Should Prior have made the squad?

Wicket-keeping ability aside, knowing beforehand that Matt Prior was going to leave the tour straight after the penultimate Test - or before if his wife goes into labour early - to be at the birth of his first child, should England have even taken him on tour?

It's perfectly understandable that he'd want to be at the birth - and a bloke shouldn't be punished for that - but if a player can't make himself available for the entire tour, I don't think he should be considered for any of it. Count him out until the next series. It's too disruptive otherwise.

What makes replacing Flintoff more difficult is the possible absence of wicketkeeper Matt Prior, who would be a candidate to bat at No. 6. Prior is due to fly home for the birth of his child straight after the third Test finishes on March 2, but he would leave the tour if his wife, Emily, goes into labour before the match.

"He [Prior] could bat six and we could play five specialist bowlers even if Flintoff wasn't playing and that is one of the options available," Andy Flower said. "If the baby arrives early then he will leave but if he starts the Test, he will finish it.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wiveng2009/content/current/story/391566.html

That's a situation entirely of England's making. They knew there was a possibility of this happening, but they selected him to tour anyway. Now the balance of the side rests on a bloke who could bugger off home on the morning of the fourth Test - and certainly won't be around for the final Test.

And also, knowing that this could happen, they selected a back-up wicket-keeper who has no chance in hell of batting in the top six. They could've gone for Steven Davies (as they have for the ODI squad), but decided to reward Tim Ambrose for his good egg-ness and give him a free holiday. And a free Test which he didn't have to earn in the slightest.

I think it's muddle-headed thinking.

Prior shouldn't have made the squad simply on account of his shitness.

Do you get the feeling that they thought 'it's only the Windies' and so they could get away with it? That might be a load of bollocks, but the following may also suggest complacency:

- Selecting only 1 specialist batsman as a reserve on tour.

- Selecting Rashid despite having no intention of playing him.

- This selection of Prior even though he has stated from the start that he wont be available for the final test.

- The selection of Freddie and particularly Sidebottom even though they both had fitness worries.

WIFAN wrote:Do you get the feeling that they thought 'it's only the Windies' and so they could get away with it? That might be a load of bollocks, but the following may also suggest complacency:

- Selecting only 1 specialist batsman as a reserve on tour.

- Selecting Rashid despite having no intention of playing him.

- This selection of Prior even though he has stated from the start that he wont be available for the final test.

- The selection of Freddie and particularly Sidebottom even though they both had fitness worries.

Agree with the first three points. Fred was fit at the start of the tour - as was Siders.

WIFAN wrote:Do you get the feeling that they thought 'it's only the Windies' and so they could get away with it? That might be a load of bollocks, but the following may also suggest complacency:

- Selecting only 1 specialist batsman as a reserve on tour.

- Selecting Rashid despite having no intention of playing him.

- This selection of Prior even though he has stated from the start that he wont be available for the final test.

- The selection of Freddie and particularly Sidebottom even though they both had fitness worries.

You would hope WIFAN that our recent test results would rule out any complacency whatsoever. Honestly don't think that there would be many changes in the squad if 10 seperate people picked it tbh.

Dello wrote:That's a situation entirely of England's making. They knew there was a possibility of this happening, but they selected him to tour anyway. Now the balance of the side rests on a bloke who could bugger off home on the morning of the fourth Test - and certainly won't be around for the final Test..

How does someone bugger off their home

Is this legal in England?

Does his wife approve?

Dello's use of English slang is correct.

What exactly does it mean?

fark orf.

Cheerio

I am going to bugger off to bed

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:Prior shouldn't have made the squad simply on account of his shitness.

this belongs in the 'bad calls' thread ...

I've always rated his batting. His keeping has been excellent since England abandoned the Tim Ambrose (remember him?) experiment.

Didn't Ambrose bat 6 against the Saffers in 'Pattinsons Match' ?

Prior has improved: a bit more consistent (if a bit wild) with the bat, quite a bit safer and faster with the mitts.

He's no Jamie Foster though. Or even Gareth Cross (talking of hand speed here).

Should now be worth a WC slot, but he won't get it at this stage.

JKLever wrote:Didn't Ambrose bat 6 against the Saffers in 'Pattinsons Match' ?

Dark days indeed.

PeterCS wrote:Prior has improved: a bit more consistent (if a bit wild) with the bat, quite a bit safer and faster with the mitts.

He's no Jamie Foster though. Or even Gareth Cross (talking of hand speed here).

Should now be worth a WC slot, but he won't get it at this stage.

I think they've gone off Kieswetter a bit though. There's a few questions surrounding his batting technique, for example the massive gap he tends to leave between bat and pad.

Prior should really be suited to one day cricket. He has all the shots, and he's a very good keeper these days as well. He shouldn't open the innings, but he could play well at five or six, coming in at around the 35 over mark.

His one-day record is inexplicably crap, even at county level - I think only averaging mid to high 20s.

While he's at least solved the keeper question at Test level, it's still a big issue in the ODI and T20 sides. Perhaps the insistence that the keeper has to open the batting is getting in the way of any of them really establishing themselves.

For most of his career, Prior has been used as a pinch hitting opener, even on cloudy days in early May, when he is really a genuine batsman who should be allowed to play himself in, and is probably better off batting in the middle order.

Got to stick with Davies for the moment. Not a top, top keeper yet and does display a tendency to lazily flick in the air to fine leg or get caught on the up in the covers but he's surely shown enough....

Yeah, Davies has a lot of talent, but as you say, he hits the ball in the air too often. It would be fine if he went way over the top, but consistently hitting balls at head height through the field is just too risky. Either go way over the top, or keep it along the ground.

I'd take both Davies and Prior as I think Prior qualifies as a frontline batsman provided he's given a defined role and not bounced up and down the order like a yo-yo, which has been his undoing thus far.

He should be an alternative to Colly at five. Not sure about his fielding without the gloves on, though.