Simon Jones or James Anderson?

[sledger]

hence my point,

after he had bowled a while in these conditions his form was coming back to him and he took 2 or 3 wickets, had he had a good run in the side throughout the year who is to say that he would not have recaptured his best form and earned his place back in the side?

 

[Richard]

Who indeed?
As it is, he's out of the side and the only way I can see him getting back in in the next 3 Tests is injury.
And with Giles in his current state, wouldn't rule it out.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't really like to judge whether someone's got potential on such a stop-start career as his.

yet you'd rather judge his career based on the times when hes been injured?

 

[tooextracool]

Something that was never confirmed and something that you simply have to bowl through if you want to be a good bowler.
No-one is fully fit for close to every game they play.

which is the biggest load of bull i have ever heard.
it is quite impossible to expect someone to bowl remotely close to his best when he isnt fit. it is even more ludicrous to expect someone who has barely any intl or first class experience to bowl at his best. you can only judge a bowler based on how well hes bowled when hes fit, and given that he hasnt bowled as badly as you make it out to be, id say hes shown plenty of potential.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet you've said so many times that anyone who's going to be successful at the international level will have success at the domestic.
I've never said domestic cricket is the be-all-and-end-all but it's not meaningless and if Jones is to be an international success he'll have to do something he's not done so far.

and if you look closely i've also used the word 'expected' every time i've said it instead of using 'will' which is something that you would say and then change everything around to appear as though you never made any such claim. enough players have already shown they can succeed at the intl level without succeeding at the domestic. of course most of the intl successes will still be domestic successes, but theres always the anomaly. and you of all people should know more about anomalies than anyone else.

 

[tooextracool]

He may have been carrying a minor injury, the sort of which does not have much of an effect on the best players..

because after playing as many as 10 test matches and oh so many first class games, hes already become the 'best' of players hasnt he?

The whole point of showing three games is that if he keeps bowling well having been unlucky (as he was against New Zealand) the bad luck will be cancelled-out.

If you watch every game - rather than being selective and watching certain games here and there - you'll get the picture that we can't even begin to be certain whether he's good enough or not.

its amazing how someone like you is accusing me of being selective isnt it? i mean the same person who brings up ramprakash's career between 97-98 out of a career that spanned nearly 10 years to prove to me that ramprakash was a world class player is saying that im too selective?
look its fairly obvious to me that whatever jones does at the intl level, success or not, he will never strike you as being good enough simply because hes not one of your stereotypes of domestic success- intl success. for you to include games when he was quite clearly not fit shows how desperate this claim really is.

 

[Richard]

yet you'd rather judge his career based on the times when hes been injured?

No, I'd rather reserve judgement, which is exactly what I have done thus far.

 

[Richard]

which is the biggest load of bull i have ever heard.
it is quite impossible to expect someone to bowl remotely close to his best when he isnt fit. it is even more ludicrous to expect someone who has barely any intl or first class experience to bowl at his best. you can only judge a bowler based on how well hes bowled when hes fit, and given that he hasnt bowled as badly as you make it out to be, id say hes shown plenty of potential.

Have you not been taking any notice of the happenings of the last 5 years or so?
For a bowler to play without some sort of small niggle (eg a sore toe) is less common than for him to play with one.
Yes, of course a full-blown injury (especially things like side-strains) is going to have some effect and a poor performance must be taken in context of any full-blown injury.
But a sore toe is not an excuse to bowl as poorly as he did at Lord's.
Nor is the after-effects of a stomach-bug any excuse for how poorly he bowled in the first-innings at Kingsmead.

 

[Richard]

because after playing as many as 10 test matches and oh so many first class games, hes already become the 'best' of players hasnt he?

You seem to think he could become one.
If you're going to become one you need the vital charecteristic of being relatively uneffected by minor injuries.

its amazing how someone like you is accusing me of being selective isnt it? i mean the same person who brings up ramprakash's career between 97-98 out of a career that spanned nearly 10 years to prove to me that ramprakash was a world class player is saying that im too selective?
look its fairly obvious to me that whatever jones does at the intl level, success or not, he will never strike you as being good enough simply because hes not one of your stereotypes of domestic success- intl success. for you to include games when he was quite clearly not fit shows how desperate this claim really is.

And for you to attempt to use a minor injury to excuse what was a poor performance shows equal desperacy.
Look, so far there's no way around the fact that Jones at Test-level has done little to suggest he's that good. Until he does I and anyone else are right to be sceptical about him.
You can go on blaming his poor performances when they come along on unimportant injury for only so long. Only once he starts consistently producing spells such as the Lord's and PE second-innings ones are you going to have a case.

 

[steds]

I expect Anderson to be back in the team for the next test.

Hopefully.


And hopefully he'd do well if he does play

 

[Richard]

Only if Giles' injury keeps him out IMO.

 

[steds]

Only if Giles' injury keeps him out IMO.

would England dare go into a test without a spinner and 4 specialist seamers, none of whom could really bat at number 8?

 

[Richard]

Possibly not but would anyone seriously prefer see Gareth Batty play Test-cricket than James Anderson?
Anderson might have been poor most of the time, but Batty has been quite appalling - one of the worst bowlers I've ever seen selected for England.
Certainly far worse than Ian Salisbury.

 

[marc71178]

Which would mean Gareth Batty

Get well soon Gilo!

 

[steds]

Gary Keedy is the way forward. He may be old(for someone who hasn't played a test to be talked about as "the future"), but he's good

 

[marc71178]

How is Keedy better than Giles?

And IIRC he's another nothing batsman?

 

[steds]

And IIRC he's another nothing batsman?

oh yeah.










That slipped my mind

 

[steds]

How is Keedy better than Giles?

errm...72 first class wickets in 2004@25.68 and 60 first class wickets@26.55 in 2003 seem to suggest something

 

[Richard]

The suitability of many Old Trafford pitches for fingerspin, mainly.
All right, Keedy might be better than Batty but if he's anything close to as good as Giles I'll eat my computer.

 

[marc71178]

And of course, Giles was playing in FC Cricket those summers wasn't he?

I think 35 @ 26.82 last summer stacks up very well against that seeing as he was playing Tests.

Last time Giles played a decent season of CC, he took 52 @ 23.07 to follow 39 @ 24.05 and 36 @ 28.47.