Simon Hughes has just been discussing Prior's record on TMS... and noted that whilst simply taking a respectable proportion of chances might be sufficient when the attack / pitch / batting combination means chances come along pretty regularly... conditions such as those in Sri Lanka - bowlers (no matter how good) basically just labour in the hope (needing batsman error) - do really require a stumper capable of taking 95%+ of chances (as opposed to Prior record, calculated by someone to be 72% at present).

Hughes also pointed out out the error of thinking that stumpers are merely there to take chances: he cited as examples the importance of the wicket-keeper in determining how deep the slip field is set (something that has come in for criticism in this series) and the way in which 'keepers create chances as Jayawardene did by coming up to the stumps to Collingwood and thereby ensuring he was caught in the crease to Vaas.

Anyone care to detail what percentage of the deliveries from Sidebottom, Hoggard, Broad and Anderson were taken with the wicket-keeper stood up?

At some point this morning even the ultra loyal CMJ was asking if his Sussex boy had a future as a top 5 specialist bat with someone else taking the gloves: two balls later he was back in the pavillion

Interesting post this. The criticism you levellled at Prior previously about going across the slips was completely unjust. If I were keeper, and had Ian Bell stood next to me, I think I'd be diving across him! The point about the set up of the slips is an interesting one though - nothing irritates me more than genuine edges falling short of the slips. It should never happen - period. If the odd ball flies over your head so be it, but proper, genuine edges simply should not drop short. That is the responsibility of the keeper primarily but slips should be having a word too.

You can't get away from the fact he has had an absolutely shocking game here and we all knew anyway he wasn't the best keeper in England.The trouble is i think Moores will show faith with him as he is a Sussex man and he has actually scored some runs in this series.

We all know Read won't get picked,so who do we go with instead if we do get rid of Prior?

Foster - Like Read appears to have a face that doesn't fit despite being a good gloveman and solid bat.
Mustard - looks a decent one day player but his first class batting record is not very good,even Read averages much more.
Davies - Could well be too early for him.
Ambrose - Another man with Sussex connections,on the Academy tour so must be in contention.

The problem is we have so many good keepers. Such a shame that we have wasted years with Jones and Prior. I'd personally go for Foster, perhaps with Mustard as one day keeper. I'd baulk at picking Ambrose because, let's be honest here, he's Australian.

Prior needs to be given an extended run in the side, to show what he's capable of, it's too early to change yet again. This side needs time to 'gel' together and that isn't going to happen if we keep chopping and changing players every 5 minutes.

I don't have a problem with Prior, he fits the right 'profile' for an International Keeper, lets see if he's good enough to step up to the plat and deliver, if he isn't, he needs to be changed, but not yet.

Moores is the one I have the biggest problem with, his results so far are lame and in no way vindicates or justifies the ousting of Fletcher who was simply one of the best coaches this country has ever had.

The 'scapegoating' of him for the 'Ashes' debacle was atrocious, anyone with half a brain cell knew England were going to get thrashed in that series - regardless of player selections, so we change him for this clown Moores whos done absolutely nothing since he took over. Moores' tenure will be as short as Maclarens unless he starts producing some results and fast.

Moores is the one we should be looking at, not Prior, because I'd rather get rid of him sooner rather than later if it looks like he's not up to it and that's certainly the way it looks at the moment.

In any case, England need to sort their bowlers out before they start worrying about the keeper again and I don't see anyone replacing Prior while Moores is in charge either.

I never thought much of Fletcher when the results went his way... and never thought worse of him when things went against him: I haven't turned on him as he has always struck me as having been a pernicious influence on the game and I've long wanted England to be rid of him.

His favouritism and ousting of players whose face didn't fit was shocking: Ramps and Crawley should never have been axed (not ahead of Hussain and Butcher, and not in favour of the assorted players who Fletcher tried in their place); Flintoff should never have been played (ever) in the top 6, and shouldn't have been selected at all prior to 2004; Stewart should never (once) have kept wicket (especially ahead of Russell and Piper); Jones should never (once) have taken the gloves ahead of Read; Collingwood shouldn't have been able to force his way into the side until VERY recently; Shah should never have been marked down for backing himself to play spin instead of adopting the Fletcher-forward press approach; Caddick should have been kept involved for longer; Sidebottom should have been involved for as long as Hoggard; Mahmood, Plunkett and others should never have even been considered let alone played - the list could go on endlessly.

Moores is by and large a welcome change. I particularly applaud his far better attitude to county cricketers and his break with the Fletcher-era obsession with pace. Another thing I applaud is the way he's backed players to take on spinners: Vaughan's playing differently... and the selection of Bopara (in the XI) and Shah (in the party) is a welcome step in the right direction.

I accept that question marks must remain: the selection of Prior was ludicrous given the availability of Read, Foster and Ambrose; the failure to play Swann as well as Panesar is also discouraging. That said... I fear both decisions might have a lot to do with Vaughan's outlook - we simply don't know how much is the captain and how much is the coach.

Moores needs time because he's got a strong background and is doing good things; Prior doesn't because nothing in his background suggested he was even remotely ready to be an heir to Taylor and Russell... and he's been living down to expectations.

I agree that he did display a little too much favouritism, but I don't agree with that example. Hussain averaged 37, Ramprakash averaged 27. Who was the more valuable, especially considering his captaincy abilities? Crawley and Butcher both averaged 34, so although you didn't really gain anything with Butcher, you didn't lose out either. Butcher was a pretty solid no. 3, something which England struck me as really needing.

I've nothing against Butcher and Hussain... but with the best will in the world they were NEVER going to be the players that Ramps and Crawley could have been. Same with Collingwood and Bell: the former has made the most of his talents... but Bell is already better and has the potential to be MUCH better.

Sadly, Fletcher didn't see it as his personal challenge to get such players to maximise their potential: he preferred to see folk like those two, Caddick, Harmison and others as "difficult"... and just see the challenge of maximising their potential as THEIR problem.

The result was selection based on ability to make the most of lesser talent: a grotesque dereliction of duty.

Nothing exemplified this better than the obsession with the "multi-dimensional" player: I generally got the impression that Fletcher would have willingly passed up a Gower in favour of a Gooch, plus a Tuffers in favour of a Louden and so on. Add in his obsession with pace (and bear in mind that he wanted to ditch Hoggard permanently in 2004 on the grounds that the Yorkshireman was "too slow")... and you've a pretty sorry character.

It was actually Alec Stewart and David Lloyd who publicly branded Caddick as difficult and a trouble maker (sentiments shared by Atherton and Illy) hence his exclusion from the 98/99 Ashes despite taking over 100 championship wickets in the season. Hussain who had a similar rep early in his career demanded his immediate recall as soon as he took over the captaincy and Caddick then proceeded to produce his best stuff in an England shirt under Fletcher before injury took him out of the frame for a year after the 2003/3 Ashes (where his performances were frankly insulting) in which time the attack moved on and he was kept out of the side on merit.

And I also really fail to see what more Fletcher could have done to aid Harmison's international career. To start with he was the one who was willing to overlook the modest FC stats to get him into the test match arena as soon as possible and then he backed him to the hilt after a slow start (including a fairly traumatic Ashes) to his international career. And then when the golden 18 month period was over and his form dipped to an at times unacceptable level he still publicly backed him and stubbornly refused to drop him. ****** he even made Flintoff captain in the theory/vain hope that he would get the best out of his mate.

In terms of Ramps and Crawley (along with Hick and Tuffnell) the damage had long since been done to both players by the time Fletcher took over. He gave both decent opportunity's to prove themselves but Ramps was (and still is) mentally shot from a decade of mistreatment and Crawley technical deficiency's were too great an obstacle to overcome. The only mistake Fletcher made with Ramps was the ill faited opener experiment in 2000 but to be fair to him he was not alone in having that theory as there had been a massive clamour for him to open in the media for a couple of years.

And I also disagree completely on your view that the likes of Collingwood and Hussain are lesser talents. Test cricket is primarily a mental game and their abilities in this area puts them in a different league to the Ramprakash's of this world who didn't possess the temperament of an international cricketer. All very well having all the shots in the book if you don't have the mental toughness to get them out under pressure.

(When I look at the state of this England fielding side and the length of the tail I seriously hope that Peter Moores starts to develop Fletcher's obsession with "multi dimensional" players)

What do you mean could have been? Ramprakash played 52 games for England and ended with a career average of 27.32 - do you think that's good enough after 52 matches? How many chances do you give someone to show what they can do before you give up and turn elsewhere?

Hussain played 96 matches and ended with an average of 37.16, 10 runs higher than Ramprakash and many would argue that any average for a middle order batsman under 40 isn't good enough!

Mark Ramprakash and John Crawley are both excellent County players who couldn't make the step up to Test Cricket and as I'm sure you're fully aware, International Test Cricket is played at a much higher level than County Cricket and just because you're good in County Cricket does not mean you'll also be good in Test Cricket, where temperament is the key.

It's not as if Ramps wasn't given enough chances either, despite the fact that those 52 games were played across a 2-3 year span, 52 games is almost a Test career within itself, with many Test players not reaching that number of games.

So how an earth can you claim that Butcher and Hussain would nver be the players Ramps was when both of them ended with much better averages than Ramprakash did? They did and were both better International Test players than Ramps and Crawley - the stats and history confirm that.

Just because you happen to prefer the batting style of Ramps and Crawley does not change what history and stats tell us I'm afraid.

I've got nothing against Ramps, I happen to think he's an excellent County level batsman who couldn't make the step up to the intensity and higher pressure game of International Cricket, that doesn't mean he's a bad batsman, it means he couldn't raise his game to the higher level.

This is exactly the problem I see in Moores, you applaud him for being more in touch with the County game and county players when we all know that to succeed in International Test Cricket requires a hell of a lot more than simply being a good County player as historic precedence tells us.

Moores can be in as close a contact with County players as he likes, if he doesn't possess the ability to determine which of those County players has the temperament and mental ability to make the step up to International Test Cricket - a level of the game Moores never even played in - then there's going to be a long procession of selected county players failing in the future - Bopara could well become the first victim as ODI is a different 'ball game' to Test Cricket if you'll excuse the pun.

This is where Fletcher was supreme and why many of his selections surprised people, he backed his hunches on players and having played International Cricket for Zimbabwe himself - he knew what qualities he was looking for. Trescothick (and Vaughan) is a classic example of the Fletcher 'hunch' - plucked out of county Cricket obscurity and inserted into the ODI side he was soon selected for the Test side and became one of the best opening batsmen this country has ever had.

Let's see if Moores can emulate that, somehow I very much doubt it.