Should England keep or dump Tim Ambrose?

Okay, have done the same report card for Read - as he seemed to be the topic of hot debate.

If anyone can point me in direction of any chances Read missed where he didn't go for them i'd be grateful - as I can't find any evidence of this. I mainly get the missed chances / drops from the ball-by-ball scorecards on cricinfo - I know this isn't an infallible method, but they document most drops and missed chances. I am aware that Read left a chance between himself and 1st slip in a ODI vs Pakistan - could this be what people are thinking of? I don't recall him ever doing this in a Test, but I was out of the country for the 4th Test vs Pak in 2006. If anyone can recall a batsman or bowler that would help narrow it down. Only thing I could find in that match was Tresco dropping Yousuf at slip, though the commentary suggests this was a regulation 1st slip chance.

Anyway...

For Read I have done the 12 Tests he played since 2000 (like the wisden article).

Runs scored: 26.8
Byes Conceded: 2.4
Runs conceeded in missed chances: 1.3

So effectively Read contributes 23.1 runs per Test.

So over the 12 tests Read has taken 38 catches and 5 stumpings and effected one run-out while missing 2 catches giving him a success ratio of 95.6%. If anyone can remember him missing any chances other than the Rajin Saleh or Kumar Dharmasena ones (and ideally some mention in a news report or youtube clip would be nice) i'll add them to this analysis.

When I have the time will do some other keepers, perhaps a sample of a non England keeper like Boucher or Dhoni would be useful?

I remember at least 2 at the Oval test v Pak

Give him another couple of tests to prove that he got something worth holding on to before trying a Foster or Read again.

JKLever wrote:I remember at least 2 at the Oval test v Pak

Prove it . . .

How can I prove it?

I'm sure others will remember that test well....

JKLever wrote:How can I prove it?

I'm sure others will remember that test well....

It will be mentioned in the Cricinfo commentary on the game.

Dig 'em out!

I remember one chance going between Read and Tres that summer - but couldn't tell you which Test it was in, and it may have been one of the JAMODI's.

Certainly don't remember two.

As I've said previously anyway, this is always liable to happen when a new keeper / 1st slip partnership is forming. Not necessarily sure that either are to blame.

The fact that this came off the back of several Jones chances where he had been lambasted for flying aimlessly in front of Tres and 'patted' them out of the way might suggest that it was something they were actually working on.

Or how about a conspiracy theory? We know that Fletcher was livid about having Read thrust upon him for those two tests, so did he say to Trescothick, 'right - if this bloke's so bloody good, stand a yard wider.'

Certainly when you watch Notts, first slip is always fairly close to Read, and he will only dive across in front of him if the ball is not going to carry that far.

JKLever wrote:I remember at least 2 at the Oval test v Pak

I am pretty sure it was just one at The Oval JKL. The other one I think happened in the T20 v Pak at Bristol. I suspect even if you made it 2 and included those against Read he would still come out ahead of Prior in the stats Gary is compiling.

I am not a big Read fan by the way. Like you I think he is a bit mentally weak. HOWEVER I think a lot of that is down to extremely poor management by Eng (something I don't think any fans should be all that proud of) and had he been properly directed from an early age he might well have overcome that mental weakness. Easily your best wicket keeping option in this generation IMO but has been totally screwed.

Still you are where you are and Read is now history. I suspect you guys will go with Prior because its the only way you can make your precious 5-man bowling attack work but IMO it will be a blind alley. I'd expect Prior to ultimately average no more than 35 in test cricket if he bats at No.7 and slightly less if he bats at No.6. Whilst that will be better than nearly every other candidate you care to mention I doubt its more than 5-8 runs per innings and I would suspect Prior's inferior wicket keeping will cost you a lot more than that.

The correct way forward is for Eng to play 6 quality batsmen, Freddy batting at 7 , 1 quality wicket keeper batting at 8, 2 further seamers and Monty.

Eng will not do this because of the run of success they had when they had 4 quality fast bowlers back in 2003-2005 and still wanted to play Giles to rest them appropriately. This despite the fact that the 5-man attack strategy has been staggeringly unsuccessful since the 2005 Ashes.

All of the problems with the wicket keeping position are tied up with this IMO.

JKLever wrote:How can I prove it?

I'm sure others will remember that test well....

Yup, I remeber it, said it earlier to Gary. There were definately 2 occasions when it happened, think they were in seperate ntests though.

I remember because I thought it was strange, and then Danny went a little beserk about it on here i think.

ATT, I was abhorring the whole feel of 'Chris Read is perfect' going around. He wasn't. I mooted that they wouldn't be counted as missed chances as he didn't go for them.

Then he feasted on tired, dross bowling. I mooted that they weren't particularly pressure runs and that against a coherent side, he'd get gated.

Brass Monkey wrote:ATT, I was abhorring the whole feel of 'Chris Read is perfect' going around. He wasn't. I mooted that they wouldn't be counted as missed chances as he didn't go for them.

Then he feasted on tired, dross bowling. I mooted that they weren't particularly pressure runs and that against a coherent side, he'd get gated.

Exactly, and he's weak minded!

GordoninPortsmouth wrote:
I am not a big Read fan by the way. Like you I think he is a bit mentally weak. HOWEVER I think a lot of that is down to extremely poor management by Eng (something I don't think any fans should be all that proud of) and had he been properly directed from an early age he might well have overcome that mental weakness. Easily your best wicket keeping option in this generation IMO but has been totally screwed.

Gordon, this doesn't wash with me at all. There are numerous other players who have been handled like that who still don't look shot to ribbons at the crease for England, its what England do. First it was the merry-go-round scenario, and now its the cosy cosy, lose a memeber of the family and we all lose the plot and can't play cricket scenario. Those on the outside of this always get screwed.

Shah is one of them as an example.

He's just weak in the mind at the top level, like Ramps was and a few others. Nothing you can do about it.... Unless you an Aussie Gordon are advocating wrapping him in cotton wool, and feeding him warm milk and biscuits?

holcs wrote:

GordoninPortsmouth wrote:
I am not a big Read fan by the way. Like you I think he is a bit mentally weak. HOWEVER I think a lot of that is down to extremely poor management by Eng (something I don't think any fans should be all that proud of) and had he been properly directed from an early age he might well have overcome that mental weakness. Easily your best wicket keeping option in this generation IMO but has been totally screwed.

Gordon, this doesn't wash with me at all. There are numerous other players who have been handled like that who still don't look shot to ribbons at the crease for England, its what England do. First it was the merry-go-round scenario, and now its the cosy cosy, lose a memeber of the family and we all lose the plot and can't play cricket scenario. Those on the outside of this always get screwed.

Shah is one of them as an example.

He's just weak in the mind at the top level, like Ramps was and a few others. Nothing you can do about it.... Unless you an Aussie Gordon are advocating wrapping him in cotton wool, and feeding him warm milk and biscuits?

Far from it Chas, and I think you have misunderstood me if you think I am.

I would not pick Chris Read for the very reason he's been shown to be mentally weak and now carries any number of scars which would IMO sabotage any attempts he might now make to forge an international career . Can I be any plainer on that point?

However I don't agree with you that there is nothing that can be done about young players who are not mentally tough enough when they first come into test cricket. Good management IMO can overcome this. Not by mollycoddling the young player "with warm milk and biscuits" but by a) identifying to them their shortcomings; b) setting them the challenge of overcoming them; c) offering them the support necessary to assist them in acheiving their goals; d) holding them to account on their work rates to acheive their goals.

In the case of Chris Read you would have sat him down after his first test back in 1999 and pointed out some of the facts of life about international cricket to him. That there is no quarter given and that any fraility is seized on by the opposition as a weakness to exploit. Technically also you would tell him he needs to work on his defence against the fast bowlers. You might tell him that if he works on all this there is an excellent chance he will be the long term replacement for Alec Stewart on the latters retirement (after all the selectors must see something in him to give him a test cap at age 20) but that ultimately if he doesn't work to overcome his shortcomings then all his talented promise would come to nothing. You then keep a close eye on him (perhaps with a central contract but not necessarily so) at Notts, send him on A tour and even have him as the No.2 to Stewart on the longer tours. In other words you offer him the incentive to work hard at his game but you hold him to account if he shirks his responsibilities

Now I accept I don't know for sure and maybe this is exactly what the Eng management did with Read. And if after all that Read was still shirking, still mentally weak then fine fair dos. Thats why his international career has ended up in the toilet.

However all the anecdotal evidence suggests his reception by the test team in 1999 was anything but friendly. After that one test he was sent into selection outer-Siberia and further to that Duncan Fletcher never at any stage seemed to either like the guy, accept he had a role to play in English cricket or do anything that would suggest he was interested in improving Read's game.

There are very guys who will be the finished product in their early 20s when they first play test cricket. Mental weakness is just one of the many potential flaws you might find as there are plenty of young people that age who are not sure of their place in the scheme of things and basically just need to grow up a bit. Good management IMO can help to overcome this. Not always for sure, but certainly its worth a go. I certainly don't accept that all you can do is just wash your hands of such players.

The big problem with the "wash your hands of em" approach is that if the player really is talented then they will simply end up clogging your FC system with high calibre performance and their very presence causes endless debate about their worth and whether they should be picked or not. They don't just go away and hide under a rock. I think Eng have exactly this problem with both Read, Ramprakash and possibly Shah. All of which doesn't exactly create a healthy feel about the international set up.

Anyway thats all I wish to say about Chris bloody Read.

I am not and have not been for quite a while an advocate of his and I think its ridiculous that whenever this debate comes up his name is always to the forefront. Forget it. The guy has had his chance and for whatever reason its been screwed.

The debate now is really whether Eng want a glorified backstop who might contribute an extra 5-7 runs per test innings with the bat. OR do they want a technically excellent glovesman who they see as contributing modest late order runs in the mould of an Ashley Giles or Stuart Broad.

Eng potentially don't need an Adam Gilchrist, Sangakarra, Flower or McCullum since they already have an excellent dual purpose player in Andrew Flintoff. To demand two such players is really quite greedy.

The thing I would like to explain to me is this:

All those advocating the 5 bowler strategy as a must always rationalise Eng must take 20 wickets to win a test match. Yet picking a dud keeper who might drop vital catches actually mitigates against you taking the 20 wickets. Perhaps if Eng had a keeper who took all the chances they wouldn't need the extra bowler. And if they had the extra batsmen they wouldnt need the runs from their keeper.

GordoninPortsmouth wrote:

Eng potentially don't need an Adam Gilchrist, Sangakarra, Flower or McCullum since they already have an excellent dual purpose player in Andrew Flintoff. To demand two such players is really quite greedy.

That's a fair point, but at the moment we don't have THAT Andrew Flintoff, we have someone recovering from injury and in no sort of form right now.

JKLever wrote:

GordoninPortsmouth wrote:

Eng potentially don't need an Adam Gilchrist, Sangakarra, Flower or McCullum since they already have an excellent dual purpose player in Andrew Flintoff. To demand two such players is really quite greedy.

That's a fair point, but at the moment we don't have THAT Andrew Flintoff, we have someone recovering from injury and in no sort of form right now.

So what role do you think FF can play at the moment JKL?