Chris Read another chance?

[Richard]

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.

Why?
How many significant catches has he dropped?
England have won all three series he's played fully in, so none there - how many batsman have made big scores after he's dropped them? None, really.

 

[marc71178]

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

I was talking about momentum over a short period of time (as in a few overs) - you started talking about different Tests in a series.

 

[marc71178]

Why?
How many significant catches has he dropped?

Apart from one's which arguably cost matches you mean?

 

[Richard]

I was talking about momentum over a short period of time (as in a few overs) - you started talking about different Tests in a series.

And we've seen that even that changes rapidly.
If it doesn't change over overs, it won't change over matches.

 

[Richard]

Apart from one's which arguably cost matches you mean?

Yep - I'm talking about ones that have cost big-scores - and, more significantly, series-victories.

 

[marc71178]

You what?

Are you now denying that there was momentum over overs in the games that were played?

Because there clearly was.

Over games it's a different story because of thr gap between them.

 

[Richard]

England appeared to have the momentum, oh yes.
They also appeared to have it at the start of the third-day at PE, when Strauss and Key were together at The Wanderers; South Africa appeared to have it during that small session at the end of day-two at Kingsmead; I could go on.
Momentum shifted almost non-stop in that series; the only time one team ever dominated most of a match was South Africa at Newlands; even then they had that ugly session on the fourth morning.
You can't say with any real certainty that the Gibbs drop cost the game.

 

[marc71178]

I can say it is far more than 50% that it did.

Appearing to have the momentum? Where do you get this stuff from?

After batting superbly for so long then getting a tired SA in with a few overs to survive, how is that not momentum?

 

[Richard]

Because the minute one team appeared to have it in that series (as in the previous one) it swung.
The best thing to do if you wanted to reckon who'd be on top during a passage was to look at who'd not been on top in the previous one.

 

[marc71178]

You're not even talking about the right series

 

[Richard]

Really?
When did the topic switch from South Africa-England 2004\05, then?

 

[marc71178]

When you started talking about the previous series - which is not this one.

 

[Richard]

I mentioned it in passing - because the two were very, very similar in that momentum was something best left to the fantasisers.

 

[tooextracool]

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

at least at home. and including kallis in that list isnt supposed to make that list better is it? nel is one who i rate really highly, unfortunately he went on to bowl extremely poorly in NZ, so i dont want to get my hopes too high about him away from home.

 

[tooextracool]

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?

the thing is you just said that you would have been very surprised if SA had not won the first game even if the conditions were fair. like it or not if you have a 3 test match series, in which 2 games are rained off and 1 won comfortably by one team does it mean that it was a close series simply because the result was 1-0? yes england had the upper hand for half a game, they should get an award for. they were especially poor in the 2nd inning of the first game when they did have good enough conditions to bat in, they were fortunate enough to get away with a draw in the 2nd game even though they were on the brink of losing, they were trounced in the 4th test and thanks to the generous cronje they won the 5th. like it or not ive seen worser teams compete against very good teams, and england in basically every ashes series in the last 15 years have had their 'moments', yet only a fool would say that they were they were competitive in nearly all of them.

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

yes and they did get annhailated. except that the one victory in the last game made it look a lot better than they actually performed. and it was certainly nowhere near the 'close' series that you've been making it out to be.

 

[tooextracool]

He did, but so what?

which is your typical effort to misrepresent what you said. you initally stated that jones outperformed flintoff in all of the first 3 tests, even though as i proved to you it was only 1 test. you then proceeded to make an even bigger fool of yourself by suggesting that flintoff should bat below jones in the batting order(however that was supposed to be explained!)

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

yes surprise suprise......
so whats next? giles should bat above flintoff if he bats better than him in 1 game?

 

[Richard]

at least at home. and including kallis in that list isnt supposed to make that list better is it? nel is one who i rate really highly, unfortunately he went on to bowl extremely poorly in NZ, so i dont want to get my hopes too high about him away from home.

And unless there's an obvious reason why he bowled so poorly in NZ, especially in The First Test, there isn't any reason why a home\away thing should come into it.
No, Kallis in a list doesn't make it better at the moment but you don't just go from the sort of bowler Kallis was 18 months ago to completely useless - ability doesn't just disappear.

 

[Richard]

the thing is you just said that you would have been very surprised if SA had not won the first game even if the conditions were fair. like it or not if you have a 3 test match series, in which 2 games are rained off and 1 won comfortably by one team does it mean that it was a close series simply because the result was 1-0? yes england had the upper hand for half a game, they should get an award for. they were especially poor in the 2nd inning of the first game when they did have good enough conditions to bat in, they were fortunate enough to get away with a draw in the 2nd game even though they were on the brink of losing, they were trounced in the 4th test and thanks to the generous cronje they won the 5th. like it or not ive seen worser teams compete against very good teams, and england in basically every ashes series in the last 15 years have had their 'moments', yet only a fool would say that they were they were competitive in nearly all of them.
yes and they did get annhailated. except that the one victory in the last game made it look a lot better than they actually performed. and it was certainly nowhere near the 'close' series that you've been making it out to be.

I've never been making it out to be a "close" series, simply closer than was expected.
And expected, especially after The First Test, would have been England being hammered 4-0 with each Test decided in four days. Yes, SA had the upper hand at almost any point in the series outside Kingsmead - but that's just the point, even that was expected and more.
No-one could possibly have thought England would take the PE Test to 5 days, let alone draw it relatively comfortably, after The Wanderers. Certainly no-one could possibly have dreamt of the first 3 days at Kingsmead, I know I certainly didn't.

 

[Richard]

which is your typical effort to misrepresent what you said. you initally stated that jones outperformed flintoff in all of the first 3 tests, even though as i proved to you it was only 1 test.

No, it's your misrepresentation. In the first 3 Tests taken as a whole, Jones had slightly outperformed Flintoff, but it didn't last, and in the end Flintoff was probably slightly better in the 5 games. In The First Test Flintoff was better; in The Second Test Jones was better; in The Third Test Jones might have been slightly better but it wasn't significant. But none of it matters any more.

you then proceeded to make an even bigger fool of yourself by suggesting that flintoff should bat below jones in the batting order(however that was supposed to be explained!)

The simple fact is if Jones is averaging 35-40 and Flintoff 20-25 over a period then the possibility of Jones batting above Flintoff is something that should be considered.
So far, it hasn't happened, so it's merely hypothetical.

yes surprise suprise......
so whats next? giles should bat above flintoff if he bats better than him in 1 game?

No, but if he has a series of doing so (not exactly likely) then I'll suggest it as a possibility.

 

[tooextracool]

And unless there's an obvious reason why he bowled so poorly in NZ, especially in The First Test, there isn't any reason why a home\away thing should come into it.

you dont see any reason? maybe like ntini hes more suited to wickets at home?

No, Kallis in a list doesn't make it better at the moment but you don't just go from the sort of bowler Kallis was 18 months ago to completely useless - ability doesn't just disappear.

he was never particularly brilliant. he was fairrly capable but extremely inconsistent, now hes rubbish and consistent.