Chris Read another chance?

[tooextracool]

What Read perhaps lacks is concentration for a long innings at international level, thats why we havent seeh him make one, Jones has already made 2 scores higher than Reid's highest score.

It depends on the role but i feel Jones offers us the security of a proper batsman someone who could score big, Reid doesnt

and how many times has read got the opportunity to score big? for the majority hes batted at 7 and 8 and you dont get many opportunities in that position to score big....

 

[luckyeddie]

but at no 7 jones is being wasted completely. face it how many chances is jones going to get to play a big innings at no 7? more often he will be faced with the situation of scoring quick runs in the slog overs and i dont think theres much doubt over who the better batsmen is in those situations. although its unfair to assume that read is incapable of playing the big knocks considering he hasnt been given that many opportunities to do so in ODIs.
regardless if they average the same, and one is by far the superior keeper, who deserves to be in the side?

I have no doubt too that Read is the better keeper (but the gap is closing), but whereas sides like to maintain the 'left-right' combination at the top of the order, it's also quite useful to have the 'nurdler-slogger' one at the middle/lower middle (england don't seem to have a 'bottom of the order' at the moment).

I just like slogger nurdler slogger nurdler from 5-8.

You know me, TEC - I assume some things, but I'd never assume that any player is incapable of playing big innings or scoring quickly just because it's not their normal style (we all have to change our minds about many things - that's called 'experience').

 

[Richard]

yep, it came as a major shock for pretty much everybody in the stadium that someone as little as read could pick up a shaun pollock delivery and smash it over long on for 6, he followed that with a thump straight over pollocks head for 4.

Actually that was four deliveries later, after he'd scored a single, Ealham had driven him over extra-cover then skied a leading-edge (during which they crossed) to Rhodes.

 

[tooextracool]

I have no doubt too that Read is the better keeper (but the gap is closing), but whereas sides like to maintain the 'left-right' combination at the top of the order, it's also quite useful to have the 'nurdler-slogger' one at the middle/lower middle (england don't seem to have a 'bottom of the order' at the moment).

I just like slogger nurdler slogger nurdler from 5-8.

You know me, TEC - I assume some things, but I'd never assume that any player is incapable of playing big innings or scoring quickly just because it's not their normal style (we all have to change our minds about many things - that's called 'experience').

i just dont like the reason why he was dropped....he never did anything wrong at all, jones hasnt done anything to set the world alight in county cricket in ODIs and they are batting him at 7 which means that his so called ability to play the long innings is effectively useless.

 

[tooextracool]

Actually that was four deliveries later, after he'd scored a single, Ealham had driven him over extra-cover then skied a leading-edge (during which they crossed) to Rhodes.

i didnt mean that it was the very next delivery.....

 

[Barney Rubble]

Personally, I think that it can be justified in picking Jones ahead of Read if the additional runs he scores with the bat outweigh the runs he concedes behind the stumps. No wikcetkeeper should drop catches, and Jones isn't bad enough for his catching to be considered poor, I don't think.

Given that Jones, in Tests at least, is by miles the better batsman (in my opinion) and averages about 40, Read averaging around 20 off the top of my head, I think England are justified in picking Jones, because it's unlikely he would concede on average 20 more byes per innings than Read, which he would have to do to cancel out the extra runs he scores. By picking Jones, England have a "net run gain" on average.

I'm staying out of the ODI argument, because I am always guilty of favouritism when it comes to players, so the fact that I believe Jones should play counts for nothing.

 

[tooextracool]

Personally, I think that it can be justified in picking Jones ahead of Read if the additional runs he scores with the bat outweigh the runs he concedes behind the stumps. No wikcetkeeper should drop catches, and Jones isn't bad enough for his catching to be considered poor, I don't think.

Given that Jones, in Tests at least, is by miles the better batsman (in my opinion) and averages about 40, Read averaging around 20 off the top of my head, I think England are justified in picking Jones, because it's unlikely he would concede on average 20 more byes per innings than Read, which he would have to do to cancel out the extra runs he scores. By picking Jones, England have a "net run gain" on average.

I'm staying out of the ODI argument, because I am always guilty of favouritism when it comes to players, so the fact that I believe Jones should play counts for nothing.

however the argument isnt about whether jones is justified in playing ahead of read in tests....in fact if you look at some old posts you will see that i was the first one who suggested that read needs to be dropped in the first place, and that was despite certain people on here who were totally against my belief at that point in time.
if you can come up with convincing reasons as to why read shouldnt be in the side over jones in ODIs though i would like to hear them ?

 

[Richard]

Personally, I think that it can be justified in picking Jones ahead of Read if the additional runs he scores with the bat outweigh the runs he concedes behind the stumps. No wikcetkeeper should drop catches, and Jones isn't bad enough for his catching to be considered poor, I don't think.

Given that Jones, in Tests at least, is by miles the better batsman (in my opinion) and averages about 40, Read averaging around 20 off the top of my head, I think England are justified in picking Jones, because it's unlikely he would concede on average 20 more byes per innings than Read, which he would have to do to cancel out the extra runs he scores. By picking Jones, England have a "net run gain" on average.

I'm staying out of the ODI argument, because I am always guilty of favouritism when it comes to players, so the fact that I believe Jones should play counts for nothing.

Surely no-one (though marc is still slipping in the odd quiet comment here and there, possibly trying to wait, hoping the microscopic case will intensify) would dispute Jones' claim to the spot in Test-matches.
What I want to know is, why you believe Jones should play in ODIs. Why do you let "favouritism", as you confess, to get in the way of the fact that Read has proved a pretty good performer in ODI cricket and, thus far, Jones hasn't?

 

[marc71178]

I have slipped in the odd comment because his performances with the bat have dipped considerably, and although better than Read still, they're not at the level that makes him a must-pick, especially if a poor series in South Africa happens.

 

[tooextracool]

I have slipped in the odd comment because his performances with the bat have dipped considerably, and although better than Read still, they're not at the level that makes him a must-pick, especially if a poor series in South Africa happens.

and whatever he does end up doing, read certainly isnt good enough with the bat ATM to be playing test cricket so you cant justify the fact that you didnt want him dropped in the first place.

 

[Richard]

I have slipped in the odd comment because his performances with the bat have dipped considerably, and although better than Read still, they're not at the level that makes him a must-pick, especially if a poor series in South Africa happens.

If - let's wait and see whether it does or not.

 

[sledger]

hmmmm anyone have any chance in stance now?

 

[tooextracool]

in tests- hell no

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't totally rule-out marc pointing-out a possible case for Jones being dropped if he only averages 30 or so this series.
Especially if he gets 54* tomorrow in a totally lost cause then doesn't do much in the rest of the series.

 

[tooextracool]

I wouldn't totally rule-out marc pointing-out a possible case for Jones being dropped if he only averages 30 or so this series.
Especially if he gets 54* tomorrow in a totally lost cause then doesn't do much in the rest of the series.

which still doesnt change the fact that chris read is not a test class batsman and shouldnt be in the side anyways.

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't totally rule-out marc pointing-out a possible case for Jones being dropped if he only averages 30 or so this series.

You have to look at how many runs extra he brings to the table, and whether that counters the clear difference in keeping ability.

The 2nd Test was a clear example of that - I doubt Read would've scored that 70-odd, but I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have dropped Gibbs.

 

[wpdavid]

You have to look at how many runs extra he brings to the table, and whether that counters the clear difference in keeping ability.

The 2nd Test was a clear example of that - I doubt Read would've scored that 70-odd, but I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have dropped Gibbs.

Quite. But that innings was the exception rather than the norm, which isn't what we hoped for when he replaced Read. The related question is whether Fred's a test match number 6 against decent attacks. If the answer to that is "no", and he bats at 7 against Aus, then that slightly alters what we expect from a keeper batting at 8 instead of 7.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't the best solution, then, be for Jones to be promoted to six and Flintoff to seven?
Personally I can't see Flintoff being asked to go down to seven, anyway, even if he were to get single-figure scores in all the last 4 innings.

 

[Richard]

You have to look at how many runs extra he brings to the table, and whether that counters the clear difference in keeping ability.

The 2nd Test was a clear example of that - I doubt Read would've scored that 70-odd, but I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have dropped Gibbs.

Why? Everyone drops the odd catch here and there. Even Read will drop them occasionally.
So far this series I think Jones has dropped 2 catches, maybe 3, none of which have proven remotely significant.
Nor has he let through many byes, despite a capricous pitch at Kingsmead.

 

[tooextracool]

Wouldn't the best solution, then, be for Jones to be promoted to six and Flintoff to seven?
Personally I can't see Flintoff being asked to go down to seven, anyway, even if he were to get single-figure scores in all the last 4 innings.

personally i dont see any difference between batting at 6 and 7, unless its psychological