Who should keep wicket for England?

Who should be the Test custodian?

  • Total voters
    17
Top Contributors
Caesar

Caesar

Member
Who should keep wicket for England?

Simple question.

I don't like Prior as a custodian, but his batting talent is undeniable and if he could improve his glovework over the winter I'd consider him. He's a lot younger than the other options as well. Maybe his batting wouldn't be as necessary if England could fix their middle order, but that's another thread.

Foster has had decent batting form recently, and he's an experienced head behind the stumps who knows how to keep.

Personally though, I think Chris Read has to be the immediate future. Yeah he's 31, but I really think he needs an extended run in the Test side to let him find his feet and convert good county form into being a solid contributor at the top level. Maybe it would give Prior some incentive to improve his keeping, as well.

P.S. - Anyone who suggests Geraint Jones will be shot.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

I would have to question the point of this thread if I'm being honest. No one is calling for Prior to be relieved of the keeping duties, so I'm a bit perplexed as to where you're coming from.

Prior is in possession and rightly so. His keeping during the Ashes was pretty tight - as they say if you don't hear anything about the keeper then he's doing a decent job. He's worked hard and it's shows - hardly any chances missed and he's keeping the byes to a minimum.

During the last test he conceded a total of 8 byes, personally I think that's good considering the pitch wasn't an easy one to keep on.

He's also cut out the unnecessary chirping and now simply tries to set the pace for the rest of the team.

Chris Read will never play for England again and rightly so. The guy has had chances but failed, his attitude is poor and he is an inferior bat. He may be a good keeper but that's all.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

I guess I had the impression Prior was less ensconced than he apparently is.

His keeping didn't impress me overly during the series, and I suppose I may be a little biased against him from what I saw of him earlier in his involvement with the side. I don't know much about Read's attitude, I've just heard good things about him on the county scene.

EDIT: To refresh my memory, just had a look at the b/lb counts from the series. Looks like England was giving up around 30-35 a match, which is pretty comparable to Australia. So maybe my interpretation is a little off (although to me that's still a few too many extras, albeit probably not all down to the keeper).
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Prior is a decent bat, however, for me, he has to start making a really big Haddinesque 100+ total, against a big side like Australia to counter his poor glovesmanship. ;)
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Kieswetter

There's not enough South Africans in the team for my liking

Seriously though, recently Prior has been about as good as they get standing up to the stumps, it's when he goes back for the fast bowlers where his technique lets him down.

He constantly changes between Australian (Take the ball on the inside hip whenever possible) and English (Take the ball in front of your chest whenever possible) styles, seemingly at random. This is not so much of an issue up at the stumps because it's less about positioning and footwork and more about reflexes and soft-hands, but when standing back to a swinging ball he does looks average.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Matt Prior definately in the test side, the ODI side however needs a new keeper, dont know why we ever got rid of Nixon

Main thing is Ambrose is never seen in England colours again
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

I don't know what Mustard did wrong to get booted from the ODI side, he batted well at the top of the order and his keeping was fine
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Nixon got booted due to him signing ICL @eddiesmith.

Chris Read had some bad luck but he never really took the gloves away from anyone. I would pick Prior for the Tests and either James Foster as the ODI keeper.

Guys - I saw Kieswetter as he is from Cape Town - sorry for some self marketing and I think that he might in the future be the England Keeper. He scored runs aplenty but demanded contracts before going pro that is why he is in England. I rate him but he needs to prove himself first.

@mas cambios - I think this thread could be good as England I think dont want Collingwood as their emergency keeper. Have someone in the wings.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Isn't Nixon like 40? Thought he was ok but surely someone younger is available that is just as good? Plus the bloke never shuts up :D
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Kram81;366323 said:
Isn't Nixon like 40? Thought he was ok but surely someone younger is available that is just as good? Plus the bloke never shuts up :D
Click to expand...
I didn't like Nixon that much when he played in the last Ashes Series.

I don't mind Matt Prior, give him a few more tests and ODI series to make his mark. If you remember we had to do the same thing for Brad Haddin.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Since Alec Stewart retired they've chopped and changed keepers at an alarming rate!
Prior looks the goods, particularly with the bat and his keeping keeps improving.
What's the prospects of young Simon Davies, perhaps the successor to Prior after retiring or form?
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

England's keeping debate normally comes up every now and then when someone shells a catch and the said batsmen goes on to make a massive score.

My point is it doesn't take much for them to change.

South Africa will offer a really good test for this front-running English team, they might actually lose a toss for once. Prior will have his work cut out in South Africa, with more bounce, carry and pace in the decks your foot work has to be spot on, he probably wont glove much because the two mastiffs in anderson and broad will be getting spanked over and to the boundary.

Seriously though, you look down that English side and ordinary just keeps popping into your mind.

I can't believe Monty has taken over 100 test wickets, nice guy, but an absolute spud of a bowler.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;371706 said:
I can't believe Monty has taken over 100 test wickets, nice guy, but an absolute spud of a bowler.
Click to expand...
Harsh much? Last time I checked he averaged low thirties, which is par for the course for a decent spinner.

I'd rather have Panesar than any of our spin options right now.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Well I wouldn't, I'd take Hauritz over Monty, for several reasons. Primarily Hauritz actually appears to develop as he gains more experience and he actually takes an interest is setting his field; which is always a sign that a player thinks about the game.

Monty couldn't give a stuff about his field, and to me that isn't what I look for in a cricketer.

Swann also has a few years in him at test level, his 30, by the time Swann is kicked out Rashid will probably be ready and able. The fact both have ability with the bat, with Rashid appearing capable of being a genuine all-rounder, really makes it hard to see Monty getting another cap.

England like lower-order batting, they are almost obsessed with it, as such they are likely to give a bit more leeway to guys when they are struggling with the ball because they have the ability to hit 50 odd runs coming in at the end of an innings.

England don't appear to have much love, nor patience for players who are only capable in one area of the game, like Shah, who by all accounts can't field and can't run between wickets.

Look at England they picked Giles in the 06/07 Ashes, his selection signified England were happy with drawn games because they held the Ashes, adding extra depth to the batting allows you to draw more games on the basis of big first innings scores.

I don't think Swann or Broad will have much impact in South Africa, especially Swann. It will be interesting to see what England do with their selections if it gets to a stage where they need to try some new players, will the players who can bat and bowl get extra leeway. Or will players like Anderson, who had an ordinary Ashes, feel the pinch first?
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

That's a pretty rambling post that doesn't say much about Panasar's ability or otherwise. I know ragging on the Poms is fashionable but let's try and make it mildly objective.

Calling him a spud is a bit baseless. The reality is that he manages to combine decent flight and turn with a respectable economy rate and average at a Test level. He's hardly setting the world on fire, but that's something we sorely lack in a spinner at the moment.
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

England's main obstacle in finding a world-class spinner is the fact tbat South Africa seem to almost exclusively nurture fast bowlers. :p
 
Re: Who should keep wicket for England?

Ha Ha Ha :D

I must agree with LtD that Panesar hasnt improved at all since debut and should be well back in the pecking order by now

Dont agree on the Giles part, he often did his job and as part of a 5 man attack he wasnt all about taking wickets but more a containing role and he occassionally took the wickets as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top