Who?For Jones/Has To Be Someone>

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Point is.. the 'keeper can either be selected to help the batting first and foremost.. or to help the wicket-taking first and foremost.. and right now we don't seem sure which needs the more help. I'd say we're Ok batting and the bowlers (and slip catchers) need every bit of assistance they can get.. and that Read would therefore strengthen the side more thn Jones would strengthen the side - but I'm not sure that's a easy and clearcut conclusion to draw.

Rachael, seems like old hat this, but it's not, Jones trial period is up, vaughan, by his own words said, jones would be given the same run as read, well he has, so now what happens.

I know it is not up to us Rachael, but reading your post, with respect you seem to be fence sitting, you have seen Jones, and you know how Read keeps????

[Alison]

My impression was that it was as much a matter of what potential they saw in them, ie. Read was dropped because they didn't think he had the potential to score the amount of runs they wanted the keeper to be scoring. Therefore whether they make another change would presumably depend on whether they feel that Jones has the required potential for both disciplines.

[Ernest]

I think Alison that they picked jones in place of read for 2 reasons, one they did not trust the top order, nor where they sure about Flintogg at 6, but also it was a poke in the eye for Marsh,who had brought Read on.

IMHO we have more than proved that we can support a proper keeper, mind you some would say that is what jones is.

[Alison]

Originally Posted by ernest

but also it was a poke in the eye for Marsh,who had brought Read on.

To be honest I've never been convinced by claims that such internal politics were the motivation in this or most other cases.

[Occasional Fan]

Welcome to the board, Alison - glad you found us. I think that the style of posting here will suit you rather well. There are plenty of disagreements here, just as there are at the BBC, but people here do seem to be more courteous on average and we get very few deliberate wind-ups. Hope you enjoy it here.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Welcome to the board, Alison - glad you found us. I think that the style of posting here will suit you rather well. There are plenty of disagreements here, just as there are at the BBC, but people here do seem to be more courteous on average and we get very few deliberate wind-ups. Hope you enjoy it here.

I dont agree we diagree on here OF, we never disagree,so I dont agree with you that we ever diagree

[Occasional Fan]

Nice one, Ern!

[yubeingfunny]

During the last test someone on the guardian website was kind enough to work out Read vs Jones in terms of runs minus byes...

112th over: England 400-7 (Giles 44, Hoggard 36) "Mark Ridgway has some interesting stats. No, really. "Read conceded 45 Byes in 20 innings (2.25pi) compared with Jones' 105 in 14 innings (7.5pi) behind the stumps. Overall though Reads net contribution is 10.22 runs per Innings while Jones' is 25.13." Obviously I can't verify the validity of these, but as they back my judgement, I'll take 'em

Now i know stats dont show everything but it doesnt seem to me to show anything to say jones has done anything wrong enough to be dropped, Read (much as i like him) was going through a persistant run of failures with the bat, and previous to that Foster was dropping a series of dolly's which again Jones hasn't done, he's not great admittedly but he hasnt done enough wrong to be dropped so soon.

And as for those ppl who say that Read will never play again under Fletcher/Vaughan, i dont really buy it, he will probably be in the squad today, they just made a cricket decsion based on the fact that Read could no longer maintain a position in the side, it was his challenge to improve... which he seems to be doing, if he does enough he will force his way back in.

And as for the conspiracy theory that it is all to undermine Rod Marsh... ?????????? i somehow doubt that Vaughan/Fletcher have ever sat down and whispered to each other that they were going to undermine Marsh by deliberately destroying his pupil's!!!!! Too many people are privy to the selection process for that to be the case.

[Rachael]

I've not suggested for a very long time that ability to stop byes should be a major factor in 'keeper selection.. for the simple reason that worrying about byes encourages defensive 'keeping and I would rather see the 'keeper move closer and take more risks: I'd even prefer to see a 'keeper drop a few than see them stand so far back the ball drops short.

The Rod Marsh "conspiracy" thing strikes me as ******** as well: he's moulding a team in his image and in doing so is taking decisions that I'd rather see not made.. but Jones over Read is absolutely consistency with his tactical approach to selection (character first, technique afterwards) and to playing cricket (copt the Aussies).

[Teatime FatCat]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rachael, seems like old hat this, but it's not, Jones trial period is up, vaughan, by his own words said, jones would be given the same run as read, well he has, so now what happens.

Ern, apologies if I'm coming at this from the wrong angle, however - if Jones has now had the same trial period as Read, how many runs have they both scored, at what average, how many 50's, how many 100's?

Surely if you pull those figures up that should answer the question?

He's not that bad a keper, certainly no worse than an early Stewart, and nobody would have kicked him out of the side. He's actually helped England win tests with his batting, something which Read never did. The extra byes he's conceded are easily outweighed by the extra runs he's scored, and he's hardly dropped any catches. I'm sure even Read drops the occasional one.

I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion, England mamagement have made the right pick.