If he'd stood up to Plunkett he'd have conceded over 20 runs in byes as Plunkett was regularly well wide down legside.

Standing up to any bowler also relies on the bowler being accurate which Plunkett regularly was not.

Secondly, you also fail to factor in that some bowlers might not like the keeper standing up to them for a variety of reasons.

Thirdly, Bob Taylor was a good keeper but your incessant using him as some benchmark to denigrate England keepers 20+ years after Taylor retired from Test cricket is way over the top.

He was good but not worthy of the almost godlike status you seem to want to give him!

That may be so... but the reason Prior is in the side is to provide runs first and foremost; it is unfortunate that England are looking for someone to replace Alec Stewart but such is life. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how Prior gets the job done - it's that he is actually doing the job without too much alarm (unless you're a purist). How many Test cricketers have there been that you would class as "unclassy"? I bet you couldn't count them on several pairs of hands - and I'm sure Knott would be there. He played 90 Tests fer crissake!

At least Plunkett has the ability to swing it a little bit. I personally can't remember a single occasion when Mahmood did it. Still, I'm not convinced by Plunkett, but at least he's taking wickets. I have a feeling Mahmood might struggle - even against the Windies.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

No arguments there either! I agree he isnt a "proper" keeper with respect to his footwork or even the way he takes the ball.

Unfortunatley, in the modern game runs scored by a keeper are more important than how good his footwork is or how good his hands are when he takes the ball. After the runs he's scored so far I cant see Prior getting dropped until he has a very lean series with the bat or he drops a few sitters that costs us a series.

Yes, the likes of Evans or Taylor could well have stood up to Sidebottom and Plunkett, but i cant see it would make any differance in this series - the Windies batsman arent moving their feet anyway

__________________
Mark.

That may be the case but they've just skittled a side for 140 odd twice, you cant ask any more from your bowlers than that - no matter how bad the opposition.

__________________
Mark.

No you can't ask for more than that - but really Harmison and Plunkett were terrible, only surpassed by the Windies batsmen being worse.To be fair to the Windies - two of their top batsmen were missing, and down to ten batsmen in both innings, and that on top of Lara retiring.England had similar bad luck with Trescothick and Harmison in Australia.As regards Prior he is no Read, and probably never will be - so lets compare him with his nearest rival "G O Jones" - Prior seems to be the better batsman, and that's what seems to matter these days.

__________________
Ern

well helo guys im new to this vacinity but not new to cricket.

on the westindies case i really think that they should stop depending on players, i mean when lara was playing they depended heavily on him so much so that when he didnt score they would lose. the same here now for sarwan he was injured and the westindies capitulated.

as for gayl he really needs to step up his game and give westindies some serious starts or he should be dropped ,it will be just like the austrailian cricket system very strict.

on taylors case he hasnt bowld well yet and has shown no evidence to playing good yet so i think edwards should step in for him roviding he is fit he would bring in some extra bounce and pace and some swing little as it may be.

i think that with chanderpaul coming back joseph who did horrible and doesnt deserve to be in the team should be dropped .

morton should be dropped and they should bring in the allrounder darren sammy just brings more energy to the field of play.

as for pedro collins should probably be called in quickly with the long break for he brings in his swing .

at the third test the team should read with sarwan out:
chris gayle
darren ganga{captain}
dwayne bravo
shivnarine chanderpaul
wavell hinds {experience called in to join the squad}
darren sammy{allronder}
dinesh ramdin
darren powell
fidel edwards{pace}
pedro collins / rampaul{swing}
corey colleymore

Welcome to the board Shem.

Now, this part I do disagree on. Runako Morton looks like he'll be a decent test prospect (albeit not in the finest of West Indian swashbuckling tradition), he knuckles down when he feels like it and can grind out runs under pressure. Shame he got a stiff decision in the first innings. He's also one of the better fielders in the team; as shown by the fine catch he took on the boundary to dismiss Vaughan.

It is tough to see where the West Indians go from here given the squad picked which is neither forward-looking nor horses-for-courses. What happened to Kieran Pollard?

One consolation is that things can't get much worse for the West Indians than this game, but its hard to see them picking up a win in this series.

Quite why the selectors have a problem picking Collins escapes me: he's been the best craftsman available to the side for a generation, offering genuine swing and the one thing that eludes the rest (Collymore excepted) - the ability to bowl to a plan.

IN a just world, Collymore and Collins would have played every match for which they were fit (as automatically as Ambrose and Walsh did in the past).

On the batting front... the talk in the press yesterday was of a re-call for Lara: the story we are hearing is that he only "retired" because the WI board forced him to.... and that he's already made it clear that he'd be happy for them to have a rethink.

Let's face it: WI cricket needs him - keep him going until he drops!

If you look at the world scene most (if not all) countries put batting before wicketkeeping ability these days. Now the purists can argue all they like, but cricketing brains far more astute than ours have obviously decided some time ago that the compromise is worth it - not just in England, but in most other test playing nations. For England not to go down this route would put them at a disadvantage, more so with rabbits at nine ten jack, as is invariably the case.

Is Gilchrist the best pair of gloves in Australia? Probably not. Has he on numerous occasions dug Australia out of a losing position and put them into a winning one with batting? Yes. (And has been required to do this despite Australia having the strongest batting line up in world cricket). Would any Australian, given Gilchrist's record, retrospectively wish to have seen a more accomplished gloveman/inferior batsmen in the side for the last ten years? I seriously doubt it. Now in an imaginary world, let's drop Gilchrist in the England side, and you are guaranteed to still have the purists bemoaning his every dropped chance or bye conceded. And these same people would have Read in instead. However, with which of the two aforementioned playing is England more likely to win a test match? There are those that want to appreciate art and craft, and think that the outcome of a test match is irrelevant in comparison, but for the players in the side and the majority of the spectators, viewers and listeners, this comes a poor second to being competetive, and ultimately being successful.

Prior hasn't proved himself yet as a batsmen because the West Indies (sadly) offer no serious test. The jury is going to be out on that one until he faces a sterner examination. His keeping to the errant Plunkett and Harmison has been better than I for one expected given the negativity voiced on this forum and elsewhere in the press. If he does manage to deliver as Alex Stewart once did (or Gilchrist has done for the Aussies) England as a test side will be richer rather than poorer for it in the coming years.

And 47 runs short of becoming the first test batsman in history to score 12000 runs - he deserves a couple of games to achieve that accolade after what he has given to West Indies cricket, irrespective of how woeful the Windies batting line up looks without him in it.