Who?For Jones/Has To Be Someone>

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

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

Hi Teatime,
Well that is part of the fun of being part of a forum such as this, we all have our opinions,you may be right jones is a better bat, but IMO we lose more with him than we gain.
I think when we have to play a keeper who can bat, not taking into account his keeping skills, selectors are running scared, not trusting thier top, and upper middle order.
I myself prefare 5 bats, 1 keeper, 1 all-rounder and 4 specialist bowlers, as a generation we are lucky, we have Flintoff who counts as an extra specialist bat these days, and his world placings say he is a specialist bowler.
I know I rate Flintoff, but we are lucky, we have not seen the like sinse Botham.

The best ground bears weeds as well as flowers

[Pete]

Originally Posted by ernest

not trusting thier top, and upper middle order.

This isn't about trust, it's about reality. If the Aussies can have a batsmen/keeper with the batters they have, then we definitely can do with one. With all the other teams having keeping allrounders now they'll have the potential to score more, we'll need the extra runs to keep up.

Fact, everyone of our batsmen won't score runs in same match. Fact, neither will the other teams. Fact, with a keeping allrounder they can afford a failure. Fact, we can't.. If we play a keeper who can't bat.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pete

Fact, everyone of our batsmen won't score runs in same match. Fact, neither will the other teams. Fact, with a keeping allrounder they can afford a failure. Fact, we can't.. If we play a keeper who can't bat.

With respect how do you work out that with G O Jones, we can afford a failure, we can never afford a failure, if he was that good IMO he would not be batting at 7.

I think and this is only my opinion, I respect yours, that for G O Jones to be worth his place, he has to:-

a) score runs with reads average contribution knocked of his score.

b) extras that we know for a fact, Read would not have allowed, needs to be knocked of his score.

c) missed chances like that glaring stumping he missed, ok it was not expensive that time, but another time it could be.

So IMHO, it is not that clear cut, a lot has to be taken into consideration, including G O Jones extra runs.

[Pete]

Well yeah, we can't afford people failing even if Jones plays. But in reality everyone is not going to hit form in the same match. Therefore if someone did fail, it would be abit easier on the team if we had a keeper who could bat rather than one who couldn't.

Jones is batting at 7 because they're trying to stableise the order, it's where he can fit in. Read should never have been ahead of Giles, or even Hoggard! But that didn't stop them sticking him at 7, so Jones batting number is pretty irrelevant when trying to determine how good a batsman he is.

[eng fan]

Originally Posted by ernest

With respect how do you work out that with G O Jones, we can afford a failure, we can never afford a failure, if he was that good IMO he would not be batting at 7.

I think and this is only my opinion, I respect yours, that for G O Jones to be worth his place, he has to:-

a) score runs with reads average contribution knocked of his score.

b) extras that we know for a fact, Read would not have allowed, needs to be knocked of his score.

c) missed chances like that glaring stumping he missed, ok it was not expensive that time, but another time it could be.

So IMHO, it is not that clear cut, a lot has to be taken into consideration, including G O Jones extra runs.

Ernest, you're forgetting the value of partnerships, and the value of allowing Flintoff to bat without the fear that he is the last recognised batsman. Now, Jones doesn't bat very slowly, but it's still true that even if he hangs around to make 35 (his average, Read's top score! and that was against Bangladesh) and makes that 35 of somewhere between 60 and 80 balls, he's allowed Flintoff to make loads more. And if Joens makes a 50 or a 70 - something Read has NEVER done or looked like doing - then if he's batting with Flintoff or a top-order batsman at the time, tehre's a good chance the game will be out of the opposition's reach.

Also, Ernest, I'd like to thank you and Rachel for your responses yesterday. I still don't agree with you both, but thank you for responding to me.

[Alison]

Originally Posted by ernest

With respect how do you work out that with G O Jones, we can afford a failure, we can never afford a failure, if he was that good IMO he would not be batting at 7.

Where else would he bat in the order? I wouldn't want any of the top 5 batting any lower than they are, they're all settled in their positions, Flintoff's responded really well to batting at 6, so there's not really any position higher than 7 available for him to bat in.

[Ernest]

eng fan
I agree with what you are saying about partnerships, we have had some exciting ones with Flintoff and Jones, but my question always is, does Jones contribution, make up for the difference in keeping skills, I can't say for sure, but a dropped catch can cost 50, or even 100 runs.

A lot of England supporters will not agree with me, and I respect what they say, and they may even be right, but I have seen both keepers, and for me it is Read.
While we are talking about partnerships, Flintoff and Thorpe have put some together.

Another good point IMHO, I have a great respect for Butcher, but if he makes 100, and drops catches fielding in the slips, his 100 is soon devalued.
That is the jist of my point, you can move Butcher, but there is nowhere to hide for jones.if he is having an off day.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Pete

If the Aussies can have a batsmen/keeper with the batters they have, then we definitely can do with one. With all the other teams having keeping allrounders now they'll have the potential to score more, we'll need the extra runs to keep up. Fact, everyone of our batsmen won't score runs in same match. Fact, neither will the other teams. Fact, with a keeping allrounder they can afford a failure. Fact, we can't.. If we play a keeper who can't bat.

This is all true up to a point... but it does tie in with a strategic orientation as well.

Australian domestic cricket is played on very true wickets with a fair bit of pace and bounce.. but no gremlins to inhibit strokeplay and nothing in the way of encouragement for bowlers on day one and next to no degradation over time. The result is an absolute stack of batsmen in the mould of Hayden and Gilchrist.. and a stack of bowlers brought up on controlled aggression, used to having a STACK of runs to work with.. and opponents who want and need to score quickly.

With the strengths available to the selectors.. it makes sense for the Aussies to pursue a strategy of trying to bat the opposition out of each and every test match.. using 7 potentially devastating batsmen and aiming to score so quickly that any opposition is left with the sole option of a marathon innings to save the match.

English cricket has traditionally produced players with very different strengths.. not least the "method" batsman.. like Boycott, Gooch and Hussain.. who learn on pitches (and in conditions) where the bowlers have a bit more encouragement.. where timing the ball well is often a real struggle.. and where "playing your shots" is a good way of getting out to no good effect.

If we were able to pick an all time English XI of guys like Boycott, Bailey, Gooch, Hussain, Tavare and the like.. we'd have a side that never gave the bowlers such a stack of runs on the board.. or so long to bowl the opposition out.. and controlled aggression with the bowling would not be a sensible strategy.. so we'd go for a bunch of more Fraser-like or Giles-like bowlers... prepare pitches that encouraged them... grind out a lot of draws where conditions didn't suit, aiming at being tough to beat.. and winning series on the odd pitch where our swing bowlers had some encouragement.

With OUR strengths I think it's fair to say that the batting of the 'keeper has traditionally mattered less: we haven't generally worried about trying to bat oppositions out of the game... we HAVE generally worried about keeping everything tight (hence Knott being hailed from far and wide as a defensive keeper)... and about taking rare chances to get wickets (hence the focus on glovework, as with Evans).

Fletcher (sadly in my book) seems set on taking us down a slightly more Australian approach... with more aggressive batting (see Vaughan, no longer the new Atherton and more the 2nd rate Hayden) and more aggressive bowling (see S Jones and Anderson, struggling to keep it tight but keen to be in the hunt). I feel that with this approach it is entirely right and proper that we also go down a more Aussie line on 'keepers.. with GO Jones being the obvious candidate.

If we had Marsh in charge we might find things were different: he seems to have more appreciation for the grittier strengths that the Aussies lost when Steve Waugh retired and in which the English have long prospered. Under Marsh we might have been seeing a more "English" approach to the game. Under such circumstaces I think it would be entirely right and proper to Read brought in.. but that's dependent only indirectly on personalities: it's more to do with strategies for winning (or not losing).

As a big fan of the "they will not beat us, we will not lose" approach (rather than the "lets give 'em a caning" approach).. I suspect I'd prefer to see Marsh in charge... but whilst it's Fletcher's baby I think he should be given the go-ahead to do everything his own way.

Not liking that way there's a side of me that would like to see that way flop... but that's by the by: I wouldn't like to see him forced with gritty batsmen and defensive bowlers when that would be at odds with his approach to the game!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pete

Well yeah, we can't afford people failing even if Jones plays. But in reality everyone is not going to hit form in the same match. Therefore if someone did fail, it would be abit easier on the team if we had a keeper who could bat rather than one who couldn't.

Well Ok Pete, fair enough, but the whole top order should not fail, and forget the keeping, he will prove nothing batting at 7, to be honest we will never know how good he is batting there.
I said on this forum, Flintoff was wasted batting at 7, because sure as not, no 7 will end up batting with the tail, that is why Flintoff used to slog so much.
IMO Jones batting is not helped batting at7.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by ernest

I can't say for sure, but a dropped catch can cost 50, or even 100 runs.

Read could drop a catch or miss a stumping, Vaughan drops catches at will, Butcher drops catches when he's in the slips and Thorpe too. Just because Read is a better keeper doesn't mean he's never going to make mistakes.