Do England Miss The Pace Of Welsh Wizard Simon Jones ?

[Uppercut]

Only if a) he scores runs and b) his wicketkeeping isn't sufficiently poor to make his selection untenable.

Was just talking about the batting depth tbh. He might not be anything special with the bat but i expect him to outperform Ambrose.

 

[Burgey]

I don't disagree with any of that. The point I was making was that a five-man attack is often thought to be a way of lightening a bowler's workload, ensuring he never needs be over-bowled. But it doesn't work that way. A five-man attack does indeed often mean you've got more bases covered than you otherwise might. But it doesn't mean all bowlers always share the overs with decent equity. The best bowlers will still be "over"bowled.

Thought it said "five mint attack" for a moment

 

[Richard]

Was just talking about the batting depth tbh. He might not be anything special with the bat but i expect him to outperform Ambrose.

Perhaps not an unreasonable expectation, but not currently one I share TBH.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Thought it said "five mint attack" for a moment

 

[The Masterplan]

Get well sooooon Jonesy

..Sidebottom has lost the plot

 

[Woodster]

Prior will most definitely help if he ticks the right boxes with regards his wicket-keeping. For me he is probably the only keeper England can possibly think about batting at number 6.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Get well sooooon Jonesy

..Sidebottom has lost the plot

To be fair he was carrying injuries for most of the summer.

 

[TT Boy]

To be fair he was carrying injuries for most of the summer.

And a gut and fat ass.

 

[bryce]

Prior will most definitely help if he ticks the right boxes with regards his wicket-keeping. For me he is probably the only keeper England can possibly think about batting at number 6.

Yeah, this is why I don't get people above arguing that Flintoff can upset the balance of an English Test XI. An all-rounder of his calibre can only improve balance. For me a Prior/Flintoff combo at 6/7 is ideal. IMO England's fortunes will more than likely depend on if they can get consistency from their top five, and if not growing pressure to come on Strauss and Collingwood.

 

[Richard]

To be fair he was carrying injuries for most of the summer.

And a gut and fat ass.

Yeah there's worrying signs that Sidebottom's injuries are linked to his less-than-ideal shape.

 

[Richard]

Prior will most definitely help if he ticks the right boxes with regards his wicket-keeping. For me he is probably the only keeper England can possibly think about batting at number 6.

I don't think he neccessarily is myself TBH, but I do hope that before long maybe Steven Davies might be.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

To be fair he was carrying injuries for most of the summer.

Or, Sidebottom has been proven as a very average player when against a good batting lineup. He's had most of his success against NZ and the Windies - hardly consistent batting sides.

 

[Richard]

No, that's far too simplistic for my money.

Sidebottom has had greater success against weaker batting units - this is a given for any bowler of note. You will always do better against the weak than the strong.

However the gross difference which appears apparent by looking purely at basic bowling-averages and ignoring the impact of things such as dropped catches and without watching any of the games (and seeing how in a game at Trent Bridge against India in 2007 without having any catches dropped Sidebottom still bowled superbly without luck against an excellent batting unit) is misrepresentative. The only times Sidebottom has been genuinely poor in his Test career to date has been in Sri Lanka (when most bowlers, even Muralitharan, struggled) and at home to SA when he was clearly short of fitness (though the reasons for said lack of fitness may not place him as an entirely innocent party).

 

[Woodster]

I don't think he neccessarily is myself TBH, but I do hope that before long maybe Steven Davies might be.

Perhaps in time Davies may be the long term option, I'm not doubting his potential credentials. However, if we were picking the Test side for the next game and a keeper had to feature at 6, then for me Prior is the only one.

 

[pup11]

No, that's far too simplistic for my money.

Sidebottom has had greater success against weaker batting units - this is a given for any bowler of note. You will always do better against the weak than the strong.

However the gross difference which appears apparent by looking purely at basic bowling-averages and ignoring the impact of things such as dropped catches and without watching any of the games (and seeing how in a game at Trent Bridge against India in 2007 without having any catches dropped Sidebottom still bowled superbly without luck against an excellent batting unit) is misrepresentative. The only times Sidebottom has been genuinely poor in his Test career to date has been in Sri Lanka (when most bowlers, even Muralitharan, struggled) and at home to SA when he was clearly short of fitness (though the reasons for said lack of fitness may not place him as an entirely innocent party).

I agree with Richard on this, the flak Sidebottom is receving in really uncalled for, in helpful conditions he can really trouble any batting line-up, but even on unhelpul bowling conditions he has kept things tight and he has been unlucky not have more success then he has had, dropped catches of his bowling have also played their part in that.

He has been brought into the English side as a replacement for Hoggard and i think he fills that void pretty decently.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or, Sidebottom has been proven as a very average player when against a good batting lineup. He's had most of his success against NZ and the Windies - hardly consistent batting sides.

I think what the SA series showed is that Sid has to be at optimal fitness to be a true force in test cricket. When he first came back into the test XI he'd found an extra yard of pace from somewhere; he was consistently up over 85mph and touched 90 on occasions. Not absolutely lightening fast, but quick enough to trouble batsman, especially given his ability to move the ball in the air.

He was palpably unfit versus SA, I'm not sure if his extra weight was the cause of or because of his back problems to be honest, and the nip was gone. Sid the swerve had been replaced by his less effective religious cousin, Cannon Fodder.

As for Dicko's assertion he was "genuinely poor" in Sri Lanka: pur-lease. I sometimes wonder if he actually watches any cricket at all. He was our best bowler by streets, a fact not reflected in his figures because our bollock-handed wicket-keeper seemed to have a personal vendetta against him; dropping upwards of half-a-dozen chances.

 

[Richard]

No, there is no way on Earth that Sidebottom was England's best bowler in that series. Hoggard actually bowled damn well all the way through the First Test; both bowled decently without luck in the Third.

Sidebottom (along with most of the rest of the bowlers on both sides) was very poor in the First and Second Tests. No bowler enhanced their reputation that series, the pitches were simply far too slow (and, in the Second Test, devoid of any seam or turn either) and even if Sidebottom hadn't had catches go down in the Third Test (a couple at best from Prior, other fielders were every bit as guilty) it wouldn't have changed the fact that he offered nothing in the opening two.

 

[The Masterplan]

Assuming Anderson, Harmison, Flintoff and Broad all stay fit and firing Sidebottom wont get back int the test team..

 

[Richard]

We've seen the danger of dropping superior bowlers for inferior ones because they are a bit quicker or can bat a bit better before now. I hope those mistakes aren't repeated. Though there've been so many mistakes made in the past 18 months I'd not be confident about that.

 

[The Masterplan]

..So your not majorly in favour of Broad and Anderson getting a go in the Test team? You'd rather see Sidebottom in the XI when he's fit?