Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th April 2007, 00:05   #161
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,521
Nixon has been amazing. This Read/Jones thread limps along while we talk about possible replacements. Meanwhile, through this whole World Cup we have bemoaned Vaughan's batting and/or captaincy, Flintoff's batting, the batting order generally, Monty's ineffective bowling, the lack of wickets for Anderson and Mahmood's lack of consistency.

Not one moan about the wicket-keeping or the wicket-keeper's contribution with the bat. That's a fantastic achievement.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 00:12   #162
Jon Wallflower
World Class
 
Jon Wallflower's Avatar
No, I'm Spartacus
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In hope, rather than a house
Team(s): My family, animals and an advanced habit
Posts: 6,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
Jon, you will love Warwicks new reserve keeper - Stuart Barnes. Identified by, championed by and coached by Keith himself.
I have to say it isn't just Keet Piper I have a certain something about, it's Colin Metson as well. All this current affection for Read just smacks of people who are clutching at wicket-keeping straws, when everyone knows honey-hands and the Welsh snaffler would have pouched the straw ages ago, and be busy sipping a quiet Tio Pepe in a comfortable saloon bar, a way away from the ground...

Read's pretensions towards batsmanshippery has seen him distanced from the last two pure-breeds I've seen. Men who would act as slightly cowardly ferrets in the batting order. You could happily see Metson coming in at eleven, knowing he'd not let you down and score runs. No, no, this Read is but a pale imitation.
__________________
OFF AND AWAY!

I'm away for the week. Call my number and hear my sexy answerphone message. I will delete your message! BOX FE7881
Jon Wallflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 19:19   #163
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
They would have to drop him first!
Indeed. They will.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 19:21   #164
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 31
Posts: 8,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Nixon was always intended to be a finite selection given his age.
so i suppose les ames is an infinite selection for st.peter's XI in the All-Heaven Championships
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2007, 19:22   #165
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGHOLS! View Post
so i suppose les ames is an infinite selection for st.peter's XI in the All-Heaven Championships
That's exactly what I meant. Well discerned.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 01:56   #166
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,377
Surprised to see no calls for a re-call for the greatest living wicketkeeper, after his 15 runs against Durham Uni.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 02:07   #167
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 31
Posts: 8,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Surprised to see no calls for a re-call for the greatest living wicketkeeper, after his 15 runs against Durham Uni.
on an absolute minefield, to be joint-innings-third-top-scorer bespeaks a valiant effort indeed, my good fellow...

he's let through a bye, though, which is shocking and awful.
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 11:17   #168
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Surprised to see no calls for a re-call for the greatest living wicketkeeper, after his 15 runs against Durham Uni.
As I pointed out above, he can't be recalled, as he hasn't yet been dropped. It's unsurprising though that are no calls for him to be dropped on the basis of that innings.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 11:59   #169
GSLA
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 31
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
As I pointed out above, he can't be recalled, as he hasn't yet been dropped.
Sarcasm or no sarcasm, I believe this is classified under 'scraping the bottom of the barrel.'
GSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 12:28   #170
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSLA View Post
Sarcasm or no sarcasm, I believe this is classified under 'scraping the bottom of the barrel.'
Not at all; I just don't think it's a good idea to jump the gun on these things, especially as the main reason to expect Read to be dropped is that he is persona non grata in the eyes of a coach who is widely discredited largely because of his favouritism and rigidity of selection and is for this very reason likely to resign or be sacked in the next week or so. It may easily be said that the test team cannot afford to include the best wicketkeeper unless he is also an excellent batsman, but this seems to depend on a perception that the test team's top order is under-strength batting-wise, and also on a perception, which is demonstrably false in the recent past (except perhaps in the case of Read vs Pakistan), that picking the best-batting keeper will be part of a policy successful in making up the missing batting strength by having a strong lower order. To me it seems that England have two choices: either continue with a team inadequate in batting and perhaps also keeping, or pick a damn good keeper and bat him at 8. I am unpersuaded that the first option is preferable to the second; and thus, if there are data from these early county games that are relevant to the selection of the England test keeper, I suggest they should be keeping data (is Read still the best keeper? By what margin?), not batting data.

Last edited by sanskritsimon : 15th April 2007 at 12:32.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 12:35   #171
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 16,363
What abouting chirping data?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 13:03   #172
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 31
Posts: 8,823
Prior could make significant strides today. He's already mashed Hoggard and Harmison about for 22...
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 13:53   #173
daz
Posting God
 
daz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Team(s): Northamptonshire
Posts: 11,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGHOLS! View Post
Prior could make significant strides today. He's already mashed Hoggard and Harmison about for 22...



Out for 37
__________________
Look out for my flag in Dhaka.
daz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 13:54   #174
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazntfc View Post
Out for 37
Though according to the commentary his keeping was nice.
sanskritsimon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 14:10   #175
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,521
Let's be honest, though. Nixon has done far better in this World Cup than either Read or Jones is likely to have done. He gets on our nerves (well, mine at least) but the players seem to like him, and he does the job. I don't see him exactly gracing the test match arena, but that might be doing him an injustice. The only problem is that England do need to find a younger player to take forward, and Nixon holds up that process.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 14:34   #176
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Not at all; I just don't think it's a good idea to jump the gun on these things, especially as the main reason to expect Read to be dropped is that he is persona non grata in the eyes of a coach who is widely discredited largely because of his favouritism and rigidity of selection and is for this very reason likely to resign or be sacked in the next week or so. It may easily be said that the test team cannot afford to include the best wicketkeeper unless he is also an excellent batsman, but this seems to depend on a perception that the test team's top order is under-strength batting-wise, and also on a perception, which is demonstrably false in the recent past (except perhaps in the case of Read vs Pakistan), that picking the best-batting keeper will be part of a policy successful in making up the missing batting strength by having a strong lower order. To me it seems that England have two choices: either continue with a team inadequate in batting and perhaps also keeping, or pick a damn good keeper and bat him at 8. I am unpersuaded that the first option is preferable to the second; and thus, if there are data from these early county games that are relevant to the selection of the England test keeper, I suggest they should be keeping data (is Read still the best keeper? By what margin?), not batting data.
Pretty wishful thinking on all counts there. As ought to be pretty clear from opinion on here and from the pundits, it is by no means just Fletcher who wants Read well clear of the England side. The main reason to expect Read to be dropped is absence of runs. The rest in bold is just exaggeration rather than patently false. The remainder of the argument is one we've had ad nauseum before so I won't revisit it beyond saying that, as you know, I disagree with you and so do plenty of other people.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 19:05   #177
Jon Wallflower
World Class
 
Jon Wallflower's Avatar
No, I'm Spartacus
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In hope, rather than a house
Team(s): My family, animals and an advanced habit
Posts: 6,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Let's be honest, though. Nixon has done far better in this World Cup than either Read or Jones is likely to have done. He gets on our nerves (well, mine at least) but the players seem to like him, and he does the job. I don't see him exactly gracing the test match arena, but that might be doing him an injustice. The only problem is that England do need to find a younger player to take forward, and Nixon holds up that process.
Does it though? If Prior's face and baldy-looking head doesn't fit, then perhaps the next big thing is Davies. If that's the case, how old is the young lad? 23? 24? 25? Perhaps he's just too young to be thrust in at seven for England trying to save the game after Freddie has just charged Chris Gayle with a hearty 'Mind my Tino, Windows!' and been stumped silly by whichever Wickey the Windies have wangled. Maybe a couple more development tours are in order for the young king-in-waiting, and picking a thirty-six yr old isn't such a bad thing, if the thirty-six yr old knows he's just acting as regent.
__________________
OFF AND AWAY!

I'm away for the week. Call my number and hear my sexy answerphone message. I will delete your message! BOX FE7881
Jon Wallflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 20:58   #178
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
The selectors will still pick Read in Tests. And why not, he did nothing wrong on his return to the side.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 21:03   #179
daz
Posting God
 
daz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Team(s): Northamptonshire
Posts: 11,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by englandsashes2009 View Post
The selectors will still pick Read in Tests. And why not, he did nothing wrong on his return to the side.


They should never have dropped him for Jones so who knows what the selectors will do.
__________________
Look out for my flag in Dhaka.
daz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2007, 21:09   #180
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazntfc View Post
They should never have dropped him for Jones so who knows what the selectors will do.
There is that. However it wasnt the selection committee that dropped him it was Fletcher and the 'tour management'.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:32.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org