I would argue that Watkinson was one of the best one day players of his time, and I would rate a fit Peter Martin as good as Sidebottom, maybe more accurate - then I come from Lanc's.

On a more serious note - a player should be picked on merit - Read should be England's wicket keeper, but then merit does not mean that much - I reckon Lanc's player or not, keedy was a better spinner than Giles, but that did not matter because he could not bat.

That's why Prior gets the nod over Read, right or wrong Prior is considered a better batsman than Read.

I think a spinner should be picked like Panesar, because he is the best spinner available - the same should be true of a keeper, unless we find another Stewart.

__________________
Ern

He probably was but didn't fit the bill at the time due to our poor batting line up which meant we needed a better option at 8 like Giles.If Keedy had been around at a time when we had all of the top 6 averaging over 40 then he would surely have been picked but as it is Monty is a younger better option than Keedy now.Keedy like Bicknell before him is a victim of circumstances when he could easily have had a 50 test match career.

This latest test has really shown up the problems I'd always seen with Matt Prior. The keeping has been awful and the misses costly. It may be harsh to say it, but if England lose this test then Matt Prior has to shoulder a good deal of the responsibility. Also, not only did he drop catches and take one out of Strauss' hands, but his head dropped and he looked spent. Even Geraint Jones didn't let himself go during a test like Prior did!!

I sincerely hope Prior comes to the game with the bat, because unless he does from an English perspective, this test will be remembered for the worst display of keeping in an England shirt since... well, the worst performance from an English keeper that I can remember, frankly. He certainly has a fair amount of ground to make up with the bat, and unless he can sort his head out before he comes out to bat, then it ain't gonna happen.

Did Matt Prior have anything to do with Dhoni scoring 91 runs and Kumble getting a ton? Those two players alone account for nearly 30% of India's score. The reason that the media are using Prior as the scapegoat is because England are about to lose the series and they're looking for someone to blame. Truth be told, India's batsmen and bowlers have performed better than their England counterparts in the last two matches. My point will be made when India's bowlers will make the England batsmen look like they're playing on a minefield.

Compare Prior's first 6 Test matches with Alec Stewart's first 6 Test matches as a batsmen/keeper:

Alec Stewart: 14 Ct 1St - 11,9,2,7,31,38*,8,2,31,8,0,49 - Bat Avg: 17.8
Matt Prior: 17 Ct 0St - Bat Avg 42.77

Matt Prior has taken more catches and has a much better batting average than Alec Stewart in their first 6 Test matches as batsman/keeper. Time to get off Prior's back and give him the same chance as Stewart was given to improve his keeping. As a batsman/keeper, he is making more than enough runs and catches to hold his place in the side. I think we should give him the same opportunity given to Stewart to improve his keeping.

Nope. You give a player time to settle when you think any problems are associated with nerves, or that insufficient opportunity has been presented. This is especially the case with batting (as there's only a couple of opportunities in any given match)... true of bowlers who have shown they can do it in the domestic arena and who might only get a few spells an innings to show they can replicate it in a Test situation...

Prior has no domestic glovework record to live up to: he's in DESPITE and not BECAUSE he has been known to wear the gloves. What we are witnessing at Test level is not a level of wicket-keeping that suggests nerves or a failure to cope with the step up to Test level... it's just the day in, day out incompetence that he's been demonstrating at Sussex for many years and which has ensured he never once made the cut for the WAT 'A' Team.

What IS unfair is singling out his performance in this match as evidence: this is where the ignorance of much of the media should be criticised. Prior should actually have been dropped for losing England the PREVIOUS Test.... where his lack of footwork, lack of confidence stood up to the stumps and general clumsiness ensured he didn't even get close enough to key deliveries to convince the more ignorant in the media that they WERE chances.

I cut him some slack in the match thread for dropping a sitter: that happens to even the best. The reason the media should NOT cut him any slack is not that it landed on the deck... it's that his feet never moved and he was therefore diving to take a ball that even Geraint Jones would have been looking to take on the walk. The incompetence ws revealed in the basic anticipation and technique, not the clumsy hands.

As I predicted, England batsmen allow Zaheer Khan to dominate them with 10 maidens in 16 overs. England's problems are primarily with their batsmen and bowlers - not their keeper. I rate Cook and Pieterson as in the sort of class required to face Australia in an Ashes series. The others are okay against West Indies, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but obviously don't compete well against better opposition. On the bowling front, Flintoff and Panesar are probably the only two bowlers likely to trouble Australia in the next Ashes. Unlike Read or Jones, Prior will be able to make runs against Australia and only needs to improve his footwork to be a good batsman/keeper. It's pointless going back to Read, Jones, Foster or any other county keeper because they simply won't be effective with the bat against Australia.

What on earth is wrong with "allowing" maidens? You play each ball on its merits... and if six in a row are good then you applaud the bowler and wait to see if he can do the same in the next over. If you had listened to the England coach you'd have heard him say that this was the plan: he noted that runs would almost certainly come easily later in the innings... and just wanted his team to see off the new ball and get through the first couple of sessions with wickets in hand.

FYI... Pietersen scored one off 14 balls from Khan and Vaughan scored 0 off 12... but 19 dot balls were to Anderson... and as Anderson's job and that of the team in the morning session was was to blunt the bowling of Khan... that was a victory to England - reflected in a scoreline of 119 for the loss of just one opener and a nightwatchman after 30 overs!

As I see it.... there's nothing wrong with the England batting. Aside from anything else... the total posted today was substantial. No side should feel the batting is a problem when they get to 200/4 and end the day looking well set to post close to 350! Cook, Collingwood and Bell batted well in this innings. Vaughan and Pietersen batted well in recent innings. Only Strauss, of the top order, has been struggling.. and one struggler out of six is not a bad ratio.

What needs to be addressed on the batting is the unfortunate tendency to gift soft dismissals: the batsmen have all shown that they are more than capable at Test level on even the toughest wickets... and against some excellent bowling (including the outstanding Khan getting the ball to swing both ways).. but the tendency for players to contribute to their own downfall continues to prove costly on grounds where even a 2nd division county side ought to manage a bore draw.

More serious is the bowling: India batted for 170 overs and England should have ensured that the total didn't pass 450. OK, the pitch sucked... so maybe 2.9-3.0 an over (around 500) would have been decent enough... but Tremlett and Panesar went for nearer 3.5 and Anderson went at an appalling rate - but had Prior been any good behind the stumps, England's bowlers would quite probably have stemmed the Indian run rate to something respectable - if you can keep the wickets tumbling, that happens!

If you do that too much you hand the initiative to the bowling team. The best batsman dont allow this to happen they work the ball around and rotate the strike. This disrupts the bowlers and the fielding team.

Englands bowling lacked bite, the batsman were under no pressure and could have upped the rate if they had wanted to. With the wayward bowling they didnt have to!!
Te pitch hasnt sucked it was only "flat" because Englands attack (Panesar) apart is second rate. The Indians have had no trouble in getting the ball to move, bowl tight and take wickets.

Oh and how is Indias huge score not the bowlers fault?? Yes Prior dropped a couple of clangers but in the last 2 matches our bowling has lacked "bite" and we have struggled to take wickets.

As Prior has failed again (when it matters) with the bat i think we can see that he isnt good enough with the gloves or the bat.

__________________
Mark.

Every batsman LOOKS to rotate the strike... and LOOKS to put away the bad ball... but as Boycott was noting earlier... Test cricket is about looking to rotate the strike off easier deliveries... and looking to put away dross... and it is NOT about looking to score off good balls.

This is where modern sides CONSISTENTLY fall short. It was Australia's undoing in the 2005 Ashes... and has been England's undoing ever since. As Boycott noted, you have to play each ball on merit and show the bowler a bit of respect: if the bowler gets a lot of balls right in a row... you don't let it get to you as that's how you get out... you just say (as Tendulkar does these days) "ok, I'm still here... now let's see see you do the same again as you start to tire".

As it happens... both sides leaked runs at about the same rate: after 80 overs the Indians were at 276/4 and England were at 277/5 (with the same number of top order wickets gone as the No 11 bat was one of the five).

That stat puts the performances in context: near enough identical for the better part of three sessions... after which India got away (not least to Prior's incompetence with the gloves) where England struggled (not least to Prior's failure to make anything up with the bat).

No big deal: the side is competitive and a series result of 1-0 or 2-0 is not going to accurately reflect how close England were to maintaining their recent home record.

Given that England look set to follow-on that is a strange comment. The pitch should have been flatter when England started their 1st innings late on Day 2 but England's batsmen allowed Khan to bowl 7 maidens which resulted in them taking an extra 5 overs to put their first hundred on the scoreboard. I've seen this tactic happen before when England allowed Murali to dominate them in Sri Lanka. The best result you can possibly achieve with this tactic is to escape with a draw. Usually, though it just ends in a humiliating defeat. England are sending the message to the Indians that Khan is lethal on flat wickets! Not much of a recommendation for the England batsmen. If they are prepared to allow Khan to dominate them on English wickets what does that suggest about the next Ashes campaign in England or Australia, for that matter. Not good signs, IMHO.

India stats first 100 runs:
22.5 overs to score 100 runs - 100/1
Sidebottom 7-3-23-0
Anderson 8-1-46-1
Panesar 2-0-9-0
Tremlett 6-0-25-0

England stats first 100 runs:
27.4 overs to score 100 runs - 103/2
RP Singh 6-1-26-1
Z Khan 11-7-17-1
A Kumble 4-1-18-0
S Sreesanth 7-0-29-0