Read this

[Alan B]

As an unrepentent fan of Chris Read - you would expect it, being a Notts supporter - I accept that he has his faults as a batsman, but suggest he must be adversely affected by criticism of this aspect of his game.

I say, contrary to Duncan Fletcher, he should be picked soley on his wicketkeeping, which stands comparison with anyone in world cricket.

Do this, lay off him, and his batting will blossom, given the chance over a period of time.

 

[silentstriker]

Test cricket is not a place where you ought to be coddled.

 

[AussieDominance]

He has earned another chance that's all that matter's atm.

 

[Prince EWS]

The current balance of the English team certainly does not allow a player to be picked on wicket keeping alone. If he can't manage to average 30 odd with the bat, which I personally don't think he can, he should not be in the side unless the balance changes.

 

[silentstriker]

[top 5 as it is]
6. A batsman
7. Flintoff
8. Read/Jones
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Panesar

But they need someone from the top six who can send down a good 15 overs a test match.

 

[GIMH]

[top 5 as it is]
6. A batsman
7. Flintoff
8. Read/Jones
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Panesar

But they need someone from the top six who can send down a good 15 overs a test match.

Colly, Bell and Pietersen can do that between them

 

[Prince EWS]

[top 5 as it is]
6. A batsman
7. Flintoff
8. Read/Jones
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Panesar

But they need someone from the top six who can send down a good 15 overs a test match.

Paul Collingwood has 100 first class wickets. I certainly think he could do a job, especially on a helpful track. Problems arise when Simon Jones returns though - you'd end up with Flintoff at 6 again or you'd have to drop Harmison...

There would also be the option of picking Dalrymple to bat at #6 and be used as a second spinner.

 

[silentstriker]

Paul Collingwood has 100 first class wickets. I certainly think he could do a job, especially on a helpful track. Problems arise when Simon Jones returns though - you'd end up with Flintoff at 6 again or you'd have to drop Harmison...

There would also be the option of picking Dalrymple to bat at #6 and be used as a second spinner.

If he returns, you mean. Is it a sure thing?

 

[silentstriker]

If he returns, you mean. Is it a sure thing?

Morkel gone..declaration comes now?

 

[superkingdave]

Even if he does we can just drop Harmison

 

[silentstriker]

Wrong thread.

 

[GIMH]

I've no problem with a seamer getting dropped, it would possibly lead to better performances.

Hoggard was due to be dropped prior to Nagpur earlier in the year; Jones pulled up injured, and Hoggard took 6 in the 1st dig, got himelf a motorbike. Funny how things pan out really.

 

[superkingdave]

Morkel gone..declaration comes now?

too quick for you're own good

 

[social]

[top 5 as it is]
6. A batsman
7. Flintoff
8. Read/Jones
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Panesar

But they need someone from the top six who can send down a good 15 overs a test match.

Agreed

Flintoff is not a top 6 batsman and neither keeper is good enought to bat at 7

 

[cameeel]

The current balance of the English team certainly does not allow a player to be picked on wicket keeping alone. If he can't manage to average 30 odd with the bat, which I personally don't think he can, he should not be in the side unless the balance changes.

It doesn't, but surely the wicket keeper should be picked primarily on his skill behind the stumps. If the England line up can't carry a #7/#8 who averages 20, then the problem with the side is not the wicket keeper, but the batsmen above him.

Jones' place in the side shouldn't be justified or defended (and i'm not implying that you are defending him) on the merits of his batting, unless it's of a very poor standard - which isn't the case with Read. There shouldn't be a problem with the balance of the English side, and Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard is by no means a bad side. The problem with the England side is not the balance or the choice of wicket keeper, but the continued under-performance by allegedly test-class batsmen.

Why not play three specalist bowlers, and Flintoff if the balance of their batting line-up is such a problem?

 

[Tomm NCCC]

First of all nice to have another notts supporter on the forum,

I think we can all agree that Read is the better Glovesman, but if we pick someone purely on their keeping skills, then I dont think that would be too wise. I know that if you relieve the pressure on him, his batting is mroe than likely to improve, but in this day and age, we need someone who can react well under pressure, with both bat and gloves. Readys 26* the otehr was encouraging, and I wouldve been interested in seeing him being able to bat for another hour. The truth is that if he doesnt do it often enough, and if another good all-round keeper came into the fray, I would want him in for a couple of games.

 

[Prince EWS]

It doesn't, but surely the wicket keeper should be picked primarily on his skill behind the stumps.

Surely anyone expected to bat #7 in the lineup should be able to average 30 with the bat though.

Jones' place in the side shouldn't be justified or defended (and i'm not implying that you are defending him) on the merits of his batting, unless it's of a very poor standard - which isn't the case with Read. There shouldn't be a problem with the balance of the English side, and Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard is by no means a bad side. The problem with the England side is not the balance or the choice of wicket keeper, but the continued under-performance by allegedly test-class batsmen.

England have quite poor (in terms of batting) number 6 and number 8 batsmen. You'd expect your #6 to average in the 35-40 range and your #8 to average in the 17-20 range, but neither exists within the England team. So to have a keeper that averages 20 really just kills the whole batting lineup.

Why not play three specalist bowlers, and Flintoff if the balance of their batting line-up is such a problem?

That is why I said "unless the balance is changed." If England move Flintoff to 7 and have their keeper at 8, Read is a perfectly acceptable choice. I still think Jones, if he can actually find some decent batting knick, is the better option though - I don't think his keeping is significantly worse than Read's and it has really improved. He himself can't buy a run either though so he's been deservedly dropped - his role in the side as a #7 averaging 30 odd who can keep hasn't been fulfilled.

 

[Krishna_j]

I remember a similar instance when Bob Taylor's inferior batting in comparison to Knott came up for scrutiny - but Taylor excelled with his limited batting and was always a doughty fighter for England in front of the stumps and excelled behind it when he got the chance to keep

I say go for Read - the extra runs Jones may score will be offset by keeping and the odd crucial miss - besides the more competent the keeper the more inspired will be the bowling (this Ashes series excluded )

 

[steds]

he should be picked soley on his wicketkeeping, which stands comparison with anyone in world cricket.

Jones' keeping this Ashes series was on a par with anything we've seen from Read since being recalled last summer. Read's an overrated gloveman (and a pap batsman to boot.)

 

[marc71178]

Paul Collingwood has 100 first class wickets. I certainly think he could do a job, especially on a helpful track. Problems arise when Simon Jones returns though - you'd end up with Flintoff at 6 again or you'd have to drop Harmison...

Where's the problem there? (assuming Jones is fit enough to be one of 4 bowlers)

There would also be the option of picking Dalrymple to bat at #6 and be used as a second spinner.

God no.