Simon Jones

[iamdavid]

Anybody know whats going on??

Last I heard he was meant to be fully fit by now, however the Glamorgan site tells me he's played one FC game this season and returned 0-112. Has there been another injury or is he being rapped in cotton wool?..any prospect of an England return in the foreseeable future ?

 

[andmark]

I've done research,and I can't find any news. If I find some I'll post it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I remember reading indirectly how he'd had another setback but that was it.

 

[pasag]

Said in an article today on cricinfo that it's a knee problem. Didn't give much detail though.

 

[cover drive man]

I'm not sure if he'll ever be back. Poor bloke

 

[gettingbetter]

I'm just going to copy and paste something I wrote on another website, so if you don't comprehend it properly, fill in the blanks. Also, its targeted at tthose English fans who say that England will become a bowling powerhouse once he returns, and I know that there are plenty of them on here.

Good to hear Trop.

There are a few reasons for me to think this way.

(Just juxtapose it to the English mind)

1. It's been two years now:
a) Bradman wouldn't even 'walk' into a team after that long out (would he?)

2. He really isn't that good, sure he's had one good series and if we went further, he has one good test match. Just bare in mind, if any of you English fans are reading this, its not like Jones is a vital cog to the team. He 'was' a vital cog to the 2005 Ashes team - as was Harmison. But unlike Vaughan or Flintoff, picking Jones in the team (if a test was to be held now) would be as good as playing with 10 players.

3. Pecking order - Plunkett, Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom have all in my mind elapsed Jones. Its quite obvious that England are banking on the first three to play a role like the four pacemen did in 05 in England's future.

To be totally honest. I don't think Jones will ever have the three lions on his chest again.

 

[iamdavid]

I'm just going to copy and paste something I wrote on another website, so if you don't comprehend it properly, fill in the blanks. Also, its targeted at tthose English fans who say that England will become a bowling powerhouse once he returns, and I know that there are plenty of them on here.

Good to hear Trop.

There are a few reasons for me to think this way.

(Just juxtapose it to the English mind)

1. It's been two years now:
a) Bradman wouldn't even 'walk' into a team after that long out (would he?)

2. He really isn't that good, sure he's had one good series and if we went further, he has one good test match. Just bare in mind, if any of you English fans are reading this, its not like Jones is a vital cog to the team. He 'was' a vital cog to the 2005 Ashes team - as was Harmison. But unlike Vaughan or Flintoff, picking Jones in the team (if a test was to be held now) would be as good as playing with 10 players.

3. Pecking order - Plunkett, Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom have all in my mind elapsed Jones. Its quite obvious that England are banking on the first three to play a role like the four pacemen did in 05 in England's future.

To be totally honest. I don't think Jones will ever have the three lions on his chest again.

I've never heard anybody say that Jones returning specifically will turn England into a bowling powerhouse, but I certainly advocate that an England attack with Jones and Flintoff fit, Hoggard or for that matter Sidebottom, plus Harmison bowling as he was in 2005 would be a very good one, add to that Monty as opposed to Giles and I think they'd have a better attack than the one in 2005 and with Australia having lost Warne and McGrath probably the best attack on the planet today.

I dont really view Jones as a world-beater and I understand you saying he's not as good as some people may hype, but in 2005 he had finally overcome the fitness issues that were plauging him and was back to bowling full pace and with the addition of the reverse swing to his armoury he looked like a bowler who was going to win matches at test level on a regular basis...I know it was only for 4 games and only in one was he completely dominant so hailing him as some sort of potential saviour for the English attack atm is a bit over the top. But he did during that short period show what he was capable of and it was exciting/impressive enough to have people still holding out hope 2 years later.

If he does get back to complete fitness and stays that way for some legnth of time (and saying it looks 50/50 would appear optimistic by the looks of things) then I reckon the English attack would be better with than without him.

 

[steds]

3. Pecking order - Plunkett, Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom have all in my mind elapsed Jones.

1. Are you sure "elapsed" is the correct word to use in that sentence? I thought it was used purely to refer to time.

2. God help us, then.

 

[gettingbetter]

Elapsed, elipsed - my knack for the correct word has gone. Either way, as long as my point is understood, there really isn't an issue.

 

[NZTailender]

Simon Jones - a poor mans Bond?

 

[Woodster]

I think a fully fit Simon Jones is an excellent player to have in the side. Naturally if he does return, the worries regarding fitness will be there, and whether he will be the same bowler.

If he returns to how he was, he will bring strength to our attack, and is a a genuine wicket-taker. His new found ability to reverse swing, at decent pace, is certainly something we missed on the tour to Pakistan for example, and gives the attack some much needed aggression. A big blow for us him being out for so long.

 

[Richard]

Pecking order - Plunkett, Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom have all in my mind elapsed Jones.

God help us, then.

Indeed.

He 'was' a vital cog to the 2005 Ashes team - as was Harmison.

No... he wasn't! Taking a load of lower-order wickets in a Test that was lost by over 200 runs does NOT equate to being a vital cog in a series victory! To even remotely compare Harmison's part in the victory to Jones' is to display a dismal ignorance of facts. Harmison played less of a part in that series victory than anyone else in England colours.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Indeed.

Harmison played less of a part in that series victory than anyone else in England colours.

Even Ian Bell.

 

[Richard]

Yes, even Ian Bell. Harmison took a total of three legitimate wickets (ie not to bad lbw decisions) of top-order batsmen in the important 4 Tests, one of which was right at the end of proceedings.

Bell scored 6, 21, 59 (thanks to a let-off), 65, 3, 3, 0 and 0, which is hardly impressive, but it's still more than Harmison did.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Harmison took a total of three legitimate wickets (ie not to bad lbw decisions)

What?.

 

[Richard]

Here's the wickets that went to Harmison's name in the scorebook in the 4 Tests of importance:
Clarke bowled - good piece of bowling, though not as good as it's sometimes been made-out
Kasprowicz caught behind - should already have been out to other bowlers 3 times, and is a tailender of very limited ability
Martyn lbw - poor decision, was a clear inside-edge
Ponting caught behind - game almost over by then, and was hardly an impressive delivery anyway, down the leg-side
Clarke lbw - straight ball that was missed, out
Katich lbw - absolutely terrible decision, pitched a mile outside leg
Kasprowicz caught behind - tailender
Tait bowled - tailender, one of the most stupid shots in history to boot
Langer bowled - off the inside-edge, very poor stroke

See? 3 dismissals worth consideration, and none of them were even to particularly special deliveries.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Richard, I know you're trying to prove a point but your Harmison "bashing" (and that's what i'd call it) is getting quite tedious. You seem extremely reluctant to even give him the slighest bit of credit. That Clarke wicket was a "special" ball as it was wonderfully disguised. The thing is you seem to instantly not give an once of credit apart from "special" deliveries. What bowler in the history of cricket has got all his wickets pitching middle seaming away to find the outside edge?.

 

[Richard]

Wonderfully disguised? You crazy? Harmison has about the worst disguised slower-ball I've ever seen - he just allows his arm over slower, it's the most laughably obvious thing in The World. Clarke quite clearly picked that slower-ball, watch it, it was line, not speed, that he got wrong.

If Harmison ever does anything of note, I'll happily praise him for it, but given how rare that is... sadly, my monotonous putting him down must continue while people praise him for things he's not worthy of praise for. That includes slower-balls that happen to take wickets.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What bowler in the history of cricket has got all his wickets pitching middle seaming away to find the outside edge?.

Mark Ealham. Duh.

 

[Richard]

Sorely tempted to use a Rolleyes there, TBH.