no need to...england have enoough batsmen at the toporder...gerrant jones doesnt derve to be in th tam as chris team is far more a better batsman then jones
2006-08-07 00:13:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zuhair-from-pakistan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Out with Geraint, in with Chris!
2006-08-10 11:57:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by appleblossom 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'm glad ur not the coach of eng !!
gilchrist bats at 7 he averages 60. jones bats at 7 and averages 18. if he cant bat when the ball is old how the hell is he gonna bat when the ball is newer. if he was good, he would get alot of not outs coz he bats with the tail, but the only guy who seems to get not outs is our beloved monty !!
2006-08-08 08:16:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by rocky 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i am a welshman myself,geraint jones would not have into the welsh cricket team.The worst wicketkeeper to have played for England.
2006-08-07 12:01:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by .brynbach 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
his average isnt good enough compared to pieterson collingwood and bell plus read is batting better than him at the mo he has to improve his average to get back in his ability with the gloves is brill tho
2006-08-10 10:29:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
its because he can make some good runs in the middile than at the top order if you look at his othr games hes good on the midle. he is not a bad player at all.
2006-08-09 19:00:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
its because of his poor record
they only picked him in the start because he was a good batsmen
now hes gone crap and they've dropped him
but i hope he regains his batting form
and maybe bats a bit higher
2006-08-08 13:24:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by imran h 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
bcos he cant bat down the order, so what's he going to be like up the order
2006-08-07 08:01:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by strettyford 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It doesn't matter any more. Read is the better batsman and the better wicketkeeper.
2006-08-10 10:43:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by MBK 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i have no clue, sorry
2006-08-07 06:12:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋