Simon Jones Over-rated?

[Swervy]

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 not 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.

and instantly I think of Gower!!!!!!!

just remember that only 34 players in the world have ended their test career(or are currently playing) with an average of 50 or more..so maybe you ar setting your sights a bit too high on what you consider success

 

[Goughy]

and instantly I think of Gower!!!!!!!

just remember that only 34 players in the world have ended their test career(or are currently playing) with an average of 50 or more..so maybe you ar setting your sights a bit too high on what you consider success

Gower averaged under 45. So whats your point?

And also a 50 average is becoming more prevelant. Teams now need to be highlighting players they think may acheive that if they are available

 

[grecian]

Well, England haven't had a player average over 50, in a career, since Barrington I think, so I'll take one averaging 46, or even 42 will do.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No batsman who has averaged under 45 in FC cricket outside tests has averaged over 50 in tests.

Kumar Sangakkara is dangerously close to proving that false.

 

[Richard]

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!!!!!

Sorry, which 38 Tests?
All stats are "manipulated" as you put it.
I happen to think there's some meaning in the periods I gave for Hussain's career - I'd like to know if you thought similar or were just trying to find something that counteracted what I'd said.
I don't happen to think there's any meaning in something that includes 2000 and doesn't separate it completely.

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.

I don't see that Hussain 2001-2004 was any lesser than Hussain 1996-1999.
After Lord's 2001 he never went 3 games without a decent score.
The impression people got was distorted by the fact that, after 2000 (and especially once giving-up the Test captaincy), he was always playing catch-up.
I wasn't fooled, however. He still played many match-turning innings, if never anything quite as dramatic as Headingley 1998.

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.....

So Hussain wasn't one of the best Test batsmen of the modern era... big deal.
He was a very, very good player in the time he played. Not in the top league, but very much in the next class.

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 picking someone who's got no chance of success at the time you pick them is helpful how, exactly?
All it achieves is distorting their career (1989 has absolutely no meaning as far as I'm concerned when assessing Atherton).

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.

I never saw Atherton early in his career but I can think of any number of people who've been over-burdened early on.
I highly doubt Atherton ever had Boycott's skill... which clearly some thought he did.

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

1999 wasn't actually the worst...
England's only truly awful series' in the 1990s were The Ashes 1990\91 and 1993, and Pakistan 1996.

 

[Richard]

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.

Few truer catchphrases have been spoken than "you improve most in your absence".

 

[Richard]

and instantly I think of Gower!!!!!!!

Gower was quite unique in personality, really. Especially in the modern era.
And in any case - many accused him of being merely a good-wicket player.

 

[Richard]

http://content-wi.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6033.htmlJohnson[/URL]

Get yer URLs sorted, man!

 

[Richard]

Well, England haven't had a player average over 50, in a career, since Barrington I think, so I'll take one averaging 46, or even 42 will do.

Historically batting has tended to be harder in England than pretty much anywhere.
That hasn't been true since 2002, of course. Many England batsmen average 50 at home since 2002.

 

[aussie]

Get yer URLs sorted, man!

lol, i'm in URL training at the moment as u can see by the constant editing

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I think a person has to do something more than once to show that he is CAPABLE of doing it. There is something called "punching above your weight" and "playing above your potential".

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think a person has to do something more than once to show that he is CAPABLE of doing it. There is something called "punching above your weight" and "playing above your potential".

"Playing above your potential" refers to a lack of consistency to fulfil your potential. It's really poor terminology.

In sport or in life in general it doesn't make sense to suggest that because someone only does something once, it fails to prove that the person CAN do it. If I only ever play one cover drive in my career, but it's a beautifully execute cover drive, I've still proven that I'm capable of playing the cover drive.

Simon Jones executed the cover drive beautifully on several occasions in that series. That proves that he's capable of playing it.

 

[honestbharani]

"Playing above your potential" refers to a lack of consistency to fulfil your potential. It's really poor terminology.

In sport or in life in general it doesn't make sense to suggest that because someone only does something once, it fails to prove that the person CAN do it. If I only ever play one cover drive in my career, but it's a beautifully execute cover drive, I've still proven that I'm capable of playing the cover drive.

Simon Jones executed the cover drive beautifully on several occasions in that series. That proves that he's capable of playing it.

The key word is "several", not "once". Venky Prasad hit a six over covers ONCE, in an ODI. Doesn't mean I will EVER give him even 1% of chance of doing it again in an international game.

 

[sideshowtim]

Glenn McGrath made 61 in a test match, not likely he'll ever do anything like that again.

 

[Smudge]

Glenn McGrath made 61 in a test match, not likely he'll ever do anything like that again.

Depends if he gets to play against a toothless NZ attack again.

 

[marc71178]

Depends if he gets to play against a toothless NZ attack again.

Is there such thing as a non-toothless NZ attack?

Knowing his luck, the minute he gets to play in one, Bond will be sidelined because of toothache.

 

[Francis]

Not trying to interrupt the topic, but I thought I'd mention that the best delivery I saw in 2005 was from Simon Jones. It was at Old Trafford, bowling to Michael Clarke. Clarke left the delivery before go to the keeper and it missed the stumps by a mile. So obviously when Jones bowls a similar delivery the next ball, Clarke leaves it. In fact batsmen, because they work in milliseconds, often try and pick the line as soon as possible and by the time Clarke picked it the ball was going straight. Then out of nowhere it swung around his leg (late swing) and knocked out off-stump. Just unplayable when you consider it started off well outside off stump and swung late. 9/10 batsmen would have left it go.

It was a great delivery and for me to say it was the best of the year is something because Warne bowled plenty of jaffers in 2005 and some of Shoaib Akhtar's deliveries were amazing in Pakistan. Especially this demon slower ball he developed... that's gonna trouble anybody.

 

[Swervy]

Gower was quite unique in personality, really. Especially in the modern era.
And in any case - many accused him of being merely a good-wicket player.

many people may accuse him, I dont, I saw Gower play a number of great innings on dodgy wickets!!!!

Gower may be unique in personality, but he simply isnt unique in coming into test cricket and suceeding without any real success in domestic cricket.
Michael vaughan for one!!!!
Alec Stewart before he came into test cricket had only ever once averaged over 45 in a season (he played 9 seasons before then)
Graham Gooch had done nothing
Trescothick did not much in county cricket before test cricket
Botham did little in the county game(statistically) to suggest that he would become a player with 13 test hundreds in his first 6 years of international cricket.
Nasser Hussain: Only 4 first class hundreds before playing tests

darren Gough did little statisically before he played for England (he had one half decent season, and yet it was blatantly obvious he had what it took to be an international bowler of some standing even before then)

In fact the thing is in the last 20 years there have been few players for England who have succeeded for a longish period of time, and so the sample size is quite small, and obviously there are plenty of batsmen who have paid there dues in county cricket before going onto success in test cricket....but the list of those who have been spotted early on before major success is is certainly not limited to David Gower

 

[Swervy]

Sorry, which 38 Tests?.

from 1/1/96 to 1/1/00

All stats are "manipulated" as you put it.
I happen to think there's some meaning in the periods I gave for Hussain's career - I'd like to know if you thought similar or were just trying to find something that counteracted what I'd said.
I don't happen to think there's any meaning in something that includes 2000 and doesn't separate it completely.

He probably was at his best in that period you said, but it wasnt an outstanding period of batting by any stretch of the imagination. I 'manipulated' those stats just to show that if you took the first test of that 38 test stretch and the last two away (leaving the middle 35) he was actually very very average (statisically) during that period.

I don't see that Hussain 2001-2004 was any lesser than Hussain 1996-1999.
After Lord's 2001 he never went 3 games without a decent score.
The impression people got was distorted by the fact that, after 2000 (and especially once giving-up the Test captaincy), he was always playing catch-up.
I wasn't fooled, however. He still played many match-turning innings, if never anything quite as dramatic as Headingley 1998..

you dont see it probably because you didnt really watch Hussain back then. He was nowhere near the player he had been, not matter what the averages tell you

So Hussain wasn't one of the best Test batsmen of the modern era... big deal.
He was a very, very good player in the time he played. Not in the top league, but very much in the next class.

yeah you are right..BIG DEAL, I dont really care in the slightest if you think of him as a 'fine' test batsman, like Butcher, if you define 'fine' as 'someone who can knock the ball around a bit for a few 50s here and there, but rarely go on to produce a big score' then ok...its not how I define a fine player.
The one period of play that you quote as being Hussains best actually only lasted 3 and a half years in a career spanning from 1990 to 1994....so statisically he was only average really (just admit it), and technically he had some big flaws, thats what stopped him from being a much better batsman, in all phases of his career

And picking someone who's got no chance of success at the time you pick them is helpful how, exactly?
All it achieves is distorting their career (1989 has absolutely no meaning as far as I'm concerned when assessing Atherton).

you see Richard most people dont really care if a players stats are distorted because he played a couple of tests vs Australia in 1989 just after university.Most people can make judgements about a player by actually watching them play

And if Atherton had no chance of success in those games, then no one did, because he had actually played really well in first class cricket that season and the previous season...and to be honest when he scored his 40 odd in his second innings,alot of cricket followers were extremley impressed (not just the Lancs fan, who knew he was of that standard already)

I never saw Atherton early in his career but I can think of any number of people who've been over-burdened early on.
I highly doubt Atherton ever had Boycott's skill... which clearly some thought he did.

Overburdened????? I cant think why Atherton would have been that early in his career
Atherton was quite clearly a more natural batsman than Boycott ever was, just a different type of character, probably one who couldnt absolutely dedicated himself to the process of run scoring like Boycott could.

1999 wasn't actually the worst...
England's only truly awful series' in the 1990s were The Ashes 1990\91 and 1993, and Pakistan 1996.

but you said England didnt decend into farce during the 90's..so if there were series worse than 1999 vs NZ, then England were farcical on a number of occasions ..I will still go with 1999 as being the true low point out of the many England have experienced since the early to mid 80s, completely outplayed by a really medicore team)

 

[Swervy]

Historically batting has tended to be harder in England than pretty much anywhere.
That hasn't been true since 2002, of course. Many England batsmen average 50 at home since 2002.

many???? Trescothick and Thorpe I think who have played more than one series