Gooch & Hoggard on Pattinson

The Guardian had a running theme on Prior's runs to drops ratio, and his eventual average with the dropped catches taken off was something like 12 (in the positive). I daresay that +12 is more than we're getting out of current keepers, though at the time I and many others seized on it as an excuse to use against Prior.

What do all the Prior supporters (who want to create a wicket-keeperout of him) think to the idea of having Strauss or Bell as wicket-keeper? They both have a good pair of hands and can bat well at Test level.

Or maybe Ed Joyce or Vikram Solanki?

FFS get someone who can keep. I say give the Child another go.

Drop WTF (the new Aussie bowler, can't remember his name) and get SiJo and Hoggy back. That may be a long tail but at least we'll get sides out.

To be fair to Solanki, he wasn't too bad with the gloves in the WC.

Augustus wrote:The Guardian had a running theme on Prior's runs to drops ratio, and his eventual average with the dropped catches taken off was something like 12 (in the positive). I daresay that +12 is more than we're getting out of current keepers, though at the time I and many others seized on it as an excuse to use against Prior.

Depends whether you believe the Grauniad or Wisden Cricketer I suppose.

-22 according to the latter.

Gary 111 wrote:What do all the Prior supporters (who want to create a wicket-keeperout of him) think to the idea of having Strauss or Bell as wicket-keeper? They both have a good pair of hands and can bat well at Test level.

Or maybe Ed Joyce or Vikram Solanki?

Well you wouldn't do it at Test level but a few teams have given a batsman the gloves in ODI cricket in the past. After all, it's only a fielding position, just one that requires a bit more skill and involvement than the others. I'm sure there's plenty of batsmen in the game who could be turned into competent keepers if they were prepared to put in a bit of work.

But not Prior.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:But not Prior.

Let's hold our breath, cross our fingers, and say Foster.

If we go with 5 bowlers then we need Prior at six. End of. Unless Stephen Davies starts consistently fulfilling his potential with the bat.

Nice, I like it. The table, that is. So what you do to judge a keeper's ability is see how many runs the batsmen got after the keeper dropped him?

Good-o. That means Read could've dropped one to a batsman who gets bowled the next ball and Prior could've dropped on to a batsman who gets another 220 because he's in damn good nick. Stupid table.

So, what's this about a Porsche? Nothing to do with Matt Prior, obviously, considering he doesn't have a Porsche, never has and therefore never said it.

Brass Monkey wrote:Nice, I like it. The table, that is. So what you do to judge a keeper's ability is see how many runs the batsmen got after the keeper dropped him?

Good-o. That means Read could've dropped one to a batsman who gets bowled the next ball and Prior could've dropped on to a batsman who gets another 220 because he's in damn good nick. Stupid table.

So, what's this about a Porsche? Nothing to do with Matt Prior, obviously, considering he doesn't have a Porsche, never has and therefore never said it.

Pretty sure that if they did a table with a set number of runs as a penalty for each potential dismissal spilled, it would be equally if not more damning for the Sussex Cymbals.

How many did he spill off Sid alone in Sri Lanka, and over the course of the period from May last year to the end of that Lankan series?

Quite a few, no doubt. It was 7 in SL - that's a shocker. Before, not too many I don't think. It was horrendously difficult to keep here during the India series, the ball was all over the shop.

I'd like to know the maths behind the runs, personally, because if it is how I say - that'd be a bollocks table.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Nice, I like it. The table, that is. So what you do to judge a keeper's ability is see how many runs the batsmen got after the keeper dropped him?

Good-o. That means Read could've dropped one to a batsman who gets bowled the next ball and Prior could've dropped on to a batsman who gets another 220 because he's in damn good nick. Stupid table.

So, what's this about a Porsche? Nothing to do with Matt Prior, obviously, considering he doesn't have a Porsche, never has and therefore never said it.

Pretty sure that if they did a table with a set number of runs as a penalty for each potential dismissal spilled, it would be equally if not more damning for the Sussex Cymbals.

How many did he spill off Sid alone in Sri Lanka, and over the course of the period from May last year to the end of that Lankan series?

And would the table be graded for difficulty of catches dropped?

Meh - he was shoddy throughout his 7 months or so with the gloves for England, he just reached a crescendo of buffoonery in Sri Lanka to the point where it was impossible to overlook it any longer.

Most reports (other than those spun by his coach, manager and himself) indicate that there has been no improvement whatsover in the period that has elapsed since.

Sussex even took the gloves off him in the T20 and gave them to the vastly superior Hodd.

beamer wrote:I think the difference with someone like KP is that he came over as a young, ambitious player who made a positive decision to commit his future to England rather than the country of his birth - OK he wouldn't have done so had it not been for the racial quota system and he may not have done so if he and others within SA cricket had any idea quite how good he was going to become. But he's come in and become England's best and most important player, fully committed to the cause and if he maintains his current average he will be our best batsman in 30 years or more.

Compare that to a bowler who is almost 30, a handful of FC games behind him, who used the fact he happened to have been born over here to get some cricket for Notts as a non-overseas player and had probably never even considered the prospect of playing for England before the selectors contacted him. If he does well I suppose I won't be complaining but it's a short-sighted pick which will have a negative impact on the other bowlers pushing for a place.

Spot on this beamer. My thoughts exactly.

Add also the fact bthat he looks mediocre at best, and all in all its a pretty large load of utter shoite that he's been picked!

So DP played his one Test, got a couple of wickets (which is one wicket better than an alleged countryman of his called Shane something managed in his first two Tests) and even made some runs. As bolt-from-the-blue Test selections go he wasn't quite as good as MOM Peter Taylor but a hell of a lot better than Johnny Watkins.

Gooch (as always, assuming the quote was accurate and something like in context)last made as big a goose of himself as he has this week, 33 years ago in his own Test debut which was even less successful than either Pattinson's or Watkins's, and that time he had the dual excuses of a) he was facing the world's premier fast bowler and b) he was a mere spotty youth of 21 who was bound to learn and improve. If Pattinson had done was Gooch thought he should, and declined the invitation, doubtless Gooch's tone would have not been an iota less self-righteous but the script would have been different: 'what an ungrateful little Aussie sh1t, given the chance to play at the top level but threw it in our faces, how dare he, blah blah blah....'

Henry wrote:If we go with 5 bowlers then we need Prior at six. End of. Unless Stephen Davies starts consistently fulfilling his potential with the bat.

Davo has slipped some way down the pecking order - mainly because until the last week or so , he hasn't been able to buy a run.

On the basis of what I've seen, he's still got technical issues to address, e.g. a pronounced back and across trigger movement which leaves him vulnerable to good swing bowling as he ends up playing over his crease when he tries to come forward.

The five bowler policy requires an all rounder (bowler or keeper) good enough to bat at 6.
England currently haven't got one.

If Flintoff can get his batting back to his best then this could change. Meanwhile, his place should depend on him being one of England's best 3 fast bowlers.

Good balanced article on the Pattinson selection/fiasco, closing with a few open speculations.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/07/23/hard_luck_hoggard_pity_tremlet.html

Selvey can be a bit repetitive on the radio, but he is developing a good style: incisive yet generally balanced, and a nice turn of phrase.