Nixon & Foster

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Roland Pink

For reasons unknown the England selectors have consistently been poor in preparing a consistent one-day team for the future. I personally think that the problem is in our approach of playing ‘bit’ players who can bat a little and bowl a little. If we play a team as close to the test team then we will perform better. One-day cricket is not necessary all about all-rounders, as important as they are.

Exactly, why have 2 players who can score 20 odd and bowl 10 overs between them for 50 runs when you could play a genuine batsman who could potentially score 100 when the pressures on and a proper bowler who has control under pressure! We are the only "major" team who persists in bits and pieces players, thats we we are so c**p! - Think back to last summer v Sri Lanka.

Looking at the keeping postion long term (beyond next summer) I think will be the end of Jones and Read (thankfully), Jones isnt good enoughwith bat or gloves and Read isnt good enough with the bat. James Foster might get his long awaited recall! Unfortunately, Rachael, the days of picking a specialist keeper are long gone, no matter how good he is. If your keeper cant average 30 then he will struggle to get a game in ANY test side.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

If your keeper cant average 30 then he will struggle to get a game in ANY test side.

If your keeper generally comes in after the top order has seen off the second new ball (as Gilchrist has routinely been able to do) then pretty much any tom, dick or harry could be taught to bat well enough for a Test side: in most Tests it ain't THAT difficult.... something borne out by the improvement over their careers of Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath, of Giles and Hoggard and of one Mark Richardson (from no 11 bat to opener).

What's needed from ALL the lower order is application: some will do better than others... and every once in a while the side is going to end up going from 5-out to all-out pretty quickly no matter WHO plays... but let's not hide from the need for the top order to bat through the better part of four sessions.

Bottom line: if you win the toss and bat first and your batsman is at the crease inside the first few minutes of day two... then no matter who is in your lower order... they are going to achieve a lot less than if they take over nearer lunchtime!

[Speedboy Salesman]

Is this going to be a long term problem for England? A wicketkeeper who can't bat? Read/Jones can't do it. Who's the better batsman out of Foster and Nixon?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

Is this going to be a long term problem for England? A wicketkeeper who can't bat? Read/Jones can't do it. Who's the better batsman out of Foster and Nixon?

Jones CAN bat: he's found no form whatsoever on this tour.. but in essence he has the makings of a very respectable batsman (and some of his strokeplay, at best, is exemplary). No one suggests he's mentally fragile... he's just got to go away and get his act together. He's got the potential to match Stewart as a 'keeper and I'd not be surprised to see him back for a really long stint in the future.

Read can also bat... especially on the sort of slow and low pitches that now predominate throughout the world. I'd back him ahead of most others for sub-continental wickets. He's also a decent ODI finisher.

Foster is a considerably better bat than Read. He's not an obvious ODI candidate... but he uses his feet, he's technically sound in defense and could be relied upon to accumulate runs pretty reliably (albeit slowly and mostly down the ground where Jones would generally be looking to send balls square of the wicket).

I suspect Nixon is just a stop-gap ODI prospect: he could do a job for the world cup...

The longer term bright prospect is Davies... who shows promise with the bat.. and is passable with the gloves. He should perhaps tour as reserve 'keeper next winter.

Shorter term.. mention should also be made of Batty and Wallace... though I doubt either will figure.

The other name that always comes up is Prior... but when he toured with the Academy Rod Marsh was keen to note he's a potential ODI batsman and sharp outfielder rather than potential wicket-keeper. Many of those who watch him seem pretty sure Foster has better technique with the bat as well as better hands with the gloves so this strikes me as a non-starter.

ps. Nic Pothas is the other interesting candidate: recently qualified for England and eminently qualified to act as a stop gap until Davies comes through.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If your keeper generally comes in after the top order has seen off the second new ball (as Gilchrist has routinely been able to do) then pretty much any tom, dick or harry could be taught to bat well enough for a Test side: in most Tests it ain't THAT difficult.... something borne out by the improvement over their careers of Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath, of Giles and Hoggard and of one Mark Richardson (from no 11 bat to opener).

Perhaps it isnt that difficult, but the test of a player is that he scores runs when the pressures on, a la Steve Waugh - Aussies 25/5 He scores a ton. Aussie 400/5 he scores a 30.

Originally Posted by Rachael

What's needed from ALL the lower order is application: some will do better than others... and every once in a while the side is going to end up going from 5-out to all-out pretty quickly no matter WHO plays... but let's not hide from the need for the top order to bat through the better part of four sessions.

This will happen to all sides but to be a good side you do need to bat to 9 (and have a top 6 that regulary fires)

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bottom line: if you win the toss and bat first and your batsman is at the crease inside the first few minutes of day two... then no matter who is in your lower order... they are going to achieve a lot less than if they take over nearer lunchtime!

Common sense, big first innings scores, usually win games.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Common sense, big first innings scores, usually win games.

I said nothing about big scores... merely suggesting the top order need to bat through the better part of four sessions. I don't care if that's racking up just 200-250 off the first 100 overs: the important thing is that they play through the first 20 overs with the second new ball... which is when targets should be considered.

Sadly, Hussain was the last captain to be convinced that this was the way to play: he focussed on being tough to beat... realising that batting long had to come before batting hard.

I admire Vaughan a lot as captain.... and have no problem with him trying to fashion a team to do things his way... but his obsession with not "dying wondering" leads to a style of play that will more often than not leave his lower order exposed well before the 120th over.

I suggest that requires a rethink of tactics not better batting from 7, 8 and the tail.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I said nothing about big scores... merely suggesting the top order need to bat through the better part of four sessions. I don't care if that's racking up just 200-250 off the first 100 overs: the important thing is that they play through the first 20 overs with the second new ball... which is when targets should be considered
.

Not saying that approach is wrong but you could still get skittled for a low score. As a bowler you always feel you can run through a team as long as the opposition are not scoring as you can keep the pressure on with attacking fields etc.
Since the Aussies started this new attacking way of playing, if the batting team scores quicly the attacking fielders vanish and fields become defensive, also making it easy to knock the ball around. If Bell and Colly are batting you can have 3 slips 2 gullies etc... and you know they are only going to score at 2 an over.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sadly, Hussain was the last captain to be convinced that this was the way to play: he focussed on being tough to beat... realising that batting long had to come before batting hard.
.

This was a bit negative though and only done really when England were poor. You wont win many games playing like this.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

This was a bit negative though and only done really when England were poor. You wont win many games playing like this.

You need to win series (or in this case draw a series) rather than get results in indvidual games... and if you bat 5 first-innings sessions as a minimum ona regular basis then (irrespective of total accumulated) you should be looking at fewer lost games... and greater odds over a 5-Test series.

The Aussie way looks great when minows are being slaughtered... but the moment you get to crunch time... it sucks. Without pressure, efforts to ride one's luck look great.. but the Aussies have all too often been close to implosion against decent rather than exceptional teams (especially have been lucky to play in an era of very true wickets).

Had the Aussies concentrated on being tough to beat they would never have lost the Ashes in 2005: the previous half-decade of treating opponents with contempt came back to haunt them.. and the difference this year is not so much England being weaker (though that's obviously true) as Australia re-adjusting and taking nothing forgranted.

Equally, England would never have lost the Ashes so meekly had they focussed on being tough to beat: ignoring the experience of Ramps and Lewis, ignoring the signs that Harmison, Mahmood and Flintoff were undercooked / jaded, presumably encouraging Strauss to attack where he should have focussed on quiet accumulation, playing Flintoff at 6 (and as part of a 5 man attack) instead of looking to bat the opposition out of every game, declaring rather than batting for 7-8 sessions in the one game they could have dominated and so on - the list could go on.

I don't mind that England have struggled to take 20 wickets... I just object to the way this has led to them losing games: the alternative to winning should be not losing!

[darksideofthemoon]

From SKY today -

Nixon had been the favourite to be selected after playing in the both the Commonwealth Bank series and the World Cup during the winter.
Although he has now missed out on the chance to make his Test debut at Lord's, Graveney insists the Leicestershire player is still firmly in the selectors' thoughts, particularly in terms of one-day cricket.

"As far as the selectors are concerned, Paul did a fantastic job in the West Indies, both in his contribution both on and off the field," he said.

"I'll be speaking to him just to reconfirm he's still very much in our thoughts, particularly when we have one-day and Twenty20 cricket coming up."

Well they don't have much faith in Prior if they are thinking of picking a different keeper for the ODI side. Fletcher liked the idea of the same players playing both forms of the game. Vaughan liked Nixon and Moores is a Prior man so did they come to a compromise 'ok you can have Prior for the Tests but I want Nixon for the ODIs'.