Geraint Jones... a forgotten hero?

[Richard]

He was capable of scoring reasonably for Kent though.

Only did so in 2003.

He's forgotten how to do that.

Don't think he has - think he just had a single good season and was pitched straight in. The impulsiveness was understandable as he did look the real deal in 2003 as Anderson had earlier that summer and briefly the previous one. But with hindsight, we can say that's what it was. Jones was never a good batsman, he just had one good summer.

 

[Richard]

Well if you have bowlers good enough to bat at 7 and 8, then why not play a great keeper who can bat at nine?

Because you could play a decent 'keeper who can bat at seven or even in the top-six and push said bowlers down to eight and nine.

That makes your side stronger than an excellent 'keeper who can't score many runs.

 

[GIMH]

Because you could play a decent 'keeper who can bat at seven or even in the top-six and push said bowlers down to eight and nine.

That makes your side stronger than an excellent 'keeper who can't score many runs.

Well it depends how good the bowlers are at batting?

If you have a 7 averaging 35, an 8 averaging 32 and a 9 averaging 28 then it does not matter what positions they occupy. It matters not whether the bowlers are the 7 and 8, the 7 and 9 or the 8 and 9. So if you have two bowlers that can average 35 and 32, then a keeper averaging 28 is fine.

Obviously a keeper averaging 35 in addition to the above would mean you batted him at 7, but if the best keeper was averaging 28 in addition to the two aforementioned bowlers, then go with him as a good keeper can often save you a lot runs.

 

[Richard]

Not enough to justify such a large difference in run-scoring ability, really, no?

 

[Steulen]

Well it depends how good the bowlers are at batting?

If you have a 7 averaging 35, an 8 averaging 32 and a 9 averaging 28 then it does not matter what positions they occupy. It matters not whether the bowlers are the 7 and 8, the 7 and 9 or the 8 and 9. So if you have two bowlers that can average 35 and 32, then a keeper averaging 28 is fine.

Obviously a keeper averaging 35 in addition to the above would mean you batted him at 7, but if the best keeper was averaging 28 in addition to the two aforementioned bowlers, then go with him as a good keeper can often save you a lot runs.

So, you have Boucher, Flintoff and Pollock in the team. Who bats where?

And suppose Boucher suddenly used gene doping to give him the keeping skills of Tim Ambrose (underlining the fact that wickies are tools), would you replace him with Chris Read (who has just used gene doping to give him excellent diving-to-the-right skills)?

 

[GIMH]

So, you have Boucher, Flintoff and Pollock in the team. Who bats where?

And suppose Boucher suddenly used gene doping to give him the keeping skills of Tim Ambrose (underlining the fact that wickies are tools), would you replace him with Chris Read (who has just used gene doping to give him excellent diving-to-the-right skills)?

Pollock-Flintoff-Boucher, for mine

And yes, if I had true strength at 7 and 8 that I would pick the best keeper if I felt it would be in the team's best interests.

It would never happen, but if I had four excellent bowlers all averaging 30+ with the bat, I'd bat the keeper at 11.

 

[GIMH]

Not enough to justify such a large difference in run-scoring ability, really, no?

The run-scoring ability difference I've just talked about is 7...a poor keeper can easily cost you that and more in an innings IMO

 

[Richard]

It's not as simple as that though. Averages don't work that way.

A difference in batting-average between 28 and 35 is huge. Costing 7 runs per innings is a) something no remotely good wicketkeeper will do and b) not all that likely to make much impact on a game anyway - hardly any Tests are lost by margins of 14 runs.

If I had a good wicketkeeper who could average 28 (say, James Foster) and a reasonable one who could average 35 (say, Tim Ambrose or Steven Davies) then I'd go for the latter. Every single time. Regardless of the batting skill of anyone else in the team.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Only did so in 2003.

Don't think he has - think he just had a single good season and was pitched straight in. The impulsiveness was understandable as he did look the real deal in 2003 as Anderson had earlier that summer and briefly the previous one. But with hindsight, we can say that's what it was. Jones was never a good batsman, he just had one good summer.

In that summer, as you admit, he looked like he knew how to bat. And after an initial burst for England, all the promise has disappeared. My comment stands.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Jones wasnt / isnt good enough with either bat or gloves. But he played his part and was also responsible for the most memorable catch (but by no means the best) that ill remember till the end of my days. For that i can only thank him!

 

[Richard]

In that summer, as you admit, he looked like he knew how to bat. And after an initial burst for England, all the promise has disappeared. My comment stands.

He may have looked like he knew how to bat in one summer, but I honestly don't think he actually did. That is all.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He may have looked like he knew how to bat in one summer, but I honestly don't think he actually did. That is all.

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't see how someone can look capable of batting for as long as a summer even without being at capable of doing so.

 

[GIMH]

It's not as simple as that though. Averages don't work that way.

A difference in batting-average between 28 and 35 is huge. Costing 7 runs per innings is a) something no remotely good wicketkeeper will do and b) not all that likely to make much impact on a game anyway - hardly any Tests are lost by margins of 14 runs.

If I had a good wicketkeeper who could average 28 (say, James Foster) and a reasonable one who could average 35 (say, Tim Ambrose or Steven Davies) then I'd go for the latter. Every single time. Regardless of the batting skill of anyone else in the team.

Well of course I know averages don't work like that, otherwise we might as well just play the matches through a simulator. An average is just that, an indication of what a player does on an average occasion.

I would disagree that 7 runs per innings isn't important, a keeper who makes a few drops now and again compared to one who catches everything could be hugely costly, up to 100s of runs at a time. So if you can pick a keeper purely on the basis of his glovework because you have a team packed with genuine all-rounders, then why not?

 

[Richard]

If a wicketkeeper was starting to cost hundreds of runs (ie, as Prior did in those two Third Tests) then of course you'd reconsider whether he should be playing.

But your stipulation was 7 per Test. Ergo, that's what I worked on. If he's missing easy chances left, right and centre, that's a whole different ball-game.

 

[Richard]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't see how someone can look capable of batting for as long as a summer even without being at capable of doing so.

Who know? I didn't watch any of his First-Class games in 2003, so for all we know he might have played exactly as he did the rest of the time and the bowling might just have been woeful. Maybe the heat got to them all.

What I think is more likely, though, is that he played above himself in 2003. Mediocre cricketers have the odd good season all the time. I don't (and I emphasise again - with hindsight) think Jones was capable of replicating this.

 

[GIMH]

Well it was only an example. Fair enough, I think we disagree on this, so let's just leave it at that to avoid going round in circles.

Nasser just citing the case for Foster on Sky Sports, stating that if he scores the odd FC century more often he'll be picked for the Test side. Seemed really confident about it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who know? I didn't watch any of his First-Class games in 2003, so for all we know he might have played exactly as he did the rest of the time and the bowling might just have been woeful. Maybe the heat got to them all.

What I think is more likely, though, is that he played above himself in 2003. Mediocre cricketers have the odd good season all the time. I don't (and I emphasise again - with hindsight) think Jones was capable of replicating this.

But even mediocre batsmen tend to know how to bat. There are usually other factors which affect their ability to do so and keep them mediocre.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well it was only an example. Fair enough, I think we disagree on this, so let's just leave it at that to avoid going round in circles.

Nasser just citing the case for Foster on Sky Sports, stating that if he scores the odd FC century more often he'll be picked for the Test side. Seemed really confident about it.

Nasser has some strange views on Foster.

"If there is a better one-day keeper-batsman in the world at the moment I'd like to see him."
Nasser Hussain sings the praises of James Foster and wonders how he missed out on England's provisional

CricInfo Quote Unquote

 

[GIMH]

Anyone would think Nasser was biased towards Essex

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

On another note, Tanvir is a bit full of it:

"I know I am worth much more. And based on my performances, I think I can easily get a million dollars, if not more."
Sohail Tanvir, who was bought by Rajasthan Royals for US$100,000 before going on to become the IPL's highest wicket-taker, realises his true worth