13 Feb 2005 16:20:20
Outlaw
Head above the sandbags again!

The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
please.




13 Feb 2005 16:26:43
Outlaw
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com > wrote in message
news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
> please.

Don't know where the 'wides' came from! still fuming. Make that 4 wides + 6
runs.




13 Feb 2005 16:51:44
Rob
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com > wrote in message
news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
> please.
>
Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in one
test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a bloke
who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for all
his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite - but
he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.

I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals and
keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has a
right to be tired, it's him.




13 Feb 2005 17:08:59
Outlaw
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com > wrote in message
news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
> and keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has
> a right to be tired, it's him.

Agreed, Read for ODI's, Jones for test matches. Horses for course, and I do
like Jones batting down the order.




13 Feb 2005 17:20:01
Jim Brant
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com > wrote in message
news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com> wrote in message
> news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
> > please.
> >
> Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in one
> test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a bloke
> who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for all
> his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite - but
> he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.
>
> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
and
> keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has a
> right to be tired, it's him.
>
Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.

Jim




13 Feb 2005 17:57:48
Adam Buttery
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a pretty
bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be keeping
for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps in the
tests against Bangladesh.


"Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com > wrote in message
news:LQLPd.1204$xg6.585@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
> news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
>> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
>> and keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has
>> a right to be tired, it's him.
>
> Agreed, Read for ODI's, Jones for test matches. Horses for course, and I
> do like Jones batting down the order.
>




13 Feb 2005 20:48:15
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a pretty
> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be keeping
> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps in the
> tests against Bangladesh.

How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give Tim Ambrose
the gloves when they are both in the side.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




13 Feb 2005 20:58:02
JP
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Jim Brant" <jim@brantj.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cuo27d$4f5$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
> news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com> wrote in message
>> news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> > The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
>> > please.
>> >
>> Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in one
>> test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a
>> bloke
>> who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for
>> all
>> his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite - but
>> he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.
>>
>> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
> and
>> keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has a
>> right to be tired, it's him.
>>
> Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
>
> Jim

What did Alec Stewart do?




13 Feb 2005 20:58:59
Rob
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Jim Brant" <jim@brantj.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cuo27d$4f5$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
> news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com> wrote in message
>> news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> > The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
>> > please.
>> >
>> Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in one
>> test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a
>> bloke
>> who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for
>> all
>> his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite - but
>> he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.
>>
>> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
> and
>> keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has a
>> right to be tired, it's him.
>>
> Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
>
> Jim
>
>
This is just the point. Apart from Fletcher, is there anyone out there who
actually supports Jones opening - rhetorical question.

Incidentally I heard Neil Manthorpe on TS the other day talking about an
interview he'd done with Strauss who toed the party line (I prefer batting
at 4 to opening) but apparently without much conviction! It would appear
the decision isn't popular within the team, let alone with us keyboard
pundits!




13 Feb 2005 22:00:19
Matt Wheeler
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:379snlF5ase2jU1@individual.net...
> "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
>> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
>> pretty
>> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be
>> keeping
>> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps
>> in the
>> tests against Bangladesh.
>
> How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give
> Tim Ambrose
> the gloves when they are both in the side.
>

That was my understanding as well, which is why i personally am
surprised at all this talk of having him keep for England, when he is
the 2nd choice at Sussex.




13 Feb 2005 22:06:57
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com > wrote in message
news:ncPPd.466$D_3.120@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Jim Brant" <jim@brantj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cuo27d$4f5$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
> > news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> >>
> >> "Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com> wrote in message
> >> news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >> > The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris Read
> >> > please.
> >> >
> >> Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in one
> >> test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a
> >> bloke
> >> who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for
> >> all
> >> his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite - but
> >> he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.
> >>
> >> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the internationals
> > and
> >> keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has a
> >> right to be tired, it's him.
> >>
> > Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> This is just the point. Apart from Fletcher, is there anyone out there who
> actually supports Jones opening - rhetorical question.
>
> Incidentally I heard Neil Manthorpe on TS the other day talking about an
> interview he'd done with Strauss who toed the party line (I prefer batting
> at 4 to opening)

That'll be why he always batted at 4 when he was captain at Middlesex.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




13 Feb 2005 22:16:42
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Matt Wheeler" <spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:KeOdnXsLEeJ6UJLfRVnyjw@pipex.net...
>
> "David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:379snlF5ase2jU1@individual.net...
> > "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> >> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
> >> pretty
> >> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be
> >> keeping
> >> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps
> >> in the
> >> tests against Bangladesh.
> >
> > How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give
> > Tim Ambrose
> > the gloves when they are both in the side.
> >
>
> That was my understanding as well, which is why i personally am
> surprised at all this talk of having him keep for England, when he is
> the 2nd choice at Sussex.

He was in the tour party to Namibia and Zimbabwe, but AIUI, that was because he
was able to cover for both the keeper and the batsmen. Note that both matches he
played were as a specialist batsman.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




13 Feb 2005 22:47:59
Mark Banfield
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:19 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
<spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:

>
>"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:379snlF5ase2jU1@individual.net...
>> "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
>>> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
>>> pretty
>>> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be
>>> keeping
>>> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps
>>> in the
>>> tests against Bangladesh.
>>
>> How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give
>> Tim Ambrose
>> the gloves when they are both in the side.
>>
>
>That was my understanding as well, which is why i personally am
>surprised at all this talk of having him keep for England, when he is
>the 2nd choice at Sussex.
>

Well, Ambrose isn't eligible for England, is he ? And AIUI Prior's specific
problem is that he can't keep to Mushtaq Ahmed, which isn't really relevent to
whether or not he can do the job for England.

Prior is the only keeper in the England A squad - captained by Bell - which is
going to Sri Lanka in a couple of days, which does suggest that the selectors
have got him in the frame for the the senior team.


14 Feb 2005 00:49:08
David Buttery
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk > wrote here on 13
Feb 2005:

> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
> pretty bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who
> should be keeping for England. I would like to see Matt Prior
> given a chance, perhaps in the tests against Bangladesh.

What do you have against Read? Is your lack of enthusiasm because of
his batting, or his keeping?

(Disclaimer: I am no relation of Adam's! ;) )

--
Please remove ".invalid" to reply by email.

Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html


14 Feb 2005 01:17:06
TF
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

> What do you have against Read? Is your lack of enthusiasm because of
> his batting, or his keeping?
>
> (Disclaimer: I am no relation of Adam's! ;) )
>

Read is a great keeper, but now it seems you need a keeper who can average
at least 30ish. As much as Read's batting seems to have improved, he still
looks to be more of a Bob Taylor than an Alan Knott, which will go against
him, whether he's up against Jones, Foster or Prior.




14 Feb 2005 14:17:23
Andrew Dunford
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Mark Banfield" <aocg00@xtreme.pipex.net > wrote in message
news:u2mv019oc85ud0962jbgq0jfismb4gd41d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:19 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
> <spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:379snlF5ase2jU1@individual.net...
> >> "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> >>> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
> >>> pretty
> >>> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be
> >>> keeping
> >>> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps
> >>> in the
> >>> tests against Bangladesh.
> >>
> >> How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give
> >> Tim Ambrose
> >> the gloves when they are both in the side.
> >>
> >
> >That was my understanding as well, which is why i personally am
> >surprised at all this talk of having him keep for England, when he is
> >the 2nd choice at Sussex.
> >
>
> Well, Ambrose isn't eligible for England, is he ?

My understanding is that Ambrose became eligible at about the same time as
Pietersen - September 2004.

<snip >

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 08:22:39
Steve Hague
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


> > Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
> >
> > Jim
>
> What did Alec Stewart do?
>
He generally batted down the order when he was keeping wicket.
Steve Hague




14 Feb 2005 14:03:18
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Mark Banfield" <aocg00@xtreme.pipex.net > wrote in message
news:u2mv019oc85ud0962jbgq0jfismb4gd41d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:19 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
> <spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:379snlF5ase2jU1@individual.net...
> >> "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:My-dnQPQOIK5CJLfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> >>> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
> >>> pretty
> >>> bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who should be
> >>> keeping
> >>> for England. I would like to see Matt Prior given a chance, perhaps
> >>> in the
> >>> tests against Bangladesh.
> >>
> >> How good a keeper is Prior, though? Sussex seem to prefer to give
> >> Tim Ambrose
> >> the gloves when they are both in the side.
> >>
> >
> >That was my understanding as well, which is why i personally am
> >surprised at all this talk of having him keep for England, when he is
> >the 2nd choice at Sussex.
> >
>
> Well, Ambrose isn't eligible for England, is he ?

Whether he is or not is not really the point.

> And AIUI Prior's specific
> problem is that he can't keep to Mushtaq Ahmed, which isn't really relevent to
> whether or not he can do the job for England.

Fair enough if he's good enough to keep to England's bowlers.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




14 Feb 2005 20:03:43
Mark Banfield
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:03:18 -0000, "David North"
<dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote:

>"Mark Banfield" <aocg00@xtreme.pipex.net> wrote in message
>news:u2mv019oc85ud0962jbgq0jfismb4gd41d@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:19 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
>> <spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>

[snip]

>> And AIUI Prior's specific
>> problem is that he can't keep to Mushtaq Ahmed, which isn't really relevent to
>> whether or not he can do the job for England.
>
>Fair enough if he's good enough to keep to England's bowlers.

It's worth bearing in mind that Prior played, and kept wicket, for various
England age-group sides up to and including the under-19s ; and has also spent
the last 2 winters at he academy - including as keeper for the
academy-masquerading-as-an-A-team in India last winter. So if the England
management are guessing about his keeping, it is at least an educated guess.

Maybe it's Sussex who have got it wrong ?


15 Feb 2005 13:38:04
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Steve Hague" <steve.hague@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:37b5eeF58q24hU1@individual.net...
>
> > > Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > What did Alec Stewart do?
> >
> He generally batted down the order when he was keeping wicket.
> Steve Hague

Not in ODIs - he opened 76 times out of 132 when he was 'keeper.

He was, however, used to facing the new ball, which Jones isn't, and he was a
much better batsman.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




15 Feb 2005 19:02:23
Adam Buttery
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

Reads keeping is pretty good, but I think he has a lot to prove batting
wise, especially at international level against the top sides.
Jones keeping hasn't been the greatest, but he looked like he had something
to offer in the shape of his batting until he came up against the South
Africans, which makes me think he will struggle other top sides.
Prior I think has much potential, and I think he is being groomed for a
chance in the near future.

"David Buttery" <rabbiteer@gmail.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:Xns95FD85681389rabbiteergmail@130.133.1.4...
> "Adam Buttery" <adbuttery@adbuttery.karoo.co.uk> wrote here on 13
> Feb 2005:
>
>> Personally I'm not a big fan of Chris Read. I feel Jones has had a
>> pretty bad tour, and questions have to be asked again as to who
>> should be keeping for England. I would like to see Matt Prior
>> given a chance, perhaps in the tests against Bangladesh.
>
> What do you have against Read? Is your lack of enthusiasm because of
> his batting, or his keeping?
>
> (Disclaimer: I am no relation of Adam's! ;) )
>
> --
> Please remove ".invalid" to reply by email.
>
> Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
> http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html




15 Feb 2005 21:51:30
Andrew Bull
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

TF wrote in message ...
>Read is a great keeper, but now it seems you need a keeper who can average
>at least 30ish. As much as Read's batting seems to have improved, he still
>looks to be more of a Bob Taylor than an Alan Knott, which will go against
>him, whether he's up against Jones, Foster or Prior.


How good is Foster's batting? His first-class average in the latest Playfair
(which is, I admit, a year out of date now) is lower than Read's.




16 Feb 2005 07:47:13
DAVID LEWIS
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cutr1n$pfc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> TF wrote in message ...
> >Read is a great keeper, but now it seems you need a keeper who can
average
> >at least 30ish. As much as Read's batting seems to have improved, he
still
> >looks to be more of a Bob Taylor than an Alan Knott, which will go
against
> >him, whether he's up against Jones, Foster or Prior.
>
>
> How good is Foster's batting? His first-class average in the latest
Playfair
> (which is, I admit, a year out of date now) is lower than Read's.
>
IIRC it improved hugely in 2004, when he managed some very big scores
indeed. From what I remember of his number of droped catches 2001/02, I
hope his keeping has done likewise.

Cheers

David




16 Feb 2005 14:00:50
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"DAVID LEWIS" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5UCQd.100034$B8.28340@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cutr1n$pfc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > TF wrote in message ...
> > >Read is a great keeper, but now it seems you need a keeper who can
> average
> > >at least 30ish. As much as Read's batting seems to have improved, he
> still
> > >looks to be more of a Bob Taylor than an Alan Knott, which will go
> against
> > >him, whether he's up against Jones, Foster or Prior.
> >
> >
> > How good is Foster's batting? His first-class average in the latest
> Playfair
> > (which is, I admit, a year out of date now) is lower than Read's.
> >
> IIRC it improved hugely in 2004, when he managed some very big scores
> indeed. From what I remember of his number of droped catches 2001/02, I
> hope his keeping has done likewise.

Current FC figures are:
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
Foster 72 108 13 2995 212 31.52 5 11 176 19
Read 139 212 32 5082 160 28.23 4 26 380 20

Foster also averages 25.11 in Tests, compared to Read's 15.3 (11.18 excluding
the Bangladesh tour), and seemed more dependable with the bat, although his
keeping was clearly weaker.

OTOH, Read's List A average is 25.67, while Foster's is 20.48, and Read has also
done better in ODIs, 21.72 vs 13.66, and at a significantly better scoring rate.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




16 Feb 2005 15:05:12
DAVID LEWIS
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37h20iF5dcnb4U1@individual.net...
> "DAVID LEWIS" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5UCQd.100034$B8.28340@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:cutr1n$pfc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > TF wrote in message ...
> > > >Read is a great keeper, but now it seems you need a keeper who can
> > average
> > > >at least 30ish. As much as Read's batting seems to have improved, he
> > still
> > > >looks to be more of a Bob Taylor than an Alan Knott, which will go
> > against
> > > >him, whether he's up against Jones, Foster or Prior.
> > >
> > >
> > > How good is Foster's batting? His first-class average in the latest
> > Playfair
> > > (which is, I admit, a year out of date now) is lower than Read's.
> > >
> > IIRC it improved hugely in 2004, when he managed some very big scores
> > indeed. From what I remember of his number of droped catches 2001/02,
I
> > hope his keeping has done likewise.
>
> Current FC figures are:
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
> Foster 72 108 13 2995 212 31.52 5 11 176 19
> Read 139 212 32 5082 160 28.23 4 26 380 20
>
> Foster also averages 25.11 in Tests, compared to Read's 15.3 (11.18
excluding
> the Bangladesh tour), and seemed more dependable with the bat, although
his
> keeping was clearly weaker.
>
> OTOH, Read's List A average is 25.67, while Foster's is 20.48, and Read
has also
> done better in ODIs, 21.72 vs 13.66, and at a significantly better scoring
rate.
>
> --
I thought Foster made some gutsy contributions with the bat in India, and
showed enough to suggest that part of his game was genuinely promising. I
think he made at least one double hundred last summer. Mind you, Read's
batting has also improved. To be fair, I really have no idea how good, bad
or indifferent Foster's keeping is nowadays. A lot can happen in three
years.

Cheers

David




17 Feb 2005 00:13:50
TF
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


> I thought Foster made some gutsy contributions with the bat in India, and
> showed enough to suggest that part of his game was genuinely promising. I
> think he made at least one double hundred last summer. Mind you, Read's
> batting has also improved. To be fair, I really have no idea how good,
> bad
> or indifferent Foster's keeping is nowadays. A lot can happen in three
> years.
>
> Cheers
>
> David
>

I think that the next keeper to get a chance if the management lose faith
with Jones will be Prior. As good as Read obviously is, and whatever Foster
has done, a competent keeper who is a genuine batsman will always get the
nod with the present thinking. On a slightly different note, I don't
remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
pretty good. It probably brought his batting average down a bit though, he
could have been one of our best openers (possibly), and I always enjoyed
watching him play.

TF




17 Feb 2005 09:57:16
DAVID LEWIS
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net > wrote in message
news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > I thought Foster made some gutsy contributions with the bat in India,
and
> > showed enough to suggest that part of his game was genuinely promising.
I
> > think he made at least one double hundred last summer. Mind you, Read's
> > batting has also improved. To be fair, I really have no idea how good,
> > bad
> > or indifferent Foster's keeping is nowadays. A lot can happen in three
> > years.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > David
> >
>
> I think that the next keeper to get a chance if the management lose faith
> with Jones will be Prior. As good as Read obviously is, and whatever
Foster
> has done, a competent keeper who is a genuine batsman will always get the
> nod with the present thinking. On a slightly different note, I don't
> remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
> pretty good. It probably brought his batting average down a bit though, he
> could have been one of our best openers (possibly), and I always enjoyed
> watching him play.
>
> TF
>
Yes, I think it made a huge difference to Stewart's batting. I remember
watching him against Pakistan in the first two tests of the 1992 series,
and I thought he was unbelievably good. Like you, I felt he could have gone
on to become a world class opener, but the selectors preferred otherwise.
It's hard to see that having the extra bowler made up for losing him at the
top of the order for a lot of his career.

Cheers

David




17 Feb 2005 10:23:07
John Hall
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

In article <0UZQd.123569$K7.367@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
DAVID LEWIS <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk > writes:
>Yes, I think it made a huge difference to Stewart's batting. I remember
>watching him against Pakistan in the first two tests of the 1992 series,
>and I thought he was unbelievably good. Like you, I felt he could have gone
>on to become a world class opener, but the selectors preferred otherwise.
>It's hard to see that having the extra bowler made up for losing him at the
>top of the order for a lot of his career.

His average for the Tests in which he opened and did not keep was
something like 47. His finest hour was probably the tour of the West
Indies in early 1994, after which I believe the WI fast bowlers agreed
that he would be in their World XI.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"


17 Feb 2005 13:48:23
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net > wrote in message
news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
> On a slightly different note, I don't
> remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
> pretty good.

From what I can remember, he seemed to improve over the years - by the late 90s,
he was certainly very competent, albeit nothing special.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




17 Feb 2005 13:50:21
Sion Arrowsmith
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

TF <tony.foster2@tesco.net > wrote:
> [ ... ] I don't
>remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
>pretty good.

His keeping was criticised -- it's just that his batting was good
enough to make up for it (when he wasn't being asked to do too
many jobs) and there wasn't the same question as to whether he
was worth his place in the side that we have with Jones.

(I like the idea of bringing Read in for ODIs -- have a keeper
who's going to save runs and not fluff run-outs, and who shouldn't
need to bat if the upper and middle order do their job.)

--
S -- siona@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke
her nu becomež se bera eadward ofdun hlęddre heafdes bęce bump bump bump


17 Feb 2005 14:05:34
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"DAVID LEWIS" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message
news:0UZQd.123569$K7.367@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > On a slightly different note, I don't
> > remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
> > pretty good. It probably brought his batting average down a bit though, he
> > could have been one of our best openers (possibly), and I always enjoyed
> > watching him play.
> >
> Yes, I think it made a huge difference to Stewart's batting.

... not least because it usually meant him dropping down the order, and he
preferred pace to spin. Batting in the top 3 as keeper, he averaged 38.69; in
the middle order, he averaged 33.84.

> I remember
> watching him against Pakistan in the first two tests of the 1992 series,
> and I thought he was unbelievably good. Like you, I felt he could have gone
> on to become a world class opener, but the selectors preferred otherwise.
> It's hard to see that having the extra bowler made up for losing him at the
> top of the order for a lot of his career.

... and on the occasions when they played an extra batsmen, it's hard to see
that it was a positive step to replace a top-class opener and a top-class
keeper, who was also a very useful batsman, with a rather ordinary middle-order
batsman, who kept wicket adequately, and our seventh-best batsman.

The increase in depth didn't compensate for the decrease in class, IMHO.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




18 Feb 2005 10:35:25
Andrew Dunford
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37jll7F5eiacqU1@individual.net...
> "TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > On a slightly different note, I don't
> > remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
> > pretty good.
>
> From what I can remember, he seemed to improve over the years - by the
late 90s,
> he was certainly very competent, albeit nothing special.

I suspect perceptions are changing in this regard. Stewart was under the
microscope when first in the job because he certainly wasn't a Bob Taylor.
However were he to embark upon an international career today, he'd look a
decent-standard 'keeper compared to much of what passes for international
quality circa 2005.

Andrew




18 Feb 2005 22:26:55
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net > wrote in message
news:42150e2b$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:37jll7F5eiacqU1@individual.net...
> > "TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net> wrote in message
> > news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > On a slightly different note, I don't
> > > remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have been
> > > pretty good.
> >
> > From what I can remember, he seemed to improve over the years - by the
> late 90s,
> > he was certainly very competent, albeit nothing special.
>
> I suspect perceptions are changing in this regard. Stewart was under the
> microscope when first in the job because he certainly wasn't a Bob Taylor.
> However were he to embark upon an international career today, he'd look a
> decent-standard 'keeper compared to much of what passes for international
> quality circa 2005.

About county standard then.

It's sad that a keeper can be the best in his country, or even the best in the
world, in his primary role, and yet not get into the Test team. It wouldn't be
so bad if national selectors identified, say, the best three wicket-keepers, and
then picked the best batsman from those three. Instead, it sometimes seems that
they go for the best batsman from all of the keepers available, and his keeping
ability barely comes into the equation, just as long as it's not too bad. This
attitude of undervaluing the keeper's role is only likely to discourage keepers
from attempting to perfect their glove work in favour of working on their
batting, which will probably result in the standard of wicket-keeping falling
progressively at first-class level as well as in Test cricket.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




18 Feb 2005 22:53:51
Jim Brant
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37n8cjF5chrabU1@individual.net...
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message
> news:42150e2b$1@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:37jll7F5eiacqU1@individual.net...
> > > "TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> > > >
> > > > On a slightly different note, I don't
> > > > remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have
been
> > > > pretty good.
> > >
> > > From what I can remember, he seemed to improve over the years - by the
> > late 90s,
> > > he was certainly very competent, albeit nothing special.
> >
> > I suspect perceptions are changing in this regard. Stewart was under
the
> > microscope when first in the job because he certainly wasn't a Bob
Taylor.
> > However were he to embark upon an international career today, he'd look
a
> > decent-standard 'keeper compared to much of what passes for
international
> > quality circa 2005.
>
> About county standard then.
>
> It's sad that a keeper can be the best in his country, or even the best in
the
> world, in his primary role, and yet not get into the Test team. It
wouldn't be
> so bad if national selectors identified, say, the best three
wicket-keepers, and
> then picked the best batsman from those three. Instead, it sometimes seems
that
> they go for the best batsman from all of the keepers available, and his
keeping
> ability barely comes into the equation, just as long as it's not too bad.
This
> attitude of undervaluing the keeper's role is only likely to discourage
keepers
> from attempting to perfect their glove work in favour of working on their
> batting, which will probably result in the standard of wicket-keeping
falling
> progressively at first-class level as well as in Test cricket.
> --

I suspect (well, hope might be better) that the Jones experiment might deal
with this problem. Once there are a few concrete examples of w/keeping
errors costing games (maybe even series), even the England
selectors/Fletcher might see the error of their ways - and Jones is just the
chap to provide the evidence. He has already made a vey good start.

Jim




19 Feb 2005 17:20:34
Andrew Bull
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
fence-sitters...):

If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail of
(say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including Flintoff)?

Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).




19 Feb 2005 20:10:58
DAVID LEWIS
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
> fence-sitters...):
>
> If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
> a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
of
> (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
> b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
Flintoff)?
>
> Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
>
FWIW I'd go for Option (b), especially given Fred's form with the bat in the
one recent series he's had against a decent attack. The only problems are
workload for the main four, unless we can get 15-20 over a day from
Bell/Vaughan/Tresco, and the reduced room for manoevre if one of the four is
out of sorts. But I don't think we can afford the sort of middle order
performances we saw against SA when we' re playing Aus, and I'm quite sure
we can't afford our keeper to miss whatever chances do come his way against
their guys.

Cheers

David




19 Feb 2005 21:24:26
Andrew Bull
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

DAVID LEWIS wrote in message ...
>
>"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
>> fence-sitters...):
>>
>> If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
>> a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
>of
>> (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
>> b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
>Flintoff)?
>>
>> Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
>>
>FWIW I'd go for Option (b), especially given Fred's form with the bat in
the
>one recent series he's had against a decent attack. The only problems are
>workload for the main four, unless we can get 15-20 over a day from
>Bell/Vaughan/Tresco, and the reduced room for manoevre if one of the four
is
>out of sorts.

I'd go for (b) as well. Obvious follow-up question - do you pick Giles as
one of the four?




19 Feb 2005 21:50:07
max.it
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk >

>DAVID LEWIS wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
>>> fence-sitters...):
>>>
>>> If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
>>> a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
>>of
>>> (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
>>> b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
>>Flintoff)?
>>>
>>> Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
>>>
>>FWIW I'd go for Option (b), especially given Fred's form with the bat in
>the
>>one recent series he's had against a decent attack. The only problems are
>>workload for the main four, unless we can get 15-20 over a day from
>>Bell/Vaughan/Tresco, and the reduced room for manoevre if one of the four
>is
>>out of sorts.
>
>I'd go for (b) as well. Obvious follow-up question - do you pick Giles as
>one of the four?
>
>

Yes,
even for the steady bat he has turned into.
If you don't take wickets you can't afford to be flogged,
and you must be able to both score a modest sum of runs and hold up
an end to aid your batting partner.
Maybe prudent to check out partnerships stats before
selecting that spot. On a flat pitch Hoggard could go for a few runs,
so could Giles. Giles will score more runs though, and has a good bit more batting wit.

Don't go selecting teams before we have fitness reports and weather forcasts.
Man for Man Englqand should be able to produce an ashes winning team this year.
The old Oz voodoo is the biggest problem, it's what gives Oz the advantage.
Head games and big homework.

max.it



20 Feb 2005 08:19:46
Adam Buttery
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
> fence-sitters...):
>
> If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
> a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
> of
> (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
> b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
> Flintoff)?
>
> Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
>
>

Which is why there is a good argument to bring in Prior




20 Feb 2005 08:55:37
John Hall
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

In article <cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk >,
Andrew Bull <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk > writes:
>A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
>fence-sitters...):
>
>If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
>a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail of
>(say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
>b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including Flintoff)?
>
>Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
>
>
I agree that neither (a) nor (b) seems satisfactory. Perhaps that's
telling us that Read isn't the right alternative to Jones?
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)


20 Feb 2005 11:59:01
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"DAVID LEWIS" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message
news:m3NRd.129507$B8.8880@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
> > fence-sitters...):
> >
> > If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
> > a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
> of
> > (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
> > b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
> Flintoff)?
> >
> > Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
> >
> FWIW I'd go for Option (b), especially given Fred's form with the bat in the
> one recent series he's had against a decent attack.

As I've said before, I think he needs to play himself in properly before he
starts going for the big shots. Perhaps Fletcher/Vaughan should be telling him
(depending on the situation) that they don't want to see anything in the air or
risky for at least half an hour.

If Pietersen comes into the Test side, I'm a bit concerned about the effect it
will have on Flintoff's approach if he comes in when KP is already in full flow.
It might be a good idea to separate them in the batting order by two or three
places.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




20 Feb 2005 12:02:27
David North
Re: Head above the sandbags again!

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:cv8av0$3dm$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> DAVID LEWIS wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
> >> fence-sitters...):
> >>
> >> If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
> >> a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
> >of
> >> (say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
> >> b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
> >Flintoff)?
> >>
> >> Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
> >>
> >FWIW I'd go for Option (b), especially given Fred's form with the bat in
> the
> >one recent series he's had against a decent attack. The only problems are
> >workload for the main four, unless we can get 15-20 over a day from
> >Bell/Vaughan/Tresco, and the reduced room for manoevre if one of the four
> is
> >out of sorts.
>
> I'd go for (b) as well. Obvious follow-up question - do you pick Giles as
> one of the four?

http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/f/37/f37693.html

Does that answer your question?
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




20 Feb 2005 12:10:19
Jim Brant
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37rcb7F5f6ql8U1@individual.net...
> "DAVID LEWIS" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m3NRd.129507$B8.8880@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> As I've said before, I think he <referring to Flintoff>needs to play
himself in properly before he
> starts going for the big shots. Perhaps Fletcher/Vaughan should be telling
him
> (depending on the situation) that they don't want to see anything in the
air or
> risky for at least half an hour.
>

Perhaps Vaughan would have more success telling somebody else what to do- do
what I say, not what I do!

Jim





21 Feb 2005 15:31:40
Andrew Dunford
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37n8cjF5chrabU1@individual.net...
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message
> news:42150e2b$1@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:37jll7F5eiacqU1@individual.net...
> > > "TF" <tony.foster2@tesco.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2lRQd.2201$xP6.341@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> > > >
> > > > On a slightly different note, I don't
> > > > remember Stewart being criticised for his keeping, so he must have
been
> > > > pretty good.
> > >
> > > From what I can remember, he seemed to improve over the years - by the
> > late 90s,
> > > he was certainly very competent, albeit nothing special.
> >
> > I suspect perceptions are changing in this regard. Stewart was under
the
> > microscope when first in the job because he certainly wasn't a Bob
Taylor.
> > However were he to embark upon an international career today, he'd look
a
> > decent-standard 'keeper compared to much of what passes for
international
> > quality circa 2005.
>
> About county standard then.
>
> It's sad that a keeper can be the best in his country, or even the best in
the
> world, in his primary role, and yet not get into the Test team. It
wouldn't be
> so bad if national selectors identified, say, the best three
wicket-keepers, and
> then picked the best batsman from those three. Instead, it sometimes seems
that
> they go for the best batsman from all of the keepers available, and his
keeping
> ability barely comes into the equation, just as long as it's not too bad.
This
> attitude of undervaluing the keeper's role is only likely to discourage
keepers
> from attempting to perfect their glove work in favour of working on their
> batting, which will probably result in the standard of wicket-keeping
falling
> progressively at first-class level as well as in Test cricket.

Picking the best batsman sometimes pays off when the player concerned is
capable of improving his wicket-keeping over a period of time. Of course
for that to work, he must justify his place in the team by weight of runs
from the start.

It is fashionable in some quarters to malign the 'keeping standard of Adam
Gilchrist. Whilst not the tidiest in the business, he does manage to hold
onto the vast majority of chances which come his way. Anyone who saw the
stumping he pulled off when standing up to McGrath on Saturday (136kph
delivery) would surely agree it was a match-turning effort. The bails were
off before McMillan had finished playing his stroke.

Andrew




21 Feb 2005 12:42:07
Colin Reed
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk > wrote in message
news:GXo8FSBJCFGCFwSr@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cv7tmo$r1n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Andrew Bull <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >A question for the fans of Chris Read (as usual, I count myself among the
> >fence-sitters...):
> >
> >If you were a selector, and brought in Read for Jones, would you
> >a) Keep the shape of the side the same, and have the distinctly long tail
of
> >(say) Flintoff, Giles, Read, Jones(S), Harmison, Hoggard, or
> >b) Bring in another batsmen and make do with 4 bowlers (including
Flintoff)?
> >
> >Neither seems really satisfactory. OTOH, nor does sticking with Jones(G).
> >
> >
> I agree that neither (a) nor (b) seems satisfactory. Perhaps that's
> telling us that Read isn't the right alternative to Jones?
> --
> John Hall
> Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
> Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
> Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)

What's Read like standing up to quickish medium pacers? It always seems
that this is a good way of stifling runs from the big hitters.
Gloucestershire used this very effectively over recent years with Jack
Russell standing up, and Boucher standing up to Pollock seemed to be very
effective against Trescothick. Maybe this approach has some merit at
international level, and the runs saved would more than make up for the
fewer scored with the bat. I know that current thinking seems to be that
batting comes before keeping. I'm just questioning whether this is the
right approach or everyone is doing it as a symptom of Groupthink? Maybe
every selector just wants another Adam Gilchrist in their side.

Colin




23 Feb 2005 12:13:27
Rob
Re: Head above the sandbags again!


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:37a1b7F5argpsU1@individual.net...
> "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
> news:ncPPd.466$D_3.120@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Jim Brant" <jim@brantj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:cuo27d$4f5$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> > "Rob" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
>> > news:AALPd.252$D_3.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Outlaw" <not.telling@dotdot.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:87LPd.1586$ma4.670@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > The ten wides that went past Jones cost the game (again) - Chris
>> >> > Read
>> >> > please.
>> >> >
>> >> Yep - Jones has had a pretty bad tour all in all. He got 70 odd in
>> >> one
>> >> test when SA were tired, but apart from that - sod all. This for a
>> >> bloke
>> >> who was brought in because he could bat. This is where Fletcher, for
>> >> all
>> >> his good work, lets England down. Jones is clearly his favourite -
>> >> but
>> >> he's now had a year with England. It is very harsh on Chris Read.
>> >>
>> >> I make one and only one mitigation - he's played all the
>> >> internationals
>> > and
>> >> keeping wicket and batting up the order is no picnic. If anyone has
>> >> a
>> >> right to be tired, it's him.
>> >>
>> > Which is why it is so daft to have him opening the innings.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> This is just the point. Apart from Fletcher, is there anyone out there
>> who
>> actually supports Jones opening - rhetorical question.
>>
>> Incidentally I heard Neil Manthorpe on TS the other day talking about an
>> interview he'd done with Strauss who toed the party line (I prefer
>> batting
>> at 4 to opening)
>
> That'll be why he always batted at 4 when he was captain at Middlesex.

...and that'll be why county cricket is almost incomparable to
internationals.