But he does offer a genuine wicket-taking threat, something that cannot be overlooked in the short form. I don't think he's a bad one-day player and believe he can prove that with Worcester this season, thus deserving his place in the national side.
You know, the reason NZ have kept on par and outplayed some of the time us this series is actually because of lack of attack. Too many of our bowlers - Anderson and Broad to the fore - are too "attacking" bowlers and not good enough at the defensive side. Now, of course, neither are master attackers either. Whereas Simon Jones in 2005 was - it didn't matter about his waywardness, a magic ball was always just around the corner.
You're only allowed to play good cricket in the next series you play.
Big bullies *sulks*
As I say though - without the swing (be it conventional or reverse) Jones isn't much of a wicket-taking threat. He's never taken many wickets in one-day cricket (added to his awful economy-rate).
When I talk of our attacking intent, I am meaning mainly with the bat. Of course there needs to be a great degree of control with the ball, and as you say, Flintoff offers both, can produce a tight spell of bowling while also being a wicket-taking threat. He is though a world class bowler.
Good sides do (see Australia yesterday) but we win test matches ugly, period. We haven’t played good test cricket for a while and that’s not because certain players have been out of form for eighteen months but the fact that they are not particularly very good.
Naturally if he can generate any swing it will benefit his bowling but he offers more than that, genuine pace and control. His figures in the FP Trophy so far this year read : 32-4-140-9 which isn't to be scoffed at. He may well prove he can repeat such figures at the top level yet.As I say though - without the swing (be it conventional or reverse) Jones isn't much of a wicket-taking threat. He's never taken many wickets in one-day cricket (added to his awful economy-rate).
If we want wicket-taking OD bowlers we'd go for the likes of Graham Napier and AP Davies. We seem, though, to prefer bowlers we think look like wicket-takers, or who take wickets in Tests, but actually don't in the one-day game.
I agree we haven't consistently produced the level of cricket that I think this group of players can achieve. I disagree that they are not particularly very good, but we are missing vital elements that can take our game consistently to that level.
No, sorry, won't ever agree that Bell isn't particularly good. And certainly not Pietersen. And they're the only ones who've performed (relatively) poorly for a while now. Strauss was, and he's now apparently managed to completely turn things around. Bell's problems are different - absent-mindedness rather than an obvious flawed area of the game - but I have always believed him capable of, eventually, making the neccessary adjustments. Pietersen simply needs something to click, and maybe if he hadn't run himself out that might've happened yesterday.
You know, I actually didn't realise he'd done quite that well, the only thing I'd taken much note of was the 5-for he took against Glamorgan (think it was them). All the same, it's just a handful of games, and with the ridiculous Pro40 nonsense, which is next to no use for preparing players for ODIs, virtually all that's left one-day wise in this season I'm not really sure I'm keen on the prospect of him playing ODIs this winter.
Yes sure it is only a handful of games and not enough to completely judge a player but it does perhaps indicate his one-day performances are heading in the right direction.
Agree re cracks being papered over, however (and it's not just you saying this) can't agree that the side that played the better cricket lost. Cricket is a game of two innings, and as poor as we were in the 1st, we made up for it in the 2nd. Much like a football match where a team is 2 or 3 nil down at half-time but comes back to win.
I wouldnt go that far. Id have him as a 3 on the 5 scale. However, my original post was about NZ players.
Actually, maybe all 3.
Seems he did want to bat in the 2nd dig according to David Hopps in The Guardian. I obviously therefore apologise for any slight on his character that may have been inferred from my previous post.
ANyone who knows the song that I've just changed wins a prize
