Chris Read another chance?

[superkingdave]

what has matt prior been doing in domestic cricket lately? played the 1 ODI in zimbabwe and got 30 odd.

He scored 1158 runs @ 46.32 last year with 3 centuries but that included 201* against Loughborough

 

[tooextracool]

technique?

 

[Richard]

Very, very suspect - it's rather surprising he's even scored the runs he has, and in all honesty I can't see him being successful for that much longer.
Not a particularly brilliant wicketkeeper either.

 

[Richard]

Not to mention his "not scoring enough runs to justify the drops & the byes" issue!

TBF he's not really conceded an unacceptible number of byes at all - especially given the usual quota of almost-unstoppable byes.

 

[Richard]

Jones' batting has been far from alright in this series, 2nd innings in Durban excepted. I'm prepared to believe he has more ability than Read as a batsman, but it hasn't amounted to much in terms of runs in the book now that we're facing a decent attack.

If this is really a decent attack I'm worried what'll happen when we face McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz on a seamer or Warne on a turner!
If Nel and Kallis bowl well at Centurion then South Africa have the makings of a decent attack, but one that includes Steyn, Boje (on a normal pitch) and a totally-out-of-touch Kallis cannot in any way be described as decent.

 

[Richard]

If, as looks very likely, we don't win this match

Nice surprise there, eh?

 

[Richard]

Erm, I think there's a difference between half an hour at the end of a day when England had dominated with the bat and were in a great position and a weeks break between games.

Although, even today showed how a late wicket can bring another one - which kind of supports what I was saying.

All it showed was how often the momentum will swing - for one side to be on top for very long is almost inconceivable in light of the two most recent series.

 

[Richard]

the outcome of the series(2-1) made it appear closer than it was. the fact is that it would have in all likelyhood have been 3-0 had cronje not been so generous. the problem was that we played extremely poorly in the first test and face it it was in unfair conditions and this led to everyone believing that we would be hammered 4-0, but the fact is that SA were helped by winning the toss.

which is precisely the point. no one expected england to be whitewashed, but most people thought that they would lose in the 2-0 to 3-0 range, and well they did effectively lose 2-0 in 4 games.

Even if England had won the toss at The Wanderers I'd be very surprised if SA had not won the game.
It'd have been closer, almost certainly, but the disparity in ability was so large that they would almost certainly win from any position on that type of pitch.
I think most people were expecting a 4-0 defeat or so, especially after The First Test.
Even The Fourth Test - had it not been following from Kingsmead and 2 days in the field, that might have been different.
2-0 was a closer result than I think most people expected.

 

[Richard]

no he didnt come in a difficult situation but he didnt come in to bat in a comfortable situation where you were expected to throw your bat around, which is what jones did. he came in when england were effectively 121/4 after a mini collapse, certainly another wicket and england would have been in serious trouble. he then played an extremely mature innings, the type that he played at old trafford against the WI and helped england get into a good position and let jones cut loose and play his strokes freely, something that he enjoys doing- almost brainlessly at times. certainly a mature inning under pressure is far better than a carefree inning under no pressure.

flintoff got 35 in the first inning of the first test, jones got barely anything.

the overall impression was that jones played outperformed flintoff in 1 test and did worse than flintoff in 2. hence theres absolutely no way that he could have performed better than flintoff throughout the series. and incidentally you said that jones had been batting better than flintoff for the last 3 games, something which he clearly never did.

And both have now had a ghastly game here (Flintoff 8, Jones 15, in 2 innings each) so I'd say they're probably now equally poor.

 

[marc71178]

All it showed was how often the momentum will swing - for one side to be on top for very long is almost inconceivable in light of the two most recent series.

Point














Richard.





nope, you've missed it again.

 

[wpdavid]

If this is really a decent attack I'm worried what'll happen when we face McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz on a seamer or Warne on a turner!
If Nel and Kallis bowl well at Centurion then South Africa have the makings of a decent attack, but one that includes Steyn, Boje (on a normal pitch) and a totally-out-of-touch Kallis cannot in any way be described as decent.

Simply by the presence of Pollock & Ntini, Jones is facing a better attack than he did against WI or NZ. Whether that makes it "decent" is arguable either way, so forgive me if I can't be bothered to discuss it. Like you, I don't hold much hope for him doing a thing against the Aus boys.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBF he's not really conceded an unacceptible number of byes at all - especially given the usual quota of almost-unstoppable byes.

Dunno what you'd call "unacceptable", but in 11 tests Read has conceded 35 byes, in 12 Jones has conceded 137.

Now, I'm no statistician, but.....slight discrepancy, no?

 

[tooextracool]

Even if England had won the toss at The Wanderers I'd be very surprised if SA had not won the game.
It'd have been closer, almost certainly, but the disparity in ability was so large that they would almost certainly win from any position on that type of pitch..

yet you dont use the same concept for the rest of the series and think that it was a close series.

I think most people were expecting a 4-0 defeat or so, especially after The First Test.
Even The Fourth Test - had it not been following from Kingsmead and 2 days in the field, that might have been different.
2-0 was a closer result than I think most people expected.

fact is that had we not batted first, we could quite possibly have won or at least come close to winning that game. and then of course no one would have expected a 4-0 series loss. so all this closer than expected is all rubbish, fact is we got dropped on our a**es in that series and never stood a chance. its a bit like saying the australia- bangadesh series was 'closer than expected' and putting it down as though it was a great series.

 

[tooextracool]

And both have now had a ghastly game here (Flintoff 8, Jones 15, in 2 innings each) so I'd say they're probably now equally poor.

yes now, but it still doesnt change the fact that flintoff out performed jones for the first 2.

 

[Alan B]

There is no doubt that Chris Reads ability to keep wicket is one of the best in the world it is only his performances withe bat that hav perhaps let him down.
Whilst holding down a respectable 1st class average he has been unable to take any form with him into the test arena.

My question is that even if Geraint Jones misses another match through injury or whatever substance will Read be given another chance, i mean within the next 2 years will he have been overtaken in the pecking order by another up and coming keeper such as james foster?

I am a big Chris Read fan and would like to see him get another chance but realistivcally i would say that his ship as sailed and although it is a terrible shame i cannot see him re-emerging as englands wicket keeper unless something drastically goes wrong with geraint jones.

No doubt whatsoever; Chris Read is a better wicketkeeper than Jones. Obviously he hasn't the charisma of Jones, but merely efficient, competent, and modest.
It is fairly clear that Mr Fletcher decided to replace him with someone who is likely to score more runs, rather than save runs and take catches. Sadly, this is the narrow view at present.
]Alpal

 

[Richard]

Point














Richard.





nope, you've missed it again.

Nope, I simply don't see that you have one at all.

 

[Richard]

Simply by the presence of Pollock & Ntini, Jones is facing a better attack than he did against WI or NZ. Whether that makes it "decent" is arguable either way, so forgive me if I can't be bothered to discuss it. Like you, I don't hold much hope for him doing a thing against the Aus boys.

I'd say the attack of the final Test was pretty close to decent: Pollock, Nel, Ntini, Kallis.

 

[Richard]

Dunno what you'd call "unacceptable", but in 11 tests Read has conceded 35 byes, in 12 Jones has conceded 137.

Now, I'm no statistician, but.....slight discrepancy, no?

Yeah, big discrepancy, obviously.
How many of the Jones ones have been unstoppable, I wonder? I've certainly not regularly found myself thinking "how's he missed that?"

 

[Richard]

yet you dont use the same concept for the rest of the series and think that it was a close series.

3 Tests with no side getting unfair advantage - South Africa obviously superior to England - South Africa win just 1, 2 draws, England dominate at times, even enforcing the follow-on.
That applying enough rest of series for you?

fact is that had we not batted first, we could quite possibly have won or at least come close to winning that game. and then of course no one would have expected a 4-0 series loss. so all this closer than expected is all rubbish, fact is we got dropped on our a**es in that series and never stood a chance. its a bit like saying the australia- bangadesh series was 'closer than expected' and putting it down as though it was a great series.

I never said it was a great series, just that - even before that First Test - everyone was expecting England to get annhailated.

 

[Richard]

yes now, but it still doesnt change the fact that flintoff out performed jones for the first 2.

He did, but so what?
We can now say that Flintoff overall had a better series, so no need for any fuss about it.