Fallacy No. 1 - Tres and Vaughan have done just as badly as Read with the bat, so they deserve to be dropped more than him.

- Tres and Vaughan are established top-order batsman, two of only three current English batsman to average over 40, are proven class and are simply going through a spell of bad form. Read, on the other hand, has never scored more than 38 in Tests, and has never looked like scoring many more than that.

Fallacy No.2 - Jones is a batsman who has been converted into a keeper whereas Read is a proper specialist keeper. The extra runs Jones makes will be cancelled out by the byes/missed chances he concedes.

- Jones IS a specialist keeper. Yes, Read has kept beautifully this winter, but Jones is certainly no slouch with the gloves, as is shown by the fact that he has kept to Murali at Kent, and that Kent let Paul Nixon go in order to play him. The fact is, England are very fortunate to have two keepers who are so proficient with the gloves. Many sides, like India, don't have one keeper who is so good. Hopefully, the competition between the two will keep the keeping standards high and help drive the batting standards up.

Fallacy No.3 - Read has been coming in at awkward times, under pressure against high-quality attacks, unable to play his natural game.

- In Bangladesh and WI, Read has faced the two most inexperienced and probably weakest Test attacks in the world. If he has performed poorly against them, what will he be like against the attacks of Aus, SA, NZ and Pak? Yes, he has faced pressure, but none that is exceptional for a No. 7 in Test cricket - looking back over the past five years, England No.7s generally come in at awkward positions.

Fallacy No.4 - It is a sign of the decline of the modern game that keepers need to score runs. In the past, specialist keepers were played regardless of their run-scoring ability, and the game was the better for it. - As far ago as the 1930s, England were ditching the better keeper (George Duckworth) in favour of a converted keeper (Les Ames) who could score runs. The need for a No.7 to score runs is a perennial one. There is a very good article in the current Wisden about this - you can find it on the cricinfo website here: http://statserver.cricket.org/almana...=alm;alm=17490

Admin - Link to original thread in the England forum: Fallacies regarding Read/Jones