• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Worst Current Fielder?

PY

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
In terms of fielding among wicketkeepers, Geraint Jones has a LONG way to go before he warrants a spot on his glovework alone. He has to stop giving those easy byes. Concentration is the key.
He did OK when Lara got 400* though didn't he?

I would say that yet again a British summer has gone by with none of the wickies having a very good time. Baugh had a ponger when he played and Ridley Jacobs was far from fantastic. Not as a criticism to them but maybe it is an indication as to how difficult it can be to 'keep in England?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
PY said:
He did OK when Lara got 400* though didn't he?

I would say that yet again a British summer has gone by with none of the wickies having a very good time. Baugh had a ponger when he played and Ridley Jacobs was far from fantastic. Not as a criticism to them but maybe it is an indication as to how difficult it can be to 'keep in England?
Some things to note...

1/ The ARG track was a beautiful track to bat on. The ball bounced consistently at a perfect height for collection and the pace was good too. Props to Jones for his exercise in concentration, but the 'keeping itself wasn't exactly made to be hell.

2/ Baugh was very poor in the 3rd Test but quite good in the 4th. You have to admit that.

3/ Jacobs is never fantastic. He's always solid though and he didn't make too many mistakes. He gave up 13 byes in 2 Tests, whilst out there for 397.3 overs... not including noballs and wides. Jones gave up 51 in those 2 Tests alone, in 343.1 overs. I really don't see any comparison and hence no basis for bringing up Jacobs' performance.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
And I can't be alone in noticing he didn't make that many runs against the West Indies...
116 runs at 23.20, but I think we're all agreed that his batting better than Read's and probably any other "wicketkeeper" in the country, but that's not my focus. He's not a terrible 'keeper, just quite mediocre IMO.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
PY said:
He did OK when Lara got 400* though didn't he?

I would say that yet again a British summer has gone by with none of the wickies having a very good time. Baugh had a ponger when he played and Ridley Jacobs was far from fantastic. Not as a criticism to them but maybe it is an indication as to how difficult it can be to 'keep in England?
Stewart never did much wrong, but Jones isn't in his league yet.
Jacobs in 2004 - OK, but not brilliant. Certainly better than in 2000.
Baugh in 2004 - very poor at Old Trafford, not too bad at The Oval. Liam - you can say the same thing here as you can of Jones at ARG.
McCullum in 2004 - suprisingly not-awful for a relatively new man to the gloves. But still not convincing at all.
Boucher in 2003 - almost every bit as poor as in 1998.
Taibu in 2003 - exceptional.
Patel in 2002 - not abysmal, but not brilliant either.
Ratra in 2002 - very poor.
Sangakkara in 2002 - pretty good, but not in Stewart's league either.
Gilchrist in 2001 - got a bit better as the series wore on, but not great.
Latif in 2001 - very good, as becomes one of the best wicketkeepers the game's seen over the past 10 years.
Jacobs in 2000 - pretty poor.
Andy Flower in 2000 - very, very, very poor. But of course he did have distractions, aplenty.
Parore in 1999 - not brilliant, but better than some.
Boucher in 1998 - clearly had a lot to learn.
Don't remember so much from Healey backwards.
But I've always been amazed at how little the ball tends to swing after the bat elsewhere. That's the main reason it's incomparable.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And I can't be alone in noticing he didn't make that many runs against the West Indies...
So far in his career he's had 4 bad matches and 4 good ones.
Perfectly fine by my standards.
Let's wait and see him against South Africa before making judgements that he's not as good as everything suggests he is after all.
It seems you're something close to alone, incidentally, given that no-one has made any public complaints about his form.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I think it got overlooked because England were winning, but still don't think that his WI series was that great, and hia keeping still hasn't won me over.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
I think it got overlooked because England were winning, but still don't think that his WI series was that great, and hia keeping still hasn't won me over.
No, I don't think it has anyone.
But nonetheless he hasn't made any mistakes that have even looked like being crucial.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
With all due respect, you saw 5 Tests of Jacobs in 2000. I think I saw 11.
I saw the ones in England - that's all I was referring to.
I was talking about how difficult 'keeping in England is, compared to other places.
I've always rated Jacobs as a thoroughly competant wicketkeeper.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear I was referring to England, I tried my best.
 
Last edited:

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
I saw the ones in England - that's all I was referring to.
I was talking about how difficult 'keeping in England is, compared to other places.
I've always rated Jacobs as a thoroughly competant wicketkeeper.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear I was referring to England, I tried my best.
In that case, fair enough. The entire team had a shocking 3 Tests on that tour.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
So far in his career he's had 4 bad matches and 4 good ones.
Perfectly fine by my standards.
Let's wait and see him against South Africa before making judgements that he's not as good as everything suggests he is after all.
It seems you're something close to alone, incidentally, given that no-one has made any public complaints about his form.
what now? hes only really had 2 good test matches....a 38 and a 10* on the flattest track of the yr doesnt qualify as being good(although not bad either) and a 46 against NZ on another flat track isnt 'good' either. on the whole hes had 2 good games, 2 ok games and 4 bad ones.
the problem that he has is that he plays too many shots before getting set, and as players like vaughan have realised you only go for your shots early on in your innings if its there to be hit.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
lord_of_darkness said:
Ganguly , Inzamam and Nehra.. i think inzamam has improved lots out of the 2 though..
inzamam has never been a poor fielder....poor runner maybe but he has the safest pair of hands in the entire side. makes a good slipper.
 

Andre

International Regular
tooextracool said:
inzamam has never been a poor fielder....poor runner maybe but he has the safest pair of hands in the entire side. makes a good slipper.
And a fantastic arm from the boundary.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
what now? hes only really had 2 good test matches....a 38 and a 10* on the flattest track of the yr doesnt qualify as being good(although not bad either) and a 46 against NZ on another flat track isnt 'good' either. on the whole hes had 2 good games, 2 ok games and 4 bad ones.
the problem that he has is that he plays too many shots before getting set, and as players like vaughan have realised you only go for your shots early on in your innings if its there to be hit.
And why do you go for your shots? Yes, because you think it's there to be hit.
The problems come, and they have done on occasions for Jones, with playing shots against balls that are not there to play them to.
And equally, there have been other causes of his failures when they have happened.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
And why do you go for your shots? Yes, because you think it's there to be hit.
The problems come, and they have done on occasions for Jones, with playing shots against balls that are not there to play them to.
And equally, there have been other causes of his failures when they have happened.
err yes that is precisely what i said.....jones is just like solanki, both of them play their shots too early on in their innings. yes obviously he thinks its there to be hit,but whats your point? the point is that irrespective of what he thinks more often than not they are actually not there to be hit....unless of course you are well set and therefore timing everything well enough
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The point I am making is that you seem to be saying certain deliveries are always there to hit, when in fact what "is there to hit" changes from:
batsman to batsman
period of innings to period of innings
being in good nick to being in poor nick
See?
"Ball that is there to hit" is not a constant.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
The point I am making is that you seem to be saying certain deliveries are always there to hit, when in fact what "is there to hit" changes from:
batsman to batsman
period of innings to period of innings
being in good nick to being in poor nick
See?
"Ball that is there to hit" is not a constant.
obviously there are certain deliveries that are always there to be hit....youd want to put away half volleys and long hops early on in your innings and get some confidence into yourself.
and where have i ever denied that what is there to be hit depends from all of those conditions? the problem with geraint jones is that even when he isnt seeing the ball of the middle of the bat he is still trying to play his shots when the ball is not there to be hit.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
what now? hes only really had 2 good test matches....a 38 and a 10* on the flattest track of the yr doesnt qualify as being good(although not bad either) and a 46 against NZ on another flat track isnt 'good' either. on the whole hes had 2 good games, 2 ok games and 4 bad ones.
the problem that he has is that he plays too many shots before getting set, and as players like vaughan have realised you only go for your shots early on in your innings if its there to be hit.
Chris Read had 11 bad games then, so Jones is doing ok?
 

Top