Nixon & Foster

[Speedboy Salesman]

I don't much about either although I did see Foster on TV and when Warwickshire played Essex at Edgbaston (I took the **** out of Andy Bichel so bad that day!) Who's the bigger prospect for the England wicketkeeper position?

[mudney]

Long term definitely Foster but in the short term i.e. the world cup I have no idea. Nixon is a pretty nifty twenty20 player but is gettin on a bit in age. He has been in England sqauds in the past and England have shown in the past year they aren't afraid to hand debuts to older players. I would go with Foster personally because he's younger and has some international experience, and to go with Nixon would probably be a negative step. Besides I hopefully think we're talking about understudies as Read should be given a flippin' run now,

[greg]

To be honest i am past caring at the moment.Anybody but Jones will do for me.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by greg

To be honest i am past caring at the moment.Anybody but Jones will do for me.

I reckon Simon Jones would be better behind the stumps than Geraint. And he's a fast bowler....and he's injured. But still the safer bet.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

I reckon Simon Jones would be better behind the stumps than Geraint.

I disagreed with Read being dropped in the WI and have wanted him back ever since.... but let's give credit where it's deserved: Jones' job was to keep wicket... and whilst he's not been good at it in the past... and despite not always looking the tidiest... he was actually pretty passable (up there in the mid-career Stewart class) throughout the first three Tests of the Ashes - far better than iron-gloves Gilchrist (who really hasn't shown himself as fit to wear the gauntlets).

So Jones didn't get runs: big deal. THAT'S NOT HIS JOB! I don't expect Read to rack up a sackful either... but that ain't going to be his job either! Jones should NOT be getting stick for the shortcomings of a side which has come up short principally for not being able to strangle the opposition batsmen with consistent, accurate bowling on a good line and length and sharp, incisive fielding focussed on preventing singles rather than scurrying after well-hit four-balls!

[KennyG]

You like the debate between picking great keeper/poor batsman vs average keeper/good batsman.

Jones did a good job behind the stumps IMO,he is just a dud with the bat.
It was a bit silly to drop a better keeper for a lesser one because he had a slightly better batter average.
If Jones had earned his place he should have had an average in the 30s at least.

We bought in Gilchrist because he has averaged about twice what Healy did.(27 vs 48)
That is a good reason to change.

We have had three greats in pretty quick succession(Marsh,Healy and Gilchrist) and if there was a poll/vote about which one would get picked for an all time best team,Gilchrist would romp it in.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by KennyG

We have had three greats in pretty quick succession(Marsh,Healy and Gilchrist) and if there was a poll/vote about which one would get picked for an all time best team,Gilchrist would romp it in.

That would surely depend on the make-up of your all time best team.

If you had the greatest six batsmen in Aussie test history... say from Border, Ponsford, Trumper, Chappel, Bradman, Ponting, Steve Waugh, Jones and Harvey.... what makes you think you'd need runs from the 'keeper? Surely an all-time Xi should get as close as possible to the veneration of specialists for specialist jobs... meaning batsmen to bat, bowlers to bowl and a 'keeper to 'keep.

If the best gloveman was a complete loser with the bat I'd even promote Warne to 7 for an all-time XI: it really wouldn't matter!

The case for compromise only comes in if you want two spinners and three seamers: in that case... play Gilchrist at 6 and Warne at 7... but otherwise let's please see Healy / Marsh get the nod!

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

So Jones didn't get runs: big deal. THAT'S NOT HIS JOB! I don't expect Read to rack up a sackful either... but that ain't going to be his job either! Jones should NOT be getting stick for the shortcomings of a side which has come up short principally for not being able to strangle the opposition batsmen with consistent, accurate bowling on a good line and length and sharp, incisive fielding focussed on preventing singles rather than scurrying after well-hit four-balls!

Well hasn't the time gone where we had specialist wicketkeepers? Aren't most wicketkeepers supposed to bat as well in this day and age? Are you suggesting if Jones came back, put him in at 11, after Panesar? I don't expect Read to rack up "a sackful" either, but I think the only way now for decide of Read vs Jones, give Read now a run in the side as long as Jones had, and we'll see what happens. But I would start looking for a different keeper, give a choice between Jones and Read (just don't mention Prior).

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

Well hasn't the time gone where we had specialist wicketkeepers? Aren't most wicketkeepers supposed to bat as well in this day and age?

Pretty much anyone can be taught to bat... and one way or the other, it certainly helps if the four bowlers and gloveman, between them, can stick around for the benefit of whichever top-order bat looks like running out of partners - but the emphasis should be on ability to stick around for the benefit of someone like Ponting, Lara or Pietersen, not on ability to contribute as part of a partnership of near-equals!

For what it's worth.. I'd have been happy for Warne to bat at 7, Lee to bat at 8, Gillespie to bat at 9 and a keeper to bat at 10 during most of the Gilchrist reign: sure, Gilchrist wasn't shabby... but if he'd been as bad a keeper as Jones.... and if someone like Keith Piper had been available... I trust the Piper clone would have got the nod.

[Roland Pink]

The England selectors have obviously went for the short-term option in regards to picking Mr Nixon, and to be honest I understand that. Mr Foster could of perhaps been included in the one-day squads with Mr Jones a year ago. However to be honest I don’t think Mr Foster is good enough for England so I can’t argue for that.

Mr Nixon is an excellent 20-20 player but remember he is playing against poorer bowlers in a format which has a total different mind-set from 50 over cricket. I doubt we will see Mr Nixon slogging and hitting the 4’s and 6’s against world class bowlers but good luck to him none the less as I think he will play.

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.