• 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.

Geraint Jones... a forgotten hero?

GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
GAGF, if Flintoff calls the run you bloody well run it noone's fault but your own if you get out
 
steds

steds

Hall of Fame Member
He has to hit the bloody ball first. Must have only been the 3rd and 4th instances in the last 18 months and he manages to take us from 230/8 to 231 all out.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Look, with all due respect, **** off. I'm having a Flintoff night here, and you pro-Anderson types aren't welcome. Except for the fact that I am a pro-Anderson type.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Jakester1288 said:
Mark Boucher > Geraint Jones any day in my opinion. Better batting, and fairly equal keeping. I would much prefer Boucher coming in at number 7 if we collapsed to 5/100, where Jones would just crumble. I am looking forward to seeing him get selected for the 2009 Ashes (if he does, that is) and come in a massive pressure situation. He will more than likely fail.
Click to expand...
I would have thought Boucher would be a better keeper too.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
zaremba said:
The fact is that most England fans care more about the Ashes than anything else (I wouldn't be all that unhappy with mediocrity against all comers provided England won the Ashes). For this to be England's priority seems to me to be completely rational.
Click to expand...
Yet its not Australia's. Yeah sure they wanted to win the Ashes back bad, but they happened to do their best to win every series beforehand. They didn't take SA easily, and when they were playing SA that was all that was mentioned.

If England keep this 'rational' mindset they'll always be ****.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
zaremba said:
No. You can't ignore batting (in)ability. A keeper needs to score some runs to be worthy of his place. That's why Alan Knott > Bob Taylor. Taylor was the better keeper, but Knott the more valuable player overall.
Click to expand...
In the current line up though, even if the keeper isn't much of a batsman if he's at number 8 behind Flintoff an average of 20-25 is fine.

I wouldn't support Jone's inclusion based on what I've seen back when he played and heard about his time in CC. I would support the best gloveman, whoever he may be, getting in though.
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
zaremba said:
I sense a fruitless debate on the Knott/Taylor front. To be honest they were both a bit before my time and even if I'd been around I wouldn't be well-qualified to make any meaningful assessment of their respective keeping skills.

But certainly most cricket writers that I've read would subscribe to the view I expressed above.
Click to expand...
The Knott/Taylor debate isn't particularly relevant to the current situation. Whichever player personal opinion puts as the better, no cricket writer will dispute that they were both keepers of the highest possible class. Currently they're just juggling a number of totally inadequate keepers who they hope will score runs.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Lillian Thomson said:
I don't agree that Taylor was a better keeper than Knott, but even if you take that point of view it's marginal and both are all time greats on their on keeping alone. This present bunch are nowhere near good enough with bat or gloves, in fact they're an embarrassment to the position.
Click to expand...
Ambrose isn't totally inadaquete nor an embarrasment to the position. He may not be Alan Knott or Bob Taylor but he's perfectly acceptable. If he'd scored more runs no-one would ask any questions about his place in the team.

As regards Geraint Jones, he isn't and never has been a very good batsman. He went from poor to decent with the gloves but that's about it. With hindsight he probably should never have played for England and had Alec Stewart retired a year later it's doubtful that he would have done. The only time Jones has scored any notable number of runs was in 2003. I'd be surprised if his First-Class average was over 30 in all his other seasons and his Test average is in the teens in all Tests from his 7th onwards.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Lillian Thomson said:
You probably have but I missed it. Interesting choice for a random user name though.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but I just stuck that username in for a laugh. Never really expected to stick around and post tbh, that worked out well :wacko:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top