Nixon sucks

[Rachael]

Well.. I was prepared to give the guy the benefit of the doubt at first.. but the drop today was really, REALLY poor: the guy was stood well back.. and all the time in the world.. and never even looked in with a chance. Worse still... he looked little better in the takes he DID manage.. and the one catch that drew attention was via an irresponsible dive infront of first slip (who was well placed for a regulation catch).

[darksideofthemoon]

That catch he dropped was because he stopped looking at the ball in mid air and started looking at the batsman. He is very hyperactive. I can't believe how bad he is. Everything about him drives me insane. I don't think I can take much more when we have such a good keeper sitting in the dressing room. He also keeps telling the bowler what balls to bowl.

[EllN]

Nixon offers energy into the team, also he looks more than handy with the bat, i would totally agree with you if we were discussing test cricket, but I belive batting to be far more far more important in odi's the energy he offers is fantastic and over the time he will offer more to the battig line up than Chris Read.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by EllN

if we were discussing test cricket, but I belive batting to be far more far more important in odi's

The experiment with pinch hitters came and went as teams recognised that wickets in hand is the key to big totals.... then the experiment with bits-n-pieces players came and went as teams recognised that taking wickets with specialist bowlers is THE key to slowing the run rate... and where once there was talk of giving the gloves to a backstop like Trescothick or Dravid... there's now a huge focus on exceptional glovework as 'keepers around the world follow the trend of standing up to all but the very fastest and tallest of bowlers.

Back in the days when Jones was getting rave-reviews for his batting.... and criticism for his glovework... top commentators were actually suggesting the opposite of what you suggest: that ODI cricket had moved on, requiring Read's quality (in terms of taking catches and stopping byes with no slips in place when stod back and - most especially - when stood up at the stumps)... where a Test side with four fast bowlers and a defensive spinner could manage with Jones' back-stop abilities.

I'd agree that the arrival of Panesar and the recognisiton that the wicket-keeper can bring an additional dimension to Hoggard's Test-match bowling has changed the Engand picture a little.... but that just means there's more of a premium on glovework in BOTH forms of the game!

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The experiment with pinch hitters came and went as teams recognised that wickets in hand is the key to big totals.... then the experiment with bits-n-pieces players came and went as teams recognised that taking wickets with specialist bowlers is THE key to slowing the run rate...

Finally, some sense about bits-n-pieces and pieces players!!

For what its worth, I cant see why Read isnt in the one day side, he's an excellant keeper and his record in ODI's and in the domestic game is pretty good. I also feel that if need be Read would make a usefull pinch hitter as his batting is unorthodox and he hits the ball into unusual areas, also in the past he's done this quite well in domestic cricket.

[EllN]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Finally, some sense about bits-n-pieces and pieces players!!

his record in ODI's and in the domestic game is pretty good. I also feel that if need be Read would make a usefull pinch hitter.

Im sorry but with an average of below 20 in both forms of the game how can he be a useful pinch hitter, his highest score is thirty, our tail is far too long already with plunket at 8/9 so Nixon wins everytime

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by EllN

Im sorry but with an average of below 20 in both forms of the game how can he be a useful pinch hitter, his highest score is thirty, our tail is far too long already with plunket at 8/9 so Nixon wins everytime

First up, iEngland's 'keeper should be batting at 8: Flintoff plays in the top 6, Collingwood and Dalrymple are obvious choices at 7 so the no 8 spot is generally (when everyone's fit) the highest available slot.

Second up... consider the following stats:

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
v Pakistan             8    6   2    85  30   25*  21*  21.25   0   0   1
v South Africa         8    5   4    75  30*  26*  10*  75.00   0   0   0
v West Indies          6    5   1    89  27   24   23*  22.25   0   0   0

That's 249 runs from 16 innings at 27.67.... with no fewer than 7 unbeaten contributions.. and that's not cherry picking: that's all the ODIs Read has played against major nations he has faced more than once.

Now hardly any lower-middle order ODI batsman gets "in" much more than 50% of the time... and Pollock, for instance, only gets past "20" in one game in three. Boucher (37%) has a similar success rate. Kamran Akmal falls between the two. Russell only managed it 6 times in his career. Stewart managed it a remarkable 52% of the time.

Read passed 20 in 8 of those 16 innings:

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0

unfiltered            36   24   7   300  30*  30   27   17.64   0   0   4
filtered               8    8   5   206  30*  30   27   68.66   0   0   0

It's not a record that is going to get him major accolades... but it's not shabby either... and in the WI (for instance) he emerged with a LOT of commendations for his ODI batting.

Those of us who take the time to follow his career at Notts have also witnessed some excellent contributions in pyjama cricket: whether it's dab and scurry or slog and watch... he's proved himself more than competent.

[EllN]

I am going to throw another name into the mix, what about james foster he had a fantastic season with essex and a broken arm cut his international carerra so why can't he get a look in.

[darksideofthemoon]

[quote=EllN ]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Finally, some sense about bits-n-pieces and pieces players!!

his record in ODI's and in the domestic game is pretty good. I also feel that if need be Read would make a usefull pinch hitter.

Im sorry but with an average of below 20 in both forms of the game how can he be a useful pinch hitter, his highest score is thirty, our tail is far too long already with plunket at 8/9 so Nixon wins everytime

0, 15, 9, 6, 4, 49, 4. Ave 12.42 Plunkett, a bowler has a better average. About 3 or 4 dropped catches as well.

[al_vb]

I agree that Read is a better choice than Nixon. His batting is at least as good, probably better, and his keeping is far superior. In addition, Read is a long-term propsect where Nixon isn't. You can't have keepers in your side who drop the simplest of dolly catches like that! It was hard to believe! Nixon's batting has also been ordinary and it was only due to some abysmal Kiwi fielding that he even made one decent score.