Time to ditch GO Jones?

[Rich Greenfield]

It wasn't the best performance, BUT the pitch had variable bounce from thursday morning and that can make keeping very difficult.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rich Greenfield

I really can't believe some people are writing Jones off. He has had one bad day. In the Antigua test he conceded 4 byes to a wide ball. Give him a break people have bad days at the office. Harmison didn't exactly have a great test (yes he took 8 wickets but he only bowled 1 decent spell) but i hear no calls for him to be dropped nor do I hear calls for Hoggard to be dropped and his bowling was pants.

Hi Rich

You are being unfair he has only had 2 games was crap in one of them as a keeper,he has it to prove.

The very fact that Harmison took 8 wickets when he only bowled well half of the time,shows he has guts,he does not give up.

I never wanted Hoggard in,he is always pants if the ball does not swing,tell you what Rich,people can call till they are blue in the face,Jones (G) will not be dropped.

[Tom Partis]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

£r... You like bad wicket-keeping?!

there's not much point in arguing with you on this because you are obviously too firmly set in your way to accept that their may have been more to this than Jones keeping badly. he dropped two catches in the match and let through a significant amount of byes, yes, that's true. but what the statistics don't show us is that with the slope at Lord's it is a difficult place to keep - harmison said this himself in an interview after jones had dropped the catch off his bowling. mccullum also dropped a similar catch to the one jones missed, albeit off a no ball, but he also batted excellently. despite the inconsistent wicket keeping, the match was all the better for the inclusion of the two batting wicket keepers. you could argue that jones and flintoff's partnership after lunch on day 3 swung the momentum in englands favour - without that we could have been chasing a much larger total which psychologically, would have been far more difficult to manage. in the end, we managed 280 with a fair amount of ease, but chasing 380 in the 4th innings to win is a far more daunting task than chasing 280. if read had been batting at 7, england may well have crumbled. as it was, jones gave a glimpse of what he can do with the bat, and enthralled the spectators in the process. who here can honestly say that they weren't vastly impressed by his strokeplay? can you really see read having the nerve to come down the wicket and loft vettori over his head for six in a test match? can you see him playing cuts behind square with such authoritative ease? can you hear boycott purring over his defensive technique? no. in an ideal world you would have a keeper who keeps to the standard of read and bats to the standard of jones, but at the moment we don't have that. in the modern game, it is more important to have the runs off the bat than the runs saved with the gloves, and that is what jones offers. and he has the potential to improve with the gloves as well. if read was in the australian lineup, he would be having an argument with glenn mcgrath over who should come in at no.11. he simply does not stand up in test cricket.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

can you really see read having the nerve to come down the wicket and loft vettori over his head for six in a test match?

errr ... yes

[flanflinger]

I argued (on the BBC boards) for months to keep going with Read (often with Scott ), but all I want is consistency in selection.

I have seen how other teams, like South Africa and Australia obtain suceess by giving good runs in the team, backing their players to prove the selectors right. (Boucher, Kallis, Ponting, Langer etc)

English County Cricket is littered with one-test wonders, and the result was that their ability was never proven over a run of tests. The ultmate result was the England team suffered.

My view on Read was simple - keep going with him. However, as the windies series went on, I became more and more convinced that he was not going to turn it around with the bat.

So they swapped him for Jones, and now like Read, Jones deserves to get a good run in the side. That is how it should be. I doubt that he will fail much with the bat, but if his catching does let us down, over a long period then it may be worth looking at Prior, Ambrose, Wallace or Foster. I think Read will need to get down to the Notts nets and work on his batting - getting regular hundreds in County cricket is the only reason he should be re-called if Jones fails.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Tom Partis

in the modern game, it is more important to have the runs off the bat than the runs saved with the gloves, and that is what jones offers.

How does that work then? Runs are runs, whether you save them or give them away. Believe me the bowlers will not be impressed if the pressure they build up with good bowling is let down by some muppet behind the stumps who can't stop the ball.

As for Harmison's comments; he was never going to slag him off was he? The looks both he and Freddie gave Jones on occasions were very telling.

And I'm not saying "Bring back Read", just "Give us someone who can keep tidily". That maybe Jones, eventually, but from what I've seen thus far I don't like it.

[Rachael]

I can see the day coming (especially if Fletcher disappears and Marsh takes over) where, if Jones really IS as good with the bat as every seems to think, we play both Jones (as specialist bat and superb outfielder) and one from Read / Wallace / the rest as a quality 'keeper.

The onus is on Marsh though: he needs to produce some bowlers who can make more demands of the wicket keeper... starting with a couple of quality spinners... and including, at some stage, a fast-medium bowler who's prepared to work on control and variation to the man stood up.

In the mean time I think we'd better get used to seeing shoddy keeping... because I just don't see Jones suddenly developing the anticipation, timing and eye to start taking cleanly those everyday balls that currently bounce around in his gloves.

[Tom Partis]

surely you don't want this to occur though Rachel, as you resent every game that England will win with Jones in the side? i imagine you were cheering for the Kiwis yesterday and went down the locals to drown your sorrows as england triumphed in such superb fashion?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

In the mean time I think we'd better get used to seeing shoddy keeping... because I just don't see Jones suddenly developing the anticipation, timing and eye to start taking cleanly those everyday balls that currently bounce around in his gloves.

After two tests I think that is very harsh.

I actually don't want England to find a medium-fast trundler, who the keeper can stand up to!! If we want one of those Butcher or Trescothick can do a job. I think if you have four seamers then you want Fast or Fast Medium to test the best batsmen.

When we find a good quality spinner, then we really need to see whether we need to play the best keeper. But we don't have that - so Jones can stay IMHO.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I can see the day coming (especially if Fletcher disappears and Marsh takes over) where, if Jones really IS as good with the bat as every seems to think, we play both Jones (as specialist bat and superb outfielder) and one from Read / Wallace / the rest as a quality 'keeper.

The onus is on Marsh though: he needs to produce some bowlers who can make more demands of the wicket keeper... starting with a couple of quality spinners... and including, at some stage, a fast-medium bowler who's prepared to work on control and variation to the man stood up.

In the mean time I think we'd better get used to seeing shoddy keeping... because I just don't see Jones suddenly developing the anticipation, timing and eye to start taking cleanly those everyday balls that currently bounce around in his gloves.

Afternoon Rachael. One quality spinner would be nice at the moment. I've written pages on giles, so I'll say it again drop him. County spinners must weep when they see him play, club players must think they'll get the call soon.

Back to Jones. He was awful. The catch he missed at the end of the innings was a sitter. Stewart might have got, read would have done no question. I would like to think that jones had a bad day at the office. I find it hard to believe, good with the bat or not, that he could be considered for a test place with that sort of performance week in week out. Tresco would be a better bet. I know we have one anomily in the side (Giles!!) where there are far better options than him yet he stays in the side. Two anolmilies really should raise questions to the selctors. Headingly will be a better test, and I'm sure he'll prove us wrong. If not questions will be asked of him and the selctors. Read isnt the answer (not at test level)