Simon Jones Over-rated?

[Richard]

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.

Yes - Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe were also very fine domestic-First-Class cricketers... and just happened to be fine Test players, too. Then there were Knight and Fairbrother in ODIs.
Not to mention that anyone who said Hick was "so average" at ODI level doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
So the fact that Ramprakash and Hick (and quite a few others) were Test failures despite good domestic-First-Class performances doesn't really say anything.

 

[Richard]

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

Anyone CAN perform when it matters, whether they demonstrate it or not.

 

[Swervy]

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.

what crap!!!!!

Harmison after 41 tests has 159 test wickets
After 41 tests Pollock had 172
Akram 154
Gough 162
Gillespie 158
Shoaib Akhtar 162

I cant see how anyone can say that a player who has taken basically 4 wickets a test over the first 40 matches of his career can be considered a failure, esp. in this current era of high scoring.

Regarding Vaughan: how much domestic cricket has Vaughan actually played since being in the test team????
What is vaughans domestic first class average? must be low to mid 30's .....the thing is , despite poor domestic showings , he has always looked to be a class player, a player with that special something, the thing that separates tests players from county players...it is that that people who actually UNDERSTAND the game use to recognise a players ability, not whether they are pummelling second rate county attacks for 6 hundreds a season...its why Gower was chosen, its why Gatting was persevered with for a long time, and a whole host of other players who you will probably consider 'anomolies'

you are right about Jones, he needs to prove himself over a longer period, but still it was clear even in the early days for Jones, he had something (the test quality) about him (the selectors recognised that something, and selected him for England whilst he had a first class bowling average of about 40 ish , maybe more). It wasnt a mistake that they selected him then, they were investing in the future, and last summer the investment paid of. Yes, he is still unproven, but what he has proved is that he has the ability to succeed at the highest level.

Re Trescothick: its just the usual rubbish from you isnt it...it doesnt suit your arguemnt, and so Trescothick was a lucky batsmen early on!!! Of course he was, yeah thats right Richard!!!!! .
I am interested in why you have this thing that Trescothick didnt deserve his success??? Is it because he actually replaced one of your faves Ramprakash in the England line up (a player with incredble success domestically and did hardly anything meaningful at test level)

 

[Swervy]

Yes - Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe were also very fine domestic-First-Class cricketers... and just happened to be fine Test players, too. Then there were Knight and Fairbrother in ODIs.
Not to mention that anyone who said Hick was "so average" at ODI level doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
So the fact that Ramprakash and Hick (and quite a few others) were Test failures despite good domestic-First-Class performances doesn't really say anything.

strange really what you consider success isnt it!!!! Harmison is a test failure for taking 160 wickets in 40 tests...

Butcher....a capable batsman, but couldnt cut it consistantly, spending most of his career averaging under 30....and you say he was a fine player...hehehehe. Butcher was a fine player, but Hayden or Trescothick or Sehwag are lucky...nice one

Hussain...bit of a disapointment as a batsman to be honest

Atherton...how much real consistant domestic success did he have before he played for England????

 

[open365]

People have an inflated opinion of Jones because they've only seen the good side of him.

To make a true judgment of a player, you ened to watch the player for a long period of time, look at Harmison, anyone who only saw his 7-12 would think he was the best bowler in the world and he would never ever conceed a run because he CAN bowl like this.

Wait untill Jones goes through a bad spell, i think he'll have far less fans then.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

But how is that disagreeing with what I said? I said he only has to do it once to show that he can do it. How can you reasonably disagree with that? Being capable of something and actually doing it are two very different things.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Anyone CAN perform when it matters, whether they demonstrate it or not.

I strongly disagree with that. Some players have always failed under pressure.

Besides, that doesn't change the fact that Simon Jones showed he can perform when it matters. As far as saying "anyone can do it", you're just agreeing with the post you initially disagreed with. That's a Cricket Web first...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I cant see how anyone can say that a player who has taken basically 4 wickets a test over the first 40 matches of his career can be considered a failure, esp. in this current era of high scoring.

Whilst it's ridiculous to call Harmison a failure, he certainly is over-rated. A good bowler, but not anywhere near the best in the world.

 

[Swervy]

Whilst it's ridiculous to call Harmison a failure, he certainly is over-rated. A good bowler, but not anywhere near the best in the world.

Depends on what you class as being near the best in the world. I would say when everything clicks for him , Harmison is one of the most dangerous fast bowlers in the world. Obviously he needs to improve his consistancy line and length wise, but on any day he actually has his pace up, he is a handful for anyone in the world.

I would actually class him a good fast bowler who actually hasnt realised how good he actually really could be. If he really sussed that out,I think he has the tools to really be a top notch performer...

 

[Richard]

strange really what you consider success isnt it!!!! Harmison is a test failure for taking 160 wickets in 40 tests...

That'd be 127 in 35...
Which is really not that impressive, especially when they've come at an average of 32 which includes one 7-Test period of taking them at 18 and when that's removed the average goes up to all but 40.

Butcher....a capable batsman, but couldnt cut it consistantly, spending most of his career averaging under 30....and you say he was a fine player...hehehehe.

Err, Butcher spent all of his career post-2001 averaging over 40... that's 40 Tests in over 3 years...
I hardly see how that qualifies as "not cutting it consistently".

Butcher was a fine player, but Hayden or Trescothick or Sehwag are lucky...nice one

Err, what have Hayden, Trescothick and Sehwag being lucky got to do with anything?

Hussain...bit of a disapointment as a batsman to be honest

Err, what? What planet are you on? How the blazes does averaging 42 over 36 Tests and playing many match-influencing innings between 1996 and 1999, and then averaging 41 over 33 more Tests and playing many more between 2001 and 2004 qualify as "being a bit of a disappointment"?
Hussain was a very, very fine player. And, surprise surprise, he brought his domestic success to Tests... so you wouldn't like him.

Atherton...how much real consistant domestic success did he have before he played for England????

Not much, given that he was picked (stupidly) when only about a month out of Uni and had hardly played any real consistent domestic cricket.
Suprise surprise... he did nothing in his first 2 games.
Surprise surprise again... after having an A-tour and some decent domestic cricket he became a very good Test opener from 1990 onwards.

 

[Richard]

I strongly disagree with that. Some players have always failed under pressure.

Err, most of the time maybe, but I hardly see that anyone who's played a decent amount can "always" fail under pressure.

Besides, that doesn't change the fact that Simon Jones showed he can perform when it matters. As far as saying "anyone can do it", you're just agreeing with the post you initially disagreed with. That's a Cricket Web first...

I clearly meant that Jones had not demonstrated an ability to do anything unusual.

 

[Richard]

Whilst it's ridiculous to call Harmison a failure, he certainly is over-rated. A good bowler, but not anywhere near the best in the world.

No, not even a good Test bowler.
Having one short period of 7 Tests of success does NOT make someone a good Test bowler... or even a Test-standard bowler.

 

[Richard]

Depends on what you class as being near the best in the world. I would say when everything clicks for him , Harmison is one of the most dangerous fast bowlers in the world. Obviously he needs to improve his consistancy line and length wise, but on any day he actually has his pace up, he is a handful for anyone in the world.

Funny how those days have only ever come in 4 months in 2004, isn't it?
Harmison can have as much going right in his power as possible, the only way he'll cause batsmen problems is if they play poorly.

I would actually class him a good fast bowler who actually hasnt realised how good he actually really could be. If he really sussed that out,I think he has the tools to really be a top notch performer...

Yes, it's nice and easy to think that, isn't it? It means you weren't totally mistaken in your judgement of him when he got such sensational figures in March-June 2004.
As far as I'm concerned, Harmison doesn't have the tools for success in Tests - his action is all wrong, his length is generally poor and he lacks the ability to bowl anywhere near accurately enough. This has been the case for a long time now.

 

[open365]

Funny how those days have only ever come in 4 months in 2004, isn't it?
Harmison can have as much going right in his power as possible, the only way he'll cause batsmen problems is if they play poorly.

That's your indefeatable logic for everything, you blame it on the batsman, this means every time Harmison picks up wickets you can just say the batsman played a bad shot, it's like the liberal democrats promising lots and knowing it doesn't matter because they'll never be in power.

 

[Richard]

Err, that makes no sense.
Why would I do that?
If I say the batsmen have played bad shots, it's because that's the way I see it...
In any case - that time passed quickly enough to suggest I had something in my suggestion...

 

[Swervy]

That'd be 127 in 35...
Which is really not that impressive, especially when they've come at an average of 32 which includes one 7-Test period of taking them at 18 and when that's removed the average goes up to all but 40.

well I am not too sure who you have cut out of those stats or whatever...ok..in the last 30 tests (not including B'desh) he is averaging 30 and has taken over 3.8 wickets a test...in this era of cricket that is not failure

Err, Butcher spent all of his career post-2001 averaging over 40... that's 40 Tests in over 3 years...
I hardly see how that qualifies as "not cutting it consistently".

mmmm...post 2001(get rid of Zimb out of there)...34 tests, average 37.5, 4 hundreds....he was lucky to keep his place as long as he did as far as I can see

Err, what have Hayden, Trescothick and Sehwag being lucky got to do with anything?

Its to do with how you define things in cricket...these players are no good/lucky or whatever your normal line is..and yet Butcher was a fine test batsman!!! Its just confusing to us mere mortals

Err, what? What planet are you on? How the blazes does averaging 42 over 36 Tests and playing many match-influencing innings between 1996 and 1999, and then averaging 41 over 33 more Tests and playing many more between 2001 and 2004 qualify as "being a bit of a disappointment"?
Hussain was a very, very fine player. And, surprise surprise, he brought his domestic success to Tests... so you wouldn't like him.

Well he was a disapointment compared to hopes that people had when he came onto the scene...Hussain was a fine player on his day, but again was not consistant enough, and his domestic performances certainly didnt translate into the international game due to a number of little things being wrong technically, things which separate the average and the very good.

And by the way, I do like Hussain, both as a player and a bloke

Not much, given that he was picked (stupidly) when only about a month out of Uni and had hardly played any real consistent domestic cricket.
Suprise surprise... he did nothing in his first 2 games.
Surprise surprise again... after having an A-tour and some decent domestic cricket he became a very good Test opener from 1990 onwards.

Other than Robin Smith, who did do anything in those two games. The reason why Atherton was chosen then was because a) England were in turmoil b) he was a look to the future and without a doubt one of the very best young players in the country, irrespective of domestic success or not. Certainly a player who on first sight as a youngster was obviously a player of test ability.
I just always found it strange that he didnt have more success than he did

 

[Richard]

well I am not too sure who you have cut out of those stats or whatever...ok..in the last 30 tests (not including B'desh) he is averaging 30 and has taken over 3.8 wickets a test...in this era of cricket that is not failure

Except that you can clearly divide it into the first 7 in 2004, then the rest.
Where his figures were sensationally good and otherwise very poor.

mmmm...post 2001(get rid of Zimb out of there)...34 tests, average 37.5, 4 hundreds....he was lucky to keep his place as long as he did as far as I can see

Not really - he played better than anyone else in the real Tests that year (vs SA), didn't do much in SL (like everyone else), and made a big contribution to the win in WI.
Only in 2004 and 2004\05 did he start to do poorly, and IMO that'd have been corrected if he'd not missed so many games with injury.

Its to do with how you define things in cricket...these players are no good/lucky or whatever your normal line is..and yet Butcher was a fine test batsman!!! Its just confusing to us mere mortals

Err, Butcher was good. Trescothick has been lucky.
Where does "lucky" equate with "no good"?
That's the only bit that resembles "confusing" - and it's entirely confusion of the induction of the "mortals".

Well he was a disapointment compared to hopes that people had when he came onto the scene...Hussain was a fine player on his day, but again was not consistant enough, and his domestic performances certainly didnt translate into the international game due to a number of little things being wrong technically, things which separate the average and the very good.

Once again... how the blazes was he not consistent enough? He rarely failed between 1996 and 1999 (that's 4 years); and again did little wrong between 2001 and 2004.
I honestly think people's impressions of Hussain are grossly distorted by the fact he was so wretched in 2000 and early 2001.

And by the way, I do like Hussain, both as a player and a bloke

I don't really see how anyone couldn't. I was referring to cricketing dislike, where his case helps disprove your absurd "domestic failure is better than domestic success" notion.

Other than Robin Smith, who did do anything in those two games. The reason why Atherton was chosen then was because a) England were in turmoil b) he was a look to the future and without a doubt one of the very best young players in the country, irrespective of domestic success or not.

Oh, yes, English cricket was in chaos - but it was still poor selection. Even Atherton himself said (in Opening Up) that he could tell at the time he wasn't ready.
The chances of someone having success when just a month out of Uni - however much talent they've obviously got - are miniscule.

Certainly a player who on first sight as a youngster was obviously a player of test ability.
I just always found it strange that he didnt have more success than he did

And how is averaging in the 40s (when Zimbabwe 1996\97 and Australia 1998\99 are removed, due to the fact he was not half fit to play in said series) against some of the best bowling Test cricket has ever produced having a small amount of success?
It's only thanks to people like Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe that English cricket in the 1990s didn't descend into farce.
Yes, Atherton had the odd bad period (1997 and 1997\98, the end of his career like most people) but for most of his career when not unfit to play he was a Test opener out of the top drawer. Few have done the job that much better in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Over a long and significant career, no batsman who has averaged under 45 in FC cricket outside tests has averaged over 50 in tests.

Its a big indicator, a quick look at all the players who played for England from 1980 onwards shows that those that failed or had very short careers were players with poor domestic records. Of course guys like Ramps and Hick show that a great domestic record is no guarantee but without an impressive fc career you cannot be a test great.

Guys like Trescothick are the exception and I predict that he will finish with a record under 45.

 

[Swervy]

Once again... how the blazes was he not consistent enough? He rarely failed between 1996 and 1999 (that's 4 years); and again did little wrong between 2001 and 2004.
I honestly think people's impressions of Hussain are grossly distorted by the fact he was so wretched in 2000 and early 2001.

yeah he was decent enough during that time(1996 to 2000), but still probably not as good as people thought he would be earlier on in his career. (average 42, 8 hundreds in 38 tests)....but hey, whilst you like statistical manipulation to prove points...if you take the middle 35 tests of that 38 test spell, his average was only 36.8...he starts looking average again doesnt he!!!!!

And I think you are over playing his play in the last few years, he was a batsman who COULD deliver on occasions but I dont know anyone who would say Hussain was close to being the player he was years earlier.

Anyway, this is all stats talk...go through your extensive library of footage (you know..amongst all that footage of Giles etc that you used to count the revolutions on the ball) and watch Hussain bat and compare him to some of the truely fine test players of the past and the present.....

Oh, yes, English cricket was in chaos - but it was still poor selection. Even Atherton himself said (in Opening Up) that he could tell at the time he wasn't ready.
The chances of someone having success when just a month out of Uni - however much talent they've obviously got - are miniscule.

because sometimes the expectations arent of instant success, its about being in a losing position and trying new options in order to introduce young players with talent into the international game

And how is averaging in the 40s (when Zimbabwe 1996\97 and Australia 1998\99 are removed, due to the fact he was not half fit to play in said series) against some of the best bowling Test cricket has ever produced having a small amount of success?
It's only thanks to people like Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe that English cricket in the 1990s didn't descend into farce.
Yes, Atherton had the odd bad period (1997 and 1997\98, the end of his career like most people) but for most of his career when not unfit to play he was a Test opener out of the top drawer. Few have done the job that much better in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

I never said he had a small amount of success, I said that I was always surprised he never had more success, because I think he had the potential of being considered a real England great, where as I think history will merely look back on Atherton as being a very good England batsman.

Trust me, English cricket did decend into farce a number of times in the 90's (remember 1999)

 

[Goughy]

Jones is overrated. He is an exciting player but too many people are getting carried away with 1 series.

18 wkts at 21 in 4 tests is a nice series but it is not in the levels of the amazing.

Part of the Jones reputation is based on his injuries. The is a saying in US sports that "The most popular man in town is the back-up Quaterback". This is because the back-up is not playing and therefore not making mistakes and people can speculate how good the team would be with the other guy starting.

There is the same mentality in the UK with Jones. His reputation is enhanced because he is not playing and the public are speculating how much better England would be with him in the team without him actually having to perform.

People quickly forget that Vaughan did not trust Jones with the ball earlier in his career and he has only been a complimentary player at test level. He has been helped by being the 3rd or 4th cog in the England bowling machine.

If you look at how often he bowls than you see that he has been a compimentary player.

No. of Overs Bowled per Test (list of players of the top of my head)
Nos. rounded to nearest number

Harmison 36
Ntini 35
Hoggard 34
Lee 34
Flintoff 31
Shoaib 30
Shane Bond 30
Jones 26

Shoaib and Bond bowl more despite both being considerably quicker and also riddled with injuries.

Flintoff (who was for a long while a batting allrounder) bowls more

Jones is the only bowler who bowls under 30 overs a test and bowls by far the fewest out of the England quartet.

In conclusion, he is an exciting and good bowler who has not proved himself and whos reputation is built on 1 good series and by being unavailable.