that ,than stand up to Hoggard,or Anderson.I think you will agree to that.

With keepers playing to keep the score down in ODIs,can they change the way they play,when it comes to Test Matches,assuming we had keepers good enough.

I have seen keepers standind up to seamers,wery seldom worked I thought,I like the modern day keepers they are more entertaining with their acrobatic catches,Standing up would be an end to that.

Ernest

[Rachael]

Ernest - I'm sure the great 'keepers have always stopped byes... it's just that stopping the byes was regarded as a secondary activity... just as it should be not just for 'keepers but also for slip fielders. The temptation, these days, is to reverse that order of priorities. It's naive to simply talk of this in terms of moving a fraction further back to make stopping the ball easier... and (if you're stood up) make stumpings harder.. or (if stood back) risk the ball not carrying. The bigger picture is just making your presence felt by the batsman: adding pressure. That's the dimension that the "back stop" rarely manages.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The bigger picture is just making your presence felt by the batsman: adding pressure. That's the dimension that the "back stop" rarely manages.

I've been following this discussion for some time, and even though I've not contributed much to it - I have been pondering on it. I wonder if it's time to put your theories to a statistical test, which perhaps would'nt be conclusive, may give an indication as to whether your theories are right or wrong.

Given that you seem to feel that 'standing up' to the keeper would create 'more pressure' for the batsman and 'pinning him to the crease' a technique used by certain keepers in the past, I think it would be interesting to do a quick statistical analysis, perhaps Goatman may fancy taking a look when he gets a moment. This would be of the % of wickets taken by type of dismissal (ie stumped, caught) by the wicket keeper in the era you felt this 'technique' was used most effectively and comparing that with a comparable time period (and number of Test Matches) in the modern game, where you feel this technique is not being used. I know there are a quite a lot of variables here, but I still feel the results would be interesting.

I would expect to see (if your theory is right) a higher % of stumpings in the 'older era' compared to a lower % of stumpings in the 'modern era', and conversely a lower % of catches in the 'older era' compared to a higher % of catches in the 'modern era'. Where I think your theory will fall down is in the variance between the two, ie whereas in the older era, there was a higher % of stumpings, this will be oftset in the modern game by there being a higher % of catches. What would be even worse for your theory is if theres none or very little variance for both stumpings and catches between the two era's suggesting your theory is wrong.

I fully accept that such an analysis would be far from conclusive (the data is simply not there to do a comprehensive statistical analysis) but I do feel that as a 'rough acid test' of your theories it could prove very interesting.

Scott

[Goatman]

This sort of thing should be possible, given a bit of effort. I'm afraid I have 2 manuscripts in production and lots of labwork, not to metion my own cricket and an 8 month old goatlet to consider, so I would prefer to dodge that invitation myself.

One large difference should be in the fact that the player is not free to use thier feet. It might not be so much in the stumpings, but in the LBW's and C&B's taken by seam bowlers that you should see it. It would certainly seem to me that if a player is having to play a medium pacer without being able to get forward fully, they would be less able to deal with sideways movement and would be prone to being hit on the pads.

Try comparing relative proportions of dismaissals to the Bedser/Evans combination, and the Boucher/Pollock for a start. Then have a shufty at other MF bowlers who have played, say, 40+ tests over the years. 2 in each decade should do it. So from 50's to 00's that would have you looking up 12 bowlers in all - not too much work! PLot us up a few graphs for a shufty. Lovely job. It'll make my week!

[Victor Frankenstein]

Well as 'Notts exile's best fighting buddy on the Read/Jones threads of the BBC forum i'll stick my 2p in the ring

I thought Jones' keeping was shocking and reminded me of the same pangs of dissapointment i had when stewart kept getting picked over russell, it's just such a shame to have such a stunning talent wasted, seeing as the title is 'wicketkeeper' rather than 'person who stands in the slips with funky coloured gloves', which is effectively all jones and stewart are. If we actually had a spinner that could spin the ball this would be made even more glaringly obvious.

If they insist on picking batsmen that happened to buy a set of wicket keeping gloves for a laugh, they might aswell just have another fielder and give the gloves to butcher in the slips so he stops dropping easy ones.

Now, before you think i've made my mind up, it's only one game (although people saying read was only judged after he'd played several matchs are kidding themselves, the instant his name was on the team sheet people were ripping into his batting, despite the fact he was picked as a wicketkeeper not sachin tendulkar) people have a bad day and if they think he has what it takes then he deserves a good shot at it, unless he keeps getting a lot worse i'd keep him in for all the summer games, except maybe the last one like they did with read.

The claims that jones' batting is "10 times" better than read is unfair, read didn't have a single innings on a featherbed wicket, all of jones' have been so far, read on the other hand kept on a load of different types of wickets and didn't have a single bad day. However, jones' batting has shown more potential than reads and is his redeeming feature, i'm not convinced that it's easier to teach someone to keep than it is to bat, but i would agree that you get more chances to improve your keeping than you do with batting.

If it wasn't just a bad day (3 days) then fine, but if the next tests don't prove to be much better than it would seem our hunt for a new wicket keeper still goes on, unless read goes away and scores consistent hundreds or 60-80's then i can't see him coming back as we have this obsession with scoring quick runs rather than taking wickets (test matchs can still be 4 innings, they don't have to be 3), so i'd say prior was next on the list for a go in the side as he had a good A tour, but as i say, this shouldn't be an issue until the last test of the summer.

in conclusion as i know some people don't like to read posts fully:

- read is a far better keeper, but his batting didn't show enough potential.
- jones could have just had a poor day, if not the search for a new keeper continues.
- jones deserves a decent run in the side at least until the last test of the summer.

As an aside, i really wish some of you would realise that just because someone has a different view it doesn't mean they're not a true supporter or they're an idiot etc.. if you're always hostile to people with different views it makes people not want to post, and that makes a far more boring forum than someone just considering the options of an anderson/read partnership or a side with no keeper etc.. everyone is entitled to their views, it would be nice if people respected this.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Try comparing relative proportions of dismaissals to the Bedser/Evans combination, and the Boucher/Pollock for a start. Then have a shufty at other MF bowlers who have played, say, 40+ tests over the years. 2 in each decade should do it. So from 50's to 00's that would have you looking up 12 bowlers in all - not too much work! PLot us up a few graphs for a shufty. Lovely job. It'll make my week!

Goaty

I'm pleased you're in agreement that it would be a worthwhile exersize! And I did say 'when you've got a moment' it doesnt have to be right now

Scott

[Statto]

The idea of a anderson/read combination is interesting but it will be highly unlikely both because of byes but also something rarely considered - the pitches. In the days of uncovered pitches, although the ball would move a lot more it would be a little easier for the wicketkeepers to stand up as the pitches were slower. With the trend today for fast pitches even military medium bowlers can bowl bouncers and most balls from seamers pass the stumps 3-4 feet high, some higher which will prove very difficult for a keeper to reach in less than a second. It would need an exceptional keeper to keep to a high standard. Very few seamers bowl full enough for this and batsmen now play with half a stride not a full stride so stumpings are unlikely. If it could work though, it would be great to see.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest - I'm sure the great 'keepers have always stopped byes... it's just that stopping the byes was regarded as a secondary activity... just as it should be not just for 'keepers but also for slip fielders. The temptation, these days, is to reverse that order of priorities. It's naive to simply talk of this in terms of moving a fraction further back to make stopping the ball easier... and (if you're stood up) make stumpings harder.. or (if stood back) risk the ball not carrying. The bigger picture is just making your presence felt by the batsman: adding pressure. That's the dimension that the "back stop" rarely manages.

Rachael

This is just a quick test post,I have tried to answer you before,3 or 4 times but for some reason my server went down and other probs,if this post is posted problem resolved.

This post will still be worth an answer be it belated tomorrow.

Ernest