Who should be England's wicket-keeper?

[pie_chucker]

I agree with some of what you are saying Racheal. For a good fast / medium bowler (i.e. Hoggard / Asif) with an oldish ball it can be a good attacking move to have the keper stood up. It will only be effective though IF the bowler hits the right length and he if moving the ball around (swing, seam or cut it doesnt matter). If the ball isnt moving that type of bowler is better off bowling more defensively and trying to "strangle" the batter out.
I also suspect that there is a bit of testosterone flowing through the veins of a lot of medium pacers and they dont want the keeper standing up to them, because to them its as if their manhood has been questioned. Personally speaking as a swing/seam bowler I love it if i can get a keeper who is good enough to stand up, at club level it pins batsmen on the back foot.

Regarding bouncers, if the bowler is genuinly quick and knows how to bowl a good bouncer (not many current test fast bowlers can) a bouncer is a wonderfully attacking weapon. The bowler has to know how and when to use it. The likes of Lillee, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose, Marshall and even Pollock in his younger days all had very good bouncers that would bother all modern day batsman with the exception of Ponting. However if the bowler is low 80's he's better off using the bouncer as a (very) surprise weapon, otherwise it is a waste.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

A keeper could not keep standing up to a genuine pace bowler like Lee Flintoff or Shoaib, he would have no chance of catching an edge, and would be prone to serious injury.

A keeper like Read should stand back to bowlers like Flntoff - Mahmood - Harmison or Plunkett, to catch the inevitable edges in English conditions.

Thats correct Ern, for tall or quick bowlers, standing up would either cost a lot of chances or castrate the bowler, forcing him to bowl a line or length that would be innefective.

For Hoggard bowling to Hayden (with the old ball), the keeper standing up is an attacking option because Hayden likes to drive hard at the ball "on the up". By keeping his feet another foot and a half away from the pitch of the ball he's a cert to be caught at short cover.

[EllN]

I agree it is a pointless delivery if you cant bowl over 90 mph but deffenity can be a match changing delivery, it can cause a batsman to become aggressive and can begin too take the atttack to the other sides with great effect or can cause aalot of wickets too fall look at the old trafford test against pakistan last summer, also it can send a message to the other side such as harmy did in 2005 too justin langer and pointing around about the second over

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

with an oldish ball it can be a good attacking move to have the keper stood up. It will only be effective though IF the bowler hits the right length and he if moving the ball around (swing, seam or cut it doesnt matter)

Agreed... though if a seamer can't manage swing, seam or cut... or at least a well disguised variation in flight and/or pace... he should be replaced with a spinner!

What you are basically saying here is that a bowler has to beat the batsman either in the air or off the pitch... but that's true of all bowling. We're also agreed that this is an attacking strategy best suited to times when a seamer cannot dominate a batsmen: you talk of "with an oldish ball"... but what you really mean is at any stage where an edge to the 'keeper looks unlikely.

Aside from new-ball bowling in helpful conditions... that's surely most of the time. If you think back through the recently completed Ashes series... or even to 2005... when did the ball dominate? How many spells had you glued to the coverage with the expectation of a near-unplayable delivery?

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

The likes of Lillee, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose, Marshall and even Pollock in his younger days all had very good bouncers that would bother all modern day batsman with the exception of Ponting.

Yup... that lot all had very good bouncers... but even a tail-ender like Brett Lee could counter those short balls by simply having the nous to drop his hands and leave on length. To a player like Dravid (or Bell) such deliveries are NOT (in isolation) potentially wicket-taking balls.... as they almost invariably just leave them alone. To any batsman prepared to leave on length.... the bouncer only produces wickets through inducing hesitant foot movement to subsequent, pitched up deliveries - which is exactly what having the 'keeper stood up achieves!

The bouncer is, of course, a genuinely attacking delivery if the batsman looks to score off it... but any decent batsman only looks to score off a poor (telegraphed, ill-directed) bouncer... so what you're what you're really saying is that the likes of Lillee and Ambrose could buy wickets rather as Warne could - by offering deliveries that looked as if they were there to be hit... but which just occasionally did a bit more / less than expected.

Bottom line: the batsmen most troubled by the bouncer is the compulsive hooker (who clearly lacks the judgement to be playing Test cricket as a specialist batsman) or the tail-end bunny (not a player like Lee, but someone who will prod at anything that comes down). I'd agree that against THEM... the bouncer has a place that it simply doesn't when bowling to the likes of (for different reasons) Ponting and Dravid.

[Karthik]

I think that England should go for a bit of experience for the World Cup.Using Geraint Jones as the primary wicket-keeper and Matthew Prior as the substitute would definetely be the best option for the team.

But England seem to have gone with Nixon for the World Cup.

[EllN]

Even though i am a nixon fan due too his energy arrogance and his fittness levels, but as a subsitute for nixon it has too be read, who is the best wicket keeper in the country, jones has nor the enegy and drive of nixon or the abiaty of read, and mattew proir just isint existant because he has not been involved in the team for a year, so he just cannot be considered, but he deffenetly has abitity he has just not managed to take the chances that have come his way such as india last year, where if he had made a couple of 50s he may have been in the selectors minds, but at the moment the pecking orer is nixon read then jones, though i belive by 2008 sean davis will be stood behind the stumps.

[Moss]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/6369029.stm

Tell us something we don't know!

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Agreed... though if a seamer can't manage swing, seam or cut... or at least a well disguised variation in flight and/or pace... he should be replaced with a spinner!

What you are basically saying here is that a bowler has to beat the batsman either in the air or off the pitch... but that's true of all bowling. We're also agreed that this is an attacking strategy best suited to times when a seamer cannot dominate a batsmen: you talk of "with an oldish ball"... but what you really mean is at any stage where an edge to the 'keeper looks unlikely..

Sort of, what I'm saying is with the new ball the batsman is new to the crease and his foot movement wont be much anyway. Also with a new ball you get that bit of extra carry.
With an oldish ball there is still the possibility of reverse swing or the bowler bowling cutters, and like you say if a medium pacer cant move the ball he shouldnt be playing!

Originally Posted by Rachael

The bouncer is, of course, a genuinely attacking delivery if the batsman looks to score off it... but any decent batsman only looks to score off a poor (telegraphed, ill-directed) bouncer... so what you're what you're really saying is that the likes of Lillee and Ambrose could buy wickets rather as Warne could - by offering deliveries that looked as if they were there to be hit... but which just occasionally did a bit more / less than expected.

Bottom line: the batsmen most troubled by the bouncer is the compulsive hooker (who clearly lacks the judgement to be playing Test cricket as a specialist batsman) or the tail-end bunny (not a player like Lee, but someone who will prod at anything that comes down). I'd agree that against THEM... the bouncer has a place that it simply doesn't when bowling to the likes of (for different reasons) Ponting and Dravid.

The likes of Roberts had great bouncer which could surprise batsman and get them out fending, but of course a bouncer will be more effective if a batsman hooks. Come on, do you honestly beleive that Dravid and Bell would last long against an attack containing Roberts, Marshall, Lillee and Ambrose, because many far better batters didnt last long. Against Lee, fair enough, but he has an apallingly poor bouncer for a quick guy. He bowls it far too short and its therefore telegraphed to the batter. Lee also lacks the control that can apply pressure continually.

If good quality short pitched bowling is taken out of the game then the game will lose something, as you will see more and more batters just planting there front foot down the pitch and hitting through the line.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Come on, do you honestly beleive that Dravid and Bell would last long against an attack containing Roberts, Marshall, Lillee and Ambrose

An attack that good would make life tough for the a side that included Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Lara and Sobers... so there would be no shame in struggling... but one thing is sure - Dravid and Bell would not be out fending off short balls because the do not fend off short balls and they would not be out kooking / pulling because as a rule they do not hook or pull!

That crew would rapidly realise that the only way to get out Dravid and Bell was forcing them to play at balls that might / might not hit the stumps: I'd expect all to attempt a McGrath-like line on / around the top of off stump... but with the added menace of their greater ability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch and better variations in pace.

The folk who would struggle most against short balls from an attack like that would be those who do routinely look to fend the ball off with the bat or to hook... and most especially a front foot bully like Hayden (who'd be forced back in his crease, have his lack of a swivel pull exposed and get out pushing at a ball that was going to clear the top of the stumps.

[pie_chucker]

But Bell would struggle anyway, he plays at far too many balls that he need not play at so is always a candidate for first slip.

I would still fancy any of the above bowlers individually to "blast" anyone out because they knew how to. After all didnt Marshall alegedly say to Boon (a solid defensive player) "are you going to get out or do i have to come around the wicket and kill you!"

But yes, i agree that players like Hayden would srtuggle badly against an attack like that.