Who should be England's wicket-keeper?

[first change]

It's that time of year again, let's all jump on the band-waggon.

I've always supported Chris Read, but he has been just dreadful with the bat, and we need to move on. It's not low scores that is necessarily the problem, it's the manner of his innings. He never looked like lasting long last night, his shot to get out was hideous. At Melbourne, his first innings dismissal was a joke, and his knock in the second, while stubborn, underlined his limitations with the bat.

So, lots of choices, who do you think England should go with? Personally, I feel England need to make a clean break now - before the World Cup.

[Rachael]

I'd stick with Read: he's unorthodox... but Warne's been unorthodox and yet highly effective.

Right now Read's under ridiculous pressure to play an expansive game because he was dropped in the West Indies after playing some decent, dogged rearguard innings (when that was exactly what the match situations required) and because Fletcher has publically questioned him... but I see no problem with Read learning to play as Warne does, and to Warne's (more than adequate) level.

Now... even playing at that level... Read's not going to be a player you'd want to see coming to the crease to face the second new ball when Brett Lee finally (as he did today) finds some form and McGrath is playing well the other end.. but that's why you play six genuine top order batsmen... so that 2-3 are most commonly going to see the second new ball off (ensuring the 'keeper and bowlers ain't required before the 100 over mark, and ideally before the 120 over mark).

A wicket-keeper should be batting in support of a top order player against a tired attack with an old ball: Read's more than good enough to do that.

[first change]

You make some excellent points. However, in the forseeable future, England simply aren't going to play six specialist batsmen. Flintoff's too vulnerable at the moment to be a front-line, twenty overs a day bowler. If he's batting at seven, it's not good enough for Read to be as good with the bat as Warne. Test number sevens should average 35, not 20. Read's natural game is aggressive, so it's a bit much to say he's under enormous pressure to play expansively.

James Foster played some excellent rear-guards in his career, which was postponed only by injury. He deserves another shot. Davies looks an excellent choice but would, I feel, benefit from another year in county cricket. That gives Foster a decent chance to prove his place. Incidentially, would be perfectly happy with Nixon to get us to and through the World Cup - wouldn't let England down and our only goal at the moment should be winning (yes, winning) the World Cup.

[Rachael]

I've no objections to Foster and would have had him on tour as Read's understudy ever since England toured Sri Lanka (with Jones learning to 'keep at county level rather than learning his trade on the international scene). He should certainly be the beneficiary IF Read is dropped... but unlike you... I don't believe Read should miss out just because Flintoff cannot play as a specialist bowler.

I agree that Flintoff wasn't fit enough to play as part of a four man attack in this Ashes series.. but the proper response would have been to rest Flintoff (sending him to recuperate in Perth with Vaughan). I certainly do NOt think the answer was to play an extra seamer in place of Joyce!

The longer term question is whether Flintoff is EVER going to recover enough to play as a front-line Test bowler. If he doesn't.. then I'd rather he just retired from Test cricket and focussed on being the best ODI bowler in the world (where 10 overs a day and rest days between matches might enable him to play for at least another 5-6 years).

ps. one longshot: Adil Rashid matures remarkably quickly as both batsman and/or leg-spinner... playing at 6 or 7 with Flintoff in the other spot, enabling Read to play at 8 and England to maintain a 5 man attack.

[first change]

Originally Posted by Rachael

but unlike you... I don't believe Read should miss out just because Flintoff cannot play as a specialist bowler.

Interesting point, but the idea that he should have been resting is nonsense. It's true he's not 100 per cent, but has made some useful contributions with the ball. He's England's tallisman, and the idea that replacing him with a debutant would have solved anything is, frankly, rubbish.

The problem is that cricket is a team sport, and you have to look at the side as a whole. Now, in time, I'd love Flintoff to bat at seven, with six specialist batsmen. I wonder if that will ever happen and, like you, wonder if he will ever regain his old form and preference. For what it's worth, had he been fully fit, I would have preferred England's lower order to have read: Ramprakash, Flintoff, Read, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard. But that's not been the case, and you have to work with what you've got. Truth is, this England tail is almost as atrocious as the (in)famous Irani, Caddick, Giddins, Mullally, Tufnell debacle. We do not have a number eight, which would be OK (just about) if number seven could score Test hundreds.

Read's batting has been so poor that I wonder if he is even a Test number eight. It has been embarrassing, and one has to imagine that it will start to effect his keeping soon enough. Save a match winning 40+ in the final innings, I fear the decision is made.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by first change

For what it's worth, had he been fully fit, I would have preferred England's lower order to have read: Ramprakash, Flintoff, Read, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard. But that's not been the case, and you have to work with what you've got.

I'd have done the same thing (well, maybe not Harmison). The difference is that with Flintoff NOT fit I'd have kept the others... and brought in a replacement seamer.

Whichever way you look at it... Flintoff was not ready for this series: call it jaded if you like... he has at no point looked capable of doing justice to his own talents... and it's just plain immoral to deprive others who are fit of Ashes caps through loyalty to a player carrying / recovering from an injury.

[first change]

Fair enough, but even if Flintoff wasn't picked, with six specialist batsmen - that's still a tail of Read, Mahmood (or Plunkett or Anderson) Harmison, Panesar and Hoggard. Read's not worth his place in that side, with that tail.

I absolutely agree that batsmen should score the runs and bowlers take the wickets. Read my posts on the idiocy of Giles playing instead of Panesar, for example. The point, however, is that with the tail England have a reasonable start will never be converted. Of course, if two of the top six score hundreds, you have no problem. But that rarely happends. Take Sydney as the perfect example. In normal circumstances, 240-4 is a solid day for the batting side. Nothing spectacular, but nothing to worry about either. However, pretty much everyone was expecting the worst - which we saw last night. There has to be some back-up for the batsmen, and I don't mind playing four specialists, but your number seven must be capable of scoring Test hundreds. Look around the world - Gilchrist, Pollock or Boucher, McCullum or Oram or Vettori, Kamran Akmal or Abdur Razzaq, Dhoni (or Sehwag in this Test!), all eminently capable of scoring big hundreds. Read simply doesn't compare. Unless you have decent back-up at number eight (think Vaas for Sri Lanka), there is simply no way that you can succeed regularly with such a poor tail.

I've supported Read for a long time, but it's time to make a positive step and move forward.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

it's just plain immoral to deprive others who are fit of Ashes caps through loyalty to a player carrying / recovering from an injury.

Calling your bluff Rachael (but in a nice way, you know I love you ) if you didn't play Flintoff, how would you play to replace the loss of Flintoff? I think he hasn't done too bad with the ball this series, but his batting has let him down. Would you have Strauss as the captain then Rachael in the absence of Flintoff?

[Oliver]

It makes me bloody cross that Agnew and Selvey were pretty much calling for Chris Read's head this morning.

OK... he got out. And yup it was a bad shot. Definitely the only bad shot by an England player on this wonderfully successful tour.

On the otherhand there has been more pressure heaped on that one England cricketer than all the rest of the entire team for about the last three years.

He finally gets to go to Australia as number one 'keeper and in the first Test, when his understudy has done NOTHING at all to impress, he's out on his ear. Then after the second Test he plays a practice match and outscores his rival by 59 runs, (making 59) and yet he's still out on his ear.
Finally after the selectors see the light and the series is lost he gets to replace the charlatan with the gloves of lead. And is second top scorer in the charade that is England's second innings. And in the final Test when at last he gets to bat with the skipper (he who presumably vetoed his inclusion for the first three Tests, he who doesn't think he can cut it, he who is immensely piffed off at not getting to bat with his mate Geraint) and he fails.

And "Oh-my-God this guy is appalling."

Read should have at least a year of no pressure, like Geraint the 6011ocks has had. A year of, "well mate, not to worry, there's nobody else out there at all, the job is yours for as long as you want it."

Naturally enough his batting would improve. Besides there are no frightening attacks to play against for a couple of seasons, he should be able to hike up his average accordingly, and Agnew and Selvey would look pretty stupid.

But when alls said and done, if our batsman could actually take it upon themselves to score a couple of LARGE centuries each, we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not our lower order could bat, because we'd be declaring with scores of 550 odd for four. (And still losing like we did in the second Test).

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

OK... he got out. And yup it was a bad shot. Definitely the only bad shot by an England player on this wonderfully successful tour.

It's never right to judge players on how they play when they first reach the crease: many (like Ponting and Bell) struggle to get their feet moving... some (like Langer and Pietersen) throw the bat a bit in the hope of finding some touch and timing... and most look far worse than they actually are. Read's shot MAY have looked worse than anything any of the others have done... but on another day he might have got away with it and gone on to settle and do a job for the team - perhaps much as Shane Warne routinely does.

The previous innings (where he ran out of partners) would be a far more sensible basis for judgement... and whilst he may not have looked special... he did his job: if Symonds gets a lifeline for 'doing a job' whilst looking appalling in the partnership with Hayden then Read should get a lifeline for batting effectively and running out of partners in the second England innings.

For what it's worth I think the entire focus of criticism of Read's batting has been misguided for several years now: in his last run with England he WAS showing decent composure and an ability to stick around.. and I had high hopes that he'd go back to county cricket and concentrate on developing this attritional strength... but instead of that he was appears to have come under pressure to go away and show that he can throw the bat and rack up runs - so now, rather as Ramps a decade ago, he's caught between doing what's right (digging in) and getting dropped (which happened last time) and attempting something mad (throwing the bat against the second new ball with McGrath and Lee bowling their best spells of the series) and just hoping he gets away with it (in the sure knowledge that the odds are against that, and that he's going to be pilloried if it doesn't work).

Originally Posted by first change 125688

your number seven must be capable of scoring Test hundreds

Not really: the 7-8-9 should be able to help a senior colleague to carry on cashing in when the top six gets through the second new ball.... so they should be capable of batting through a whole session against a tired attack and old ball... but that's a very different matter from being odds-on to survive a fresh McGrath and Lee taking a new ball and getting it to swing both ways and nip off the seam in ways that most top order openers would find challenging!

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman 125692

Calling your bluff Rachael [...] if you didn't play Flintoff, how would you play to replace the loss of Flintoff?

Had I been a selector ahead of the series I'd have been arguing for taking Ramps as an experienced, older hand in the form of his life and with an excellent record (avergae nearly 50) in Australia. I'd have played Pietersen, Ramps, Bell and Joyce / Collingwood at 3-4-5-6 (relying on Pietersen and Ramps for some occasional bowling). Read would have played at 7 and my initial plan would have been to play Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson / Lewis and Panesar as a 4-man attack... though I'd have removed Harmison from that equasion for the first two Tests after witnessing his dire form in the warm-up games.

I was for Strauss as captain all along... and stand by that call: the guy needs to go away and work on his footwork (especially on getting into line when playing off the back foot) but he always did come across, to me, as top captaincy material... more patient in reserach and preparation and more capable of thinking on his feet than the big Lancastrian.