Chris Read another chance?

[tooextracool]

I've never been making it out to be a "close" series, simply closer than was expected.

you said that all of the last 3 series have been close, genius.

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.

the thing was no one except you thought that. anyone could see that the only reason england lost so comfortably in the first test was because of the conditions. ive been through this a million times already, england were always expected to lose 2-0 or 3-0, which is infact what the scorecard was because the last test doesnt count.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

what the hell are you talking about? you really like going around in circles dont you? ive already explained to you why jones didnt perform better than flintoff in the 2nd test because he came in a pressure situation and allowed jones to play his typical carefree brainless innings that he likes to play. hence flintoff batted better in test 1 and test 2. and basically test 4 and test 5 too.

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.

you suggested it at a point in the series when jones was making a complete fool of himself(well he made a fool of himself throughout the series and the ODIs too). the idea of batting jones above flintoff was and still is laughable.

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

so if flintoff bats better than jones for about 10 series and then jones does better in 1 you would bat jones ahead of flintoff. you really are a genius.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Kallis with the ball since 2003:

Tests (22) - 34 wickets at 45.5, eco 3.08
ODI's (41) - 28 wickets at 43.5, eco 5.39

So where is this supposed ability then?

 

[Richard]

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

Thing is, typical wickets around The World in the last 2 or 3 years have hardly contained any significant variety. Seam-friendly wickets (which both are best on) tend to occur precious little, and Ntini isn't a swing-bowler and Nel is. The ball doesn't swing any more in South Africa than most other places.

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

And I don't see that it's got to be a perminant change.

 

[Richard]

Kallis with the ball since 2003:

Tests (22) - 34 wickets at 45.5, eco 3.08
ODI's (41) - 28 wickets at 43.5, eco 5.39

So where is this supposed ability then?

Kallis with the ball in Tests before 2003: 136 wickets at 28.30, eco 2.65-an-over.
Not brilliant, but certainly worthy for an all-rounder.
That ability doesn't just disappear.
Kallis in ODIs, meanwhile
As you can see, it's not easy to pin-down a point at which anything changed - simply the bad days became much, much worse. Yet even in 2003\04, he still managed 4 good innings-spells in a row. He's always been incredibly, infuriatingly, inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

you said that all of the last 3 series have been close, genius.

Really? I said the last 2 series have been incredibly close, and so were the 3 before 1999\2000, and even that was closer than expected.

the thing was no one except you thought that. anyone could see that the only reason england lost so comfortably in the first test was because of the conditions. ive been through this a million times already, england were always expected to lose 2-0 or 3-0, which is infact what the scorecard was because the last test doesnt count.

England were expected to lose 4-0 by plenty, let me assure you - probably losing each Test in 4 days.

 

[Richard]

what the hell are you talking about? you really like going around in circles dont you? ive already explained to you why jones didnt perform better than flintoff in the 2nd test because he came in a pressure situation and allowed jones to play his typical carefree brainless innings that he likes to play. hence flintoff batted better in test 1 and test 2. and basically test 4 and test 5 too.

And of course Flintoff did so much better in the first-innings, too, didn't he?

you suggested it at a point in the series when jones was making a complete fool of himself(well he made a fool of himself throughout the series and the ODIs too). the idea of batting jones above flintoff was and still is laughable.

What the hell have the ODIs got to do with anything, anyone in their right mind can see that Jones is a useless ODI player.
Jones has not batted with much sense in his last 9 Tests, and it's a shame, because in his first 3 he really looked the business. I hope it's just a mental thing, something which I'm confident Duncan Fletcher can correct.

so if flintoff bats better than jones for about 10 series and then jones does better in 1 you would bat jones ahead of flintoff. you really are a genius.

Nope, I'd say it's something to consider. Given that they've so far played a whole 3 series together, we don't have anything quite so exaggerated yet.

 

[marc71178]

Kallis with the ball in Tests before 2003: 136 wickets at 28.30, eco 2.65-an-over.
Not brilliant, but certainly worthy for an all-rounder.
That ability doesn't just disappear.

2003 is more than 18 months ago.

And the stats suggest the "ability" has gone.

He is no longer an all rounder by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[chris.hinton]

Kallis has lost it but the Ability is still there? but hey Marc is an expert on cricket he plays the game every week

Read should be back

 

[Richard]

2003 is more than 18 months ago.

And the stats suggest the "ability" has gone.

He is no longer an all rounder by any stretch of the imagination.

Ability does not "go".
It is not something that simply disappears.

 

[SpeedKing]

On the matter of English wicket-keepers, how good is this Mat Prior guy with the gloves. He seems to be more than decent with the bat.. Is he safer than Jones

 

[Richard]

I don't like the look of Prior's batting and I never have done.
He's not the worst 'keeper from what I've seen of him, certainly better than Jones. But on Jones' recent form (something like 126 byes in his last 8 Tests) that's not hard!
I'm confident Jones can improve, though - Alec Stewart certainly did.

 

[tooextracool]

Thing is, typical wickets around The World in the last 2 or 3 years have hardly contained any significant variety. Seam-friendly wickets (which both are best on) tend to occur precious little, and Ntini isn't a swing-bowler and Nel is. The ball doesn't swing any more in South Africa than most other places.

nel certainly isnt a swing bowler, hes the bang it in bowler like ntini is.

And I don't see that it's got to be a perminant change.

i dont see why it isnt a permanent change, given that its happened to quite a few bowlers in the past. even if he were to recover to what he was before, which was relatively useful, it still wouldnt make him anything special.

 

[tooextracool]

Kallis with the ball in Tests before 2003: 136 wickets at 28.30, eco 2.65-an-over.
Not brilliant, but certainly worthy for an all-rounder.
That ability doesn't just disappear..

or rather you have to go all the way back to the WI in 00/01 to find a good bowling series against a decent side.

 

[aussie]

aussie

or rather you have to go all the way back to the WI in 00/01 to find a good bowling series against a decent side.

hey mr.tooextracool i want respond to the comment u made under the icc super series thread

 

[tooextracool]

Really? I said the last 2 series have been incredibly close, and so were the 3 before 1999\2000, and even that was closer than expected..

yep you included all of the last 3 series.

England were expected to lose 4-0 by plenty, let me assure you - probably losing each Test in 4 days.

no because only someone who knows nothing about cricket would consider a loss that relied so significantly on the wicket, to result in the same outcome throughout the series. most sane people would have realised that england would have lost 2-0 or 3-0, and they would have been right. and this prediction is coming from you, given that you probably only watched the highlights of it.

 

[tooextracool]

And of course Flintoff did so much better in the first-innings, too, didn't he?

what test are you talking about?

What the hell have the ODIs got to do with anything, anyone in their right mind can see that Jones is a useless ODI player.

they only have the relevance in that jones has a peanut for a brain.

Jones has not batted with much sense in his last 9 Tests, and it's a shame, because in his first 3 he really looked the business. I hope it's just a mental thing, something which I'm confident Duncan Fletcher can correct..

how much of that first 3 did you watch? because if you watched the first 3 closely enough you would have realised that they were the same carefree innings with the same cut shots played in the air and the same drives played upishly and the same trying to hit from ball 1 attitude that really has annoyed me.

Nope, I'd say it's something to consider. Given that they've so far played a whole 3 series together, we don't have anything quite so exaggerated yet.

and flintoff has batted significantly better than him in all of em, there is simply nothing to consider, except jones' place in the test side.

 

[aussie]

aussie

dude from bangalore did u read my last post

 

[Richard]

nel certainly isnt a swing bowler, hes the bang it in bowler like ntini is.

As attested by the inswinging-Yorker he castled Thorpe with at Centurion.
Yes, he doesn't swing it round corners and he doesn't swing it all the time, but if he was just a "bang-in" bowler he wouldn't have much success.
You'd have to be pretty unperceptive to not notice that he can swing the ball.

i dont see why it isnt a permanent change, given that its happened to quite a few bowlers in the past. even if he were to recover to what he was before, which was relatively useful, it still wouldnt make him anything special.

No, it wouldn't, but it would make him incredibly special as an all-rounder.
Averaging in the 50s with the bat and the late 20s with the ball puts him not too far behind Sobers.

 

[Richard]

or rather you have to go all the way back to the WI in 00/01 to find a good bowling series against a decent side.

But you can find 5 good\decent games in the meantime.