Simon Jones Over-rated?

[alternative]

I don't think he is Over-Rated.. he is a good player, IMO he has been touch unlucky with all the injuries but definitely a very good player..

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

Simon Jones in not over-rated imo. He is a class bowler and showed this during the Ashes Series by picking up wickets at the start of spells. He bowled with pace and reverse swing and troubled the best Australian batsmen.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The true strength of England's bowling attack last year (over the last 2 or 3 years really) was the fact that they kept coming at you all the time, searching for an opening. Once they prised the door open, they'd charge through. Four bowlers, all subtly different, whose styles complemented each other.

Jones was just an integral part of a well-oiled machine. When he was missing, the machine didn't work as well. Australia had a similar problem - first Gillespie fell apart, then McGrath broke.

England won the Ashes in 2005 because their machine worked longer and better than the Australian one did.

Very well put - couldn't agree more.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

because he has done it in only one series so far?

Yes. You only need to do it once to show that you can do it. I never said anything about consistency.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He had a great Test series but outside of that?

See above.

You folks should read my post properly.

 

[luckyeddie]

See above.

You folks should read my post properly.

Give over Liam.

Next you'll be expecting a certain level of intelligence from the likes of me.

 

[steds]

The final point is that Simon has only played 18 test in an injury riddled career. On the face of it, he seems to inconsistently fit to be considered an integral part of any cricket team.

What are your thoughts on Shane Bond?

 

[Richard]

But why remove his Ashes heroics? Aside from twisting the stats to suit your argument...

His Ashes series shows that he can perform when it matters most - and that's good enough for me.

One series shows nothing of the sort.

 

[Richard]

To his credit Simon Jones, had excellent figures in the 2005 Ashes series. He was also awarded Wisden Cricketer of the Year for 2006. In addition Simon did well to come back from a terrible knee injury in the earlier Ashes series. Despite these feats though, is it fair to say he is over-rated?

First point is Simon's ODI form, in 8 matches he has managed only 7 wickets at an average of 40. It's fair to say 8 matches is hardly enough to judge a player, however his first class form is actually worse. Here in 21 matches he has managed 16 wickets at over 50.

Simon's test form is better, but should his 2005 ashes heroics be removed he averages over 31, in line with his first class performances. Whilst these results are good, they don't really equate well to other members in the English team especially Flintoff and Harmison. They also seem very average by international standards.

The final point is that Simon has only played 18 test in an injury riddled career. On the face of it, he seems to inconsistently fit to be considered an integral part of any cricket team. Given the few matches he has played, he seems more a good bits and pieces player.

As tec has mentioned - very few people rate Jones much in ODIs, because he's hardly played any cricket, either ODIs or List-A ODers.
As far as Tests are concerned, my view is that he bowled exceptionally in 2005 and had bowled pretty poorly pretty much all the time before that.
And plenty of people simply seem to assume that the 2005 pattern is the one that'll be followed.
I say - we don't know which will be followed until we see some more stuff after 2005.
So until we do, for me he doesn't really have a "rating" as such.
My "rating of him is poor 2002-2004\05, exceptional 2005".

 

[grecian]

Nonsense, he showed glimpses of being a top class performer before that, hes always been able to reverse-swing it at about 90 miles per hour, which would trouble anyone.

My real worry is that his fitness will stop him from being world-class, much like Shane Bond. Yet hes still only 27 so he could have 8 more years of test cricket, if he does he will prove himself as great, IMO

 

[Richard]

Nonsense, he showed glimpses of being a top class performer before that, hes always been able to reverse-swing it at about 90 miles per hour, which would trouble anyone.

Not without accuracy it won't, and until 2005 Jones seriously lacked that.
Equally, he may have been able to reverse-swing it since his Academy stint in 2001\02, but he never really demonstrated that to effect close to devestating, except that one spell at Lord's against McCullum in 2004.

 

[grecian]

I said he "showed glimpses", his accuracy was poor, but most of us expected it to come through regular bowling.

The entire regeneration of English cricket has been built on finding people who can perform against top-class international players, for that they need exceptional talent, not just monotonous consistency in mediocre cricket. Its Simon Jones against Mark Ealham.

Thats why I still feel Sajid Mahmood will be a better long-term bet then Kabir Ali or Liam Plunkett

 

[Richard]

I said he "showed glimpses", his accuracy was poor, but most of us expected it to come through regular bowling.

Most people's expectations were foolish, then.
Regular bowling doesn't make all bowlers (or anywhere near) more accurate, or certainly it doesn't make them go from poor to good.

The entire regeneration of English cricket has been built on finding people who can perform against top-class international players, for that they need exceptional talent, not just monotonous consistency in mediocre cricket. Its Simon Jones against Mark Ealham.

Err - all generations have been built on finding people who can perform against top-class international players... that's how you have international success and always has been. What's the point?
You've also always needed exceptional talent.
Mark Ealham hasn't got that. We still don't know whether Jones does.

Thats why I still feel Sajid Mahmood will be a better long-term bet then Kabir Ali or Liam Plunkett

I feel all are going to amount to little.

 

[grecian]

Err - all generations have been built on finding people who can perform against top-class international players... that's how you have international success and always has been. What's the point?
You've also always needed exceptional talent.

No, at times England have just followed blindly on who is taken the most wickets and scorig the most runs in a poor domestic league, the new regime has ignored that, and rightly so

 

[Richard]

Err - the domestic game is the most reliable indicator of who's likely to have the skill to do well at the international.
Most of the time when people have ignored failure at the domestic level they've produced rubbish international players.

 

[grecian]

Disagree utterly, Vaughn, Tresco, Harmison, Jones have proved that wrong IMO, probably not yours but ho-hum

Of course its a yardstick, but just a fairly small one.

 

[Matteh]

Err - the domestic game is the most reliable indicator of who's likely to have the skill to do well at the international.
Most of the time when people have ignored failure at the domestic level they've produced rubbish international players.

Hick + Ramprakash are two of the finest modern era county cricketers to come out of the system...yet were so so average at international level.

Granted they both had their moments but they never reached the levels expected of them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One series shows nothing of the sort.

He performed when it mattered most in that one series. How does that not show that he CAN perform when it matters most?

 

[honestbharani]

Yes. You only need to do it once to show that you can do it. I never said anything about consistency.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I would want more than one good series before claiming that "he would have won us the series had he been there" and "Sachin can't score a run if Jones can bowl well" stuff. My response was mainly to those people. I think THEY definitely did overrate him, A LOT.

 

[Richard]

Disagree utterly, Vaughn, Tresco, Harmison, Jones have proved that wrong IMO, probably not yours but ho-hum

Of course its a yardstick, but just a fairly small one.

Err, Harmison has proven nothing. Harmison as things stand is a failure at Test level.
Vaughan, in case you (and many others) have missed it has actually been very successful at the domestic level since his Test elevation.
Jones, equally, has proven nothing, on 1 good series.
Trescothick has proven nothing, he was extremely lucky at the start of his Test career.
There are, of course, countless examples which would offset these four, were it true that any of them did have Test success despite domestic failure.
Without domestic success, few will have international success.