Jones or Read

[flanflinger]

Debate over I'm afraid. Hasn't dropped a thing so far and has a classy hundred in the bank. He may as well book a flight to SA now.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Even as a big fan I don't believe he'll be as good as Jones with the bat. But I don't think he needs to average thirty five or forty, twenty-five to thirty will probably do as long as the keeping is upto scratch.

He's currently averaging 73! Debate over for now. Lets move on to Hoggard or Anderson!

[CJ D]

I don't see Anderson fighting for Hoggards place, Hoggard is there to "bore people out" whereas Anderson may go for a few but produce the wicket taking deliveries. Anderson is a replacement for Jones or Harmison not Hoggard, who would be under threat from someone like Saggers - which of course could mean the same thing if Anderson is fit for Thursday.

[high_on_linseed]

I think what a lot of people (except Scott!) fail to recognize regarding this debate is Jones's OBVIOUS superiority with the bat over Read gives the selectors the confidence to play four specialist bowlers plus Freddie.

As Scott says, the spinner and the wicket-keeper position are intimately tied. Had Read stayed in the side, and continued to fail to produce runs (which all the indications were pointing to) , eventually the selectors might have been prompted to drop Giles in favour of an extra bat. Then, even if Read had a great match with the gloves, not only would you have to factor in his lack of runs relative to what Jones might have got, but also the lack of control that Giles provides, or the possible lack of variation and wickets an off-spinner might have provided.

To put it another way, playing Jones gives the selectors the option to play Giles with confidence and as well as Jones' runs, you have to factor in Giles's control (which makes up for any byes let through, or even dropped catches) to give the true value of Jone's worth to the team.

A final question. Given Jones's maiden test century, and the style in which he made it, if he does have a lousy rest of the summer with the gloves, and the selectors decide they have to bring Read back in (both of which look increasingly unlikely), would people consider Jones as a candidate for a test berth as a batsman alone?

[R W S]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

A final question. Given Jones's maiden test century, and the style in which he made it, if he does have a lousy rest of the summer with the gloves, and the selectors decide they have to bring Read back in (both of which look increasingly unlikely), would people consider Jones as a candidate for a test berth as a batsman alone?

I'd certainly consider him. He'd have to compete with Collingwood, Key, Bell, Joyce & Peiterson. Does he bowl as well (like Taibu!)? I'm not sure I'd pencil in Read to tour SA as backup. We would need another Batsman-Wicketkeeper to maintain the balance you accurately describe.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I still don't think it's fair to say that jones is "OBVIOUSLY" better than read with the bat, every time read batted for england he came in when wickets were clattering on a poor wicket and was expected to bat for time (not his natural game), so far ALL of jones' innings have been on good wickets against tired bowlers with big scores on the board and has had licence to play his shots.

Don't get me wrong, from watching the two players bat it's clear that jones has more potential with the bat, i'm just concerned with the direct comparison being made in unfair circumstances. I personally feel that had read been in these last 3 matchs he would have scored similarly, maybe 20-30 runs less at worst, but would have kept much better.

You say that jones adds an extra dimension by removing the need for an extra batsman, this is true and a fair point, but i would also point out the other side that by having a competent keeper in the side (jones is not, despite how blinkered some are by weight of runs, watch him keep, what he's picked for.. it's not pretty) lifts the bowling side as it gives them more potential for mistakes to not be punished and puts pressure on the batsman knowing that he won't get away with shots close to the body without a much higher risk of being caught.

I'm not saying replace jones, he's been great with the bat and whilst his keeping is poor on the whole he does pull off some good catches too and has improved from the first test so is well worth perservering with. I'm an advocate of keeping him in the side without question till the 3rd test of the windies series then re-evaluating the situation. (to consider wallace or one of the other batsman/keepers, only read if he continues to get centuries like he has done so far since being dropped)

I think read should go on tour as the backup keeper, he's a team man and showed in the winter that he was prepared to help jones with his keeping despite being a rival, if read and others can help jones to keep even close to reads level then we'd have something amazing on our hands.

As i say, my point in this debate is that people are looking at the records unfairly as jones has had everything on his side with the bat (by the same note though, keeping is far harder in england than it is in the windies), so statements like "OBVIOUS" are anything but, imo. Still, it's a great position to be in for english keeping, jones has forced all the other hopefuls to improve their batting by at least 20 runs and the others have forced jones to keep working very hard on his keeping to the point that he will have to be far better than stewart (not hard) was with the gloves to warrant his place, this is just what england needs and is repeated at nearly every position in the team which imo is a huge factor in the recent level of improvement.

[Tom Partis]

The NZ batsmen didn't make Headingly look an easy pitch to bat on last night. And the majority of Read's matches were against the likes of Bangladesh and the Windies, who have arguably even poorer attacks than NZ. I don't think Read would have got 70/80 odd yesterday, and i agree with those who say this debate is over. Jones has cemented his place and will keep it barring injury or dramatic loss of form.

[Victor Frankenstein]

good bowling and pressure due to lack of players, it was a two paced pitch at times but they didn't bowl properly so it was effectively a flat top, 400 and 500 innings don't suggest a particularly hard pitch on the whole.

I do agree that the debate is over as the selectors have made their decision, i'm just saying that the points used aren't entirely fair because they've been in two different situations with the bat, i'm not advocating dropping jones or bringing read back (although i would love to see both but understand why it would be unlikely).

At the end of the day, england made no secret of the fact they wanted a batsman first and a wicketkeeper second, read didn't take his chance and jones has.

[Rachael]

The one thing yesterday showed is that second rate 'keepers are an extravagance that cannot be afforded. Sure, it was McCullum not Jones who was the culprit... but the NZ team paid the price for not sticking with someone who can 'keep.. and whilst Jones 'keeps England will undoubtedly go on to do the same.

He just ain't good enough.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I think he has potential to improve though, which must count for something surely?

I'm no expert on keeping, but from watching jones compared to read, he just seems too hard at the ball, his gloves seem much stiffer than reads, this could just be partly down to nerves, far more scope for improvement when you get 600+ goes per day compared with just one for batting though.