***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[superkingdave]

time for Jones to shoq something

 

[Gloucefan]

I think the problem is that when he has a mistake it tends to be a big one.

True, however he is Englands fastest keeper to test 100 catches.

 

[Dasa]

True, however he is Englands fastest keeper to test 100 catches.

Didn't read this?

Catches per match is one of the least reliable statistical criteria for measuring players. If it had any real validity then Gilchrist would be a far better keeper than Bert Oldfield, Don Tallon, Rod Marsh or Ian Healy. A high catches per match ratio merely suggests that the bowlers in his team create a relatively high amout of chances behind the wicket and take a lower proportion of their wickets without the use of a fielder.

 

[Gloucefan]

Didn't read this?

Yes but I don't just accept everything I read, it still takes the keeper to take the catch and is that not a big part of being a wicketkeeper. Masses of catches may not indicate a great keeper but does show what it is meant to, that the keeper takes alot of catches. How else do you do it? Missed chances? Well you could argue that as the bowlers create more chances behind the stumps there is going to be more errors. Stumpings would also be unreliable. You can't really quantify it. Granted he does drop a shocker now and then and has missed stumpings but I feel he is chastised perhaps more so than others would be. He was fast-tracked to the international stage and has improved quickly and coped well in my opinion. He is keeping for one of the fastest bowling attacks around. I'm not saying he's 'great' keeper but I don't think he is anywhere near as bad as portrayed. He's unlucky because he's a scapegoat, he's more consistent in his specialist role than others in the team. I do understand the criticisms but don't think Read would bring 'more' to the team.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes but I don't just accept everything I read, it still takes the keeper to take the catch and is that not a big part of being a wicketkeeper. Masses of catches may not indicate a great keeper but does show what it is meant to, that the keeper takes alot of catches.

If you get 150 chances and take 100 of them, you've taken 100 catches, but you've still missed 33+% of them.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Stop Sweeping Geraint!

 

[Gloucefan]

If you get 150 chances and take 100 of them, you've taken 100 catches, but you've still missed 33+% of them.

Like I said you can't quantify it, all it shows is that the keeper takes alot of chances which is important. Obviously he hasn't dropped that amount, I assume he hasn't anyway.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Like I said you can't quantify it, all it shows is that the keeper takes alot of chances which is important. Obviously he hasn't dropped that amount, I assume he hasn't anyway.

It can be quantified - percentage of chances taken.
It's like a field goal percentage in basketball. If someone scores 50 points per game, that doesn't make him a good shooter. It just means he gets a lot of chances. If someone scores 10 of 12 chances, that's a good shooter.

Number of chances taken does nothing to indicate quality (or even adequacy) unless you take into consideration the total number of chances. That gives you the probability of a mistake by a wicketkeeper.

That said, such a stat will never be present in cricket. Though they do count the number of runs they suspect a fielder saves...

 

[Jamee999]

Jones stumped.

 

[JBH001]

True, however he is Englands fastest keeper to test 100 catches.

If you use that as your criteria, Jones is a better England keeper than Alan Knott.
Or for that matter, Jack Russell.

An entirely ludicrous notion.

 

[JBH001]

Also, is it just me or is Murali being more selective with his use of the doosra in this inning? If so, it is about time.

(Though it would be nice to see him take a wicket with his offie or top spinner)

 

[wpdavid]

Jones stumped.

The description on cricinfo reads like another contender for the most brainless dismissal ever. Am I wrong?

 

[Lostman]

it was pretty brainless.

 

[Jono]

Jones is a joke, and Murali is still a legend.

Why would he charge Murali considering the situation of the match? Really.

 

[JBH001]

It could have been just a really good ball from the spinner - the kind that starts your feet moving before your brain catches up with them. And then it's too late to yell "Stop!"

Also, to be fair, when any batsman gets stumped, and I do mean well and truly stumped, they invariably end up looking silly.
(Its probably something to do with missing the ball, being yards out your crease, and looking behind you as the keeper removes the bails)

Meanwhile Collingwood seems like he is setting up camp.

It may be time to rest Murali and bring someone else on.

 

[Jono]

I think Jones cops the criticism because it happens to him so often. I mean if KP's going to get criticism for brainless dismissals, yet he's still getting runs on the board fairly consistently, of course Jones is going to get verbally caned by everyone when he does the same thing even more often, yet also doesn't get runs and on top of that is a mediocre keeper who is apparently in the team because he can also bat.

 

[Gloucefan]

If you use that as your criteria, Jones is a better England keeper than Alan Knott.
Or for that matter, Jack Russell.

An entirely ludicrous notion.

Someone already said this and I have already replied.

 

[Gloucefan]

It can be quantified - percentage of chances taken.
It's like a field goal percentage in basketball. If someone scores 50 points per game, that doesn't make him a good shooter. It just means he gets a lot of chances. If someone scores 10 of 12 chances, that's a good shooter.

Number of chances taken does nothing to indicate quality (or even adequacy) unless you take into consideration the total number of chances. That gives you the probability of a mistake by a wicketkeeper.

That said, such a stat will never be present in cricket. Though they do count the number of runs they suspect a fielder saves...

I do understand your point I just don't agree it's a completely worthless stat. If he was dropping enough chances (say 33% as you said earlier) he wouldn't be in the side. Technically you are right he could 400 catches but have missed another 600, however it's unrealistic. Despite this though I also don't think stats (current ones anyway) are useful in judging the quality of a keeper it's qualitative. Percentage of chances taken would be interesting but stats won't tell you the pressure of, difficulty and importance of these chances, although it would be fair to say there probably isn't too much variation overall in difficulty of chances.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I do understand your point I just don't agree it's a completely worthless stat. If he was dropping enough chances (say 33% as you said earlier) he wouldn't be in the side. Technically you are right he could 400 catches but have missed another 600, however it's unrealistic. Despite this though I also don't think stats (current ones anyway) are useful in judging the quality of a keeper it's qualitative. Percentage of chances taken would be interesting but stats won't tell you the pressure of, difficulty and importance of these chances, although it would be fair to say there probably isn't too much variation overall in difficulty of chances.

But surely he's missed at least 25 chances in his Test career so far. That's 20% of all the chances he gets, and that's a lot.

 

[PY]

Great interval interview with Andrew Strauss on TMS.

A very worthy cause and he represented the Primary Club very well and eloquently, excellent effort.