Who should be England's wicket-keeper?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

There is absolutley nothing OUTSTANDING about Chris Read. Nothing!

No, you're right. His keeping to Panesar bowling into the rough outside the left handers off stumps was very average. NOT

In an era where we see the likes of Dhoni and Kamran Akmal behind the stumps Read stands out by having good hands rather than a pair of symbols.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

No, you're right. His keeping to Panesar bowling into the rough outside the left handers off stumps was very average. NOT

In an era where we see the likes of Dhoni and Kamran Akmal behind the stumps Read stands out by having good hands rather than a pair of symbols.

So you are saying he gets high praise due to the deficiencies of his counterparts.

I'm not denigrating Read. I agree is a good wicketkeeper. But an outstanding candidate for England #7?

No! Try harder to convince me of that.

The guys is 28, he should not be being taught how to be a batsman who can function at #7. He should be there already.

You guys are sounding more West Indian by the day

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

So you are saying he gets high praise due to the deficiencies of his counterparts.

I'm not denigrating Read. I agree is a good wicketkeeper. But an outstanding candidate for England #7?

No! Try harder to convince me of that.

First off; I wasn't trying to suggest he's a good Test #7. What I am suggesting is that he is the best gloveman playing international cricket at present.

As far as his ability with the bat is concerned perhaps we should consider that he only played TWO Tests against the best side in the world. Other, supposed better, batsmen than Read will have failed against Australia. I don't suspect there has been a Test #7 batsman under as much pressure as Read for a long time. How many others play a Test with the words of your own coach ringing in everyones ears? This is the same Read who averaged 40 against the 3rd best side in the world only a few months ago.

I would rather see England playing the additional batsman and Read at 8. That fifth bowler is so rarely used. Read at 8 would be perfectly acceptable.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

First off; I wasn't trying to suggest he's a good Test #7. What I am suggesting is that he is the best gloveman playing international cricket at present.

That may or may not be so. But I was not attacking or praising his glovework. My initial response was to Rachael stating Marsh said he was an outstanding candidate for the #7 position.

As you go on to state, you would like to se him at #8. Fair enough.

So you agree with me?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

First off; I wasn't trying to suggest he's a good Test #7. What I am suggesting is that he is the best gloveman playing international cricket at present.

He is the best gloveman in England, his keeping has been exemplary, he is not a good batsman - but given a little time might be useful.
The batsman are supposed to get runs, picking players like Jones, or even Prior for Tests - is going down the road of bits and pieces cricket.

I would without doubt choose Jones over Read for one day cricket, reason being Read should not be playing in a team #8 in the world, it will just drag him down.

[greg]

We all know Read is the best gloveman in England,possibly the best in the world but the doubts remain about his batting.Either we give him a year in the job and tell him to improve his batting or we discard him now and move on.I don't know what the right course of action is but i have a nagging gut feeling that Nixon will be the test keeper next summer if he does well in the one day matches this winter.The same gut feeling that made me think Giles and Jones would play in Brisbane and i was right on that one too.

[acker]

Originally Posted by greg

We all know Read is the best gloveman in England,possibly the best in the world

Wow that means absolutely nothing in todays cricket.
Get a keeper who can bat with a test average above 30, thats pre requisuite number "1"
Then get the best that meets pre requisuite number "1"

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by acker

Wow that means absolutely nothing in todays cricket.
Get a keeper who can bat with a test average above 30, thats pre requisuite number "1"
Then get the best that meets pre requisuite number "1"

These things go in cycles. At some point somebody will realise that those 10 or 15 runs extra your "keeper" scores are nothing compared to the chances he misses and byes he concedes. Take a look at the Perth Test: Jones missed Hussey and Clarke allowing them to score an additional 180 (odd) runs and set up the platform for Gilchrist's pyrotechnics. A better gloveman would probably have stopped all that madness before it happened. All for wanting the better batsman!

Gilchrist has turned the game silly. Ian Haely was superb but wouldn't get into your side if he came around again as his batting wasn't as good as you're suggesting it needs to be. Gilchrist is a once in a lifetime player, a freak. The sooner everyone realises that competing with him is futile the better. Even the Aussie commentatorts realise that.

[Rachael]

Well said. I think we're already seeing a renewed focus on glovework.. and it's coming, bizarrely, from ODI cricket: when Jack Russell stood up to Gladstone Small everyone was astonished because the era of domination by quick WI bowlers had produced an obsession with pace and with 'keepers standing back... but who is surprised, these days, to see 'keepers stood up to fast-medium bowling (albeit not to guys as quick as Gladstone)?

Martyn's wicket at Adelaide was almost entirely due to England's plan to use the gloveman to stop him taking up his preferred stance well forward of the crease: he was made very, very uncomfortable by a plan that (aside from some involving some close fielders infront of the wicket to inhibit driving on the up) required the 'keeper to stand up and by a bowler (inevitably Hoggard) with the ability to turn the wicket-keeper into a disconcerting attacking threat.

Martyn wasn't the only victim of this tactic: it unsettled Hayden a LOT!

Come the World Cup, England's premier ODI threat (as it was in England's final Champions Trophy outing) willl almost certainly be the Lewis-wicketkeeper axis: you don't maximise a threat like that going with a second rate 'keeper. I suspect England's 'keeper will actually be stood up most of the time - to Lewis, Anderson, Dalrymple, Panesar, Pietersen, Bell and Collingwood, leaving only the 10 overs / match from Flintoff as the exception!

ps. Australia might want to take note: I'd not be surprised to see wickets on which Gilchrist may be best advised to stand up to McGrath and Clark... who will in turn be best advised to bowl a steady diet of off and leg cutters. If the spin of Hogg, Symonds and Clarke proves more restrictive than the pace and bounce of the seamers... Gilchrist could also be stood up for 40 overs out of 50!

[acker]

If things come in cycles I cant wait for the return of the "backstop" behind the keeper as a feilding position.
In the future I dont think it will only be the keeper who requires a pre-requsuite of scoring runs but also the 3rd and 4th choice bowlers as well.