Andy Flower

[Richard]

Is he still playing with Essex this season?

He certainly played with Essex last season, and excelled in the First-Class game, averaging 65.21, though it's a shame his brother did so poorly. In the one-day game his performances were less good, though he started well and tailed-off. At least his brother did much better here.
As far as I know both are very much in their team's plans for next season.

 

[Chubb]

Apparently Andy is going to carry on playing for Essex for two more years and then wants to take up a coaching role. As Essex tend to have appointed ex-players as coaches he'll probably go straight to being head coach. With his experience he might have a good chance of an international appointment in future. I was ecstatic when he came to play for Essex as even back in 2002 he was my most admired player. The man's a run machine, all the more remarkable considering he's largely self taught and played for that side. Grant was a bit of a disappointment in the CC, but he was never as good as Andy and has been tailing off in Test and four day cricket for a long time. He was, however, a key part of the all-conquering OD team, with his batting and his spin playing major roles in some great wins. The thing with Grant is he seems to bat so much better with Andy, his only hundred this year was made entirely in his company.

One of my great regrets is that I have stood within a metre of Andy when he was about to go out as keeper for Essex at Colchester, and I didn't say anything or ask for his autograph. I suppose I feared meeting him for real would dilute the aura. If ever I get into a tough situation in any sport, I ask myself what Andy Flower would do. He and Ray Price, for different reasons, are easily my favourite and most admired players.

 

[Richard]

Interesting observations... specially that bit about destroying the aura... Nass Hussain said much the same thing in his autobiography WR meeting heroes.

 

[marc71178]

Because Test-cricket is not the only level of relevance - especially in the 19th-century when it was massively in the minority. Indeed, in the 1870s and 1880s Tests were so infrequent they're generally best ignored as far as individual performance is concerned.

And if he were that good a keeper (to qualify as a keeping all-rounder), he'd keep in more than 1 of his 18 or whatever Tests

 

[Richard]

No, he wouldn't - because in those days the absurd "your best wicketkeeper must keep at all times" attitude was pretty much dominant, and Jack Blackham (still considered by many to be the best wicketkeeper EVER) was around at the time.

 

[marc71178]

So in that case, how was he a keeping all-rounder then if his keeping wasn't good enough to get him in the side.

 

[Richard]

It was, just misguided selection led to the belief that Blackham would be a better pick.

 

[marc71178]

Oh right, so you know better 100 years on than the selectors of the time did.

I thought I'd heard it all...

 

[honestbharani]

Why is the notion that you pick your best wicket keeper to keep wickets that absurd?

 

[Richard]

Oh right, so you know better 100 years on than the selectors of the time did.

I thought I'd heard it all...

Some things don't change in 100 years.

 

[Richard]

Why is the notion that you pick your best wicket keeper to keep wickets that absurd?

Because it means that you should, according to this theorem, pick a brilliant wicketkeeper who will average 20 with the bat ahead of a very good one who will average 40 with the bat.
Which simply defies all logic.

 

[Dark Hunter]

How does it defy Logic?
What if that brilliant keeper takes a match/series winning catch, where as the very good one might have dropped it? Say Australia had the option of a better keeper than Gilly, and picked him? Maybe he would have caught Piertersen on 0 at the oval.....And just because they average around 20, doesn't mean they aren't going to hit runs....

But I also think it depends on the situation....If you've got a batting line-up like Australia's recent teams, you don't really need a keeper who can score big scores, you'd want the Excelent keeper, who occasionly scores runs. But if you've got the batting line-up of, say, Bangladesh, The Very Good keeper, Who can hit runs, would most likely be selected.

 

[Richard]

Catches which win or lose series happen maybe once in a lifetime.
There is no point planning for them.

 

[Dark Hunter]

But catches that win matches, which then help a team into winning a series, occur often...

 

[Richard]

And almost all will be taken by a semi-competant wicketkeeper, and probably about 1\3 of missed chances won't prove especially costly.

 

[Dark Hunter]

True, but,

For a team to win a game, they need to get the opposition out. Scoring 500+ is all well and good, but if you don't have a good enough bowlers to create the chances AND good enough Fielders/Keeper to capatalise on those chances, the game is most likely end in a draw.

 

[Richard]

Yes, it is, but a very good wicketkeeper (eg Adam Gilchrist) will drop maybe 1 chance in 30 or so.
Which is unlikely to cost many games - indeed I struggle to think of a catch Gilchrist has dropped in his career that's had much of an impact on the game.

 

[Dark Hunter]

I could say Pietersen at the oval, but that was a very difficult chance.

Yes, i do agree with you on that, the very good keeper is unlikely to drop that many chances. But I just don't think it's that absurd to pick a brilliant keeper with a lower average, rather than a very good keeper with a higher average. But like i said before, i think it mainly depends on the team situation.

It's guys like Geraint Jones who are obviously picked for their batting(If he isn't, then the English selectors have gone insane), when it probably isn't needed. Wouldn't it be better to pick are keeper who's going to hold more chances (not that hard compared against Jones), when you've got guys like Trescothick, Vaughn, Strauss, Pietersen and Flintoff who are more than likely to hit runs? And even then, Jones probably doesn't have the best average....

 

[Richard]

Jones this summer hasn't batted poorly - the number of RUDs he got in The Ashes was quite remarkable. I do worry a little about this winter though, because I haven't a clue how good Jones is at starting his innings against quality spin because we've never really seen him do it.
However, Jones' keeping in the Australia Tests this summer wasn't up to standard - rather than being excellent, very good or even good, it was, simply, poor, and you can't keep a wicketkeeper like that for ever. I do believe, though, that Jones has what it takes to improve, and if Jack Russell keeps working with him he's in good hands. There doesn't seem to be any falseness in Jack's enthusiasm about Jones' wicketkeeping prowess (and Jack's very much against "giving the gloves to batters" as he puts it, as is Bob Taylor) and if Jack thinks he can become a good wicketkeeper that's good enough for me. And Jack certainly had a point when he mentioned that Jones' wicketkeeping was near enough faultless in the Bangladesh games and the ODIs. What's, perhaps, a little worrying, though, is that he seems to have been fine for short periods in the field and less good when it gets a bit longer.
As for Pietersen at The Oval - wasn't a chance to Gilchrist, he had precisely zero chance of catching it. Only way it would've been catchable is if he'd missed it completely and it'd gone straight to Hayden.

 

[Dark Hunter]

I agree with you there, On both the Pietersen catch and Jones's Potential.

And i really do hope he does improve, because it was only he(Keeping wise), and maybe Bell's batting that disapointed in the Ashes. I think with Jones, he had his ups as well. Some of the takes he had diving down legside, where actually really good. It's just unfortunate that those sort of things were outwheighed by some pretty ordinary keeping...