Russell backs Foster

[Rachael]

He {Foster} is the one who should be really talked up for me. His game's developed a hell of a lot; he scores plenty of runs, plays great under pressure and is a fine, aggressive person and keeper

See England's great keeping debate.

[Ernest]

Rachael - Read is probably the best keeper in world, let alone England.

If we can't have Read - then I don't care, we might as well pick Paul Nixon or Matt Prior for the runs.

While I don't know that much about Foster, I hate settling for second best.

In the long run the only way Read will get back in the England side, is by other keepers showing how poor they are by comparison.

I see following your link that G O Jones is again being mentioned in the same breath as Read, but he also is out of favour.

Foster to me at least means a second best Read, but I don't care now which keeper is chosen., the argument has been won by the England executive.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Rachael - Read is probably the best keeper in world, let alone England.

In terms of keeping I agree, in his last 2 stints in the England team i cant recall him missing much.

Foster isnt that bad, he's probablyas good a keeper as any other test nation have and he's a reasonble bat. Fosters certainly a far better pick than the likes of Prior and probably a better bat too .

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

In terms of keeping I agree, in his last 2 stints in the England team i cant recall him missing much.

Time after time we hear this trotted out as a measure of glovework: that's nuts. The difference between a great gloveman and mere stopper is not (as a rule) complete clangers... especially stood back, where, as Stewart proved, concentration can compensate for being completely talentless. The real difference is the pressure brought to bear on the batsman by the gloveman: the pressure of a world class stumper breathing down the batsman's neck, forcing the great and the good to bat from the crease and thereby increasing the likelihood of either a nick or (more likely) a catch at mid on or mid off (from a drive on the up that might have otherwise have been played along the ground).

Wicket-keeping is done AT THE STUMPS: that doesn't mean even a great 'keeper stands up to everything... but it does mean that it's the likelihood of them standing up... and their effectiveness in that role... that seperates the men from the boys.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Time after time we hear this trotted out as a measure of glovework: that's nuts....

... The real difference is the pressure brought to bear on the batsman by the gloveman: the pressure of a world class stumper breathing down the batsman's neck, forcing the great and the good to bat from the crease and thereby increasing the likelihood of either a nick or (more likely) a catch at mid on or mid off (from a drive on the up that might have otherwise have been played along the ground).

Wicket-keeping is done AT THE STUMPS: that doesn't mean even a great 'keeper stands up to everything... but it does mean that it's the likelihood of them standing up... and their effectiveness in that role... that seperates the men from the boys.

Jones' main failings as a keeper were that he dropped too many "regulation" catches. With the bowling attack we have we dont need a "stumper" just someone who doesnt drop too many.

In the 1960's the rest of you statement holds true. However, nowadays we play on uncovered wickets and the trundlers and fingerspinners of old who would have benefitted from the keeper standing up are largely ineffective. Modern batsman are much more comfortable and competant in using their feet to attack bowling and because the game nowadays is more attacking their is less fear in coming down the pitch.

Would you ever see Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid.... ever get pinned on the crease with the keeper standing up?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Modern batsman are much more comfortable and competant in using their feet to attack bowling and because the game nowadays is more attacking their is less fear in coming down the pitch [...] Would you ever see Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid.... ever get pinned on the crease with the keeper standing up?

The best worked wickets of the last few years were won with the much maligned Geraint Jones at the stumps to one Mathew Hoggard. In the Ashes Test at Adelaide, batsman after batsman was found out by a simple plan carried out to perfection. It spelled the end of Damien Martyn's career!

Modern batsmen are more vulnerable than ever to great bowler-'keeper combinations: the days of great nudgers and nurdlers who can work from the crease is being kept alive by a noble few (like Jayawardene)... but batting is increasingly dominated by thugs who seek to hide rank incompetence with aggression, swinging through the line from a forward stance.

Never in my lifetime has the case for a great gloveman been so strong: the threat to the likes of Jayawardene may be small... but for folk with a high backlift and follow-through... or with dubious footwork... it's immense.

[pie_chucker]

Ok, Hayden might struggle with the keeper standing up but I cant see too many of the greats I mentioned struggling.

Didnt Tendulkar destroy the greatest spinner of all time, on turning wickets by continually coming down the pitch to him - I dont recall him getting stumped either.

If you are refering to medium pacers there arent too many around at test level (and even fewer good ones- Vaas and Pollock are the only 2 i can think of).

With Englands attack we dont need anyone in Bob Taylors class to keep wicket. Only Hoggard needs a keeper to stand up and to be honest he isnt going to get any catches behind or stumpings but catches on the drive at mid off or short mid off.

Like I have said on todays covered wickets meduim pacers and most finger spinners are inefective so we dont need the keeper to stand up. Go back 30-40 years and play on slow, green, uncovered wickets and field an imaginary attack of Trueman, Bedser, Cartwright, Laker and or Underwood and yes a Bob Taylor like keeper is pretty much essential.

Incidently, standing up to quicks was one thing "Iron gloves" Jones was IMO good at.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

With Englands attack we dont need anyone in Bob Taylors class to keep wicket.

That's putting the cart before the horse: England have available to them the best wicket-keeper in the world (bar none). Read is NOT exceptional: top glovemen still get games in county cricket... and Foster is one of many very able (if not exceptional) talents. The selectors need to take their area of strength and make it pay: pick the bowlers to exploit the great glovework, and if that means setting a new trend in world cricket sobeit.

Read is to world wicket-keepers what Warne was to world leg-spinners: you don't ignore that sort of asset.

England should pick one bowler that forces the 'keeper back: Harmison. After that, every focus should be on maximising the 'keepers impact - Hoggard and Panesar constitute a sound basis... and if a third specialist bowler is to be picked it should be another who can work to enhance the impact of the 'keeper - maybe Anderson, Plunkett or Lewis.. but perhaps better Rashid.

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Incidently, standing up to quicks was one thing "Iron gloves" Jones was IMO good at.

Not "good at".. but he deserves credit for attitude: the Russell influence was clear.. and whilst no coach on earth could close the gap between Read and Jones.. the latter's willingness to be bold should have endeared him to all.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

.Not "good at"..

I think the stumping off Kabir Ali's bowling V SA showed he wasnt bad at standing up, he also didnt look bad standing up to Hoggard.

Whilst I agree that Read is the best we have i cant see the point of picking Lewis who clearly isnt good enough to play test cricket and Rashid needs nurturing not thrown into the deep end.

To me, you should pick your best 4 or 5 bowlers regadless of who your keeper is not some county trundler who clearly doesnt have the talent to compete in test cricket.