Drop Prior Now

Basil wrote:

Eric Air Emu wrote:

Basil wrote:

Eric Air Emu wrote:An inside edge standing up to a medium pacer isn't the easiest catch you know.

Of course you can pick anyone else and it will be the just doesn't score any runs option instead of the bit ropey behind the stumps option. Neither option is good so excuse my eternal ambivalence.

If the ball had deviated to a significant degree after hitting the bat, I would agree - but it was the slightest of edges, so no excuses.

I think most people on this forum would struggle to stop the ball if they were standing back to Mascarenhas, let alone taking catches standing up.

Indeed we might, but that's not the point. The debate is whether England can justify playing a wicketkeeper who is so palbably short of the required standard at the international level.

If (on a good day) they can justify playing two bowlers and a top six batsman so palbably short of the required standard I don't see why not.

Eric Air Emu wrote:
Slightly off-topic- Having watched a bit of cricket this weekend I honestly thought Colivin and Marsh of England ladies looked far better spinners than Gareth Batty.

A plate of sick looks a better spinner than Gareth Batty. And more attractive.

Eric Air Emu wrote:

I think most people on this forum would struggle to stop the ball if they were standing back to Mascarenhas, let alone taking catches standing up.

But that's not the point though, is it.
He's paid big bucks to be the No.1 international keeper in the England team.
If your argument was reversed, I'm sure Prior would crap himself at the thought of taking on the occupations that forummers on here carry out ... so I'm afraid that argument just doesn't stack up!

To compound it all, Ramdin showed him - close-up - just how a keeper DOES take a nick off a medium pacer.

No denying he's worked on his batting - but he falls well short on his keeping "abililities" - no matter which way you cut it.
What was it ... 50+ byes in the one innings of a test match at PoS ?!

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:KP's hardly flourishing there is he?

He has two of his seven ODI hundreds batting three.

He has no problem batting in that position. He's just missed out in the first two games of this series.

Dello wrote:

Merlin wrote:Give Davies the gloves for the last three ODI's.
He deserves a chance ... he's a far better keeper, and can bat in the shortened game as well, if not better, than Priority.

Probably not going to happen as that would mean a total reshuffle of the batting order as Davies is a one-day opener - he himself admits it hasn't worked for him batting in the lower middle order in limited overs cricket, as he's not really a hitter.

Now Strauss has anchored himself in as an opener, and with Bops getting a run first up, there's no obvious place for Davies to bat other than the lower middle-order - a job that is way more suited to the powerful and occasionally sloggy Prior.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't Davies has ever opened in 50 over cricket for Worcs. he might have made it up to No 3. on the odd occasion.

Two distinct groups are forming on this message board. There are those who like their wicket-keepers to be able to catch, and those who like him to stand there with his hands in his pockets pretending to be a wicket-keeper because he deserves time to prove he isn't good enough.

On the KP, he has been out of form since losing the captaincy. Not out of form in the conventional sense, purely in the 'not up to KP's ridiculously God-like standards' sense. There's still fall-out to come from that, especially as all the evidence since is that KP was fully justified in trying to root out the cancer in the England set-up. Not that the KP is ever unjustified in what he does.

I'm of the don't throw a hysterical wobbly everytime a keeper drops a catch school. They all do it- some more than others admittedly.

OK he seems to have a perverse hunger for byes but how many chances has Prior dropped/missed since his recall?

At least three. And he's broken one world record for wicket-keeping shiteness.

Augustus wrote:Two distinct groups are forming on this message board. There are those who like their wicket-keepers to be able to catch, and those who like him to stand there with his hands in his pockets pretending to be a wicket-keeper because he deserves time to prove he isn't good enough.

Or alternatively, those who like their wicket-keepers to be able to bat, and those who like him to stand there with his hands in his pockets pretending to be a batsman because he deserves time to prove he isn't good enough...

There's one way to put an end to it all I suppose and that's for the selectors to just get their act together and find the player who can do both. It can't be that hard, can it?

beamer wrote:

Augustus wrote:Two distinct groups are forming on this message board. There are those who like their wicket-keepers to be able to catch, and those who like him to stand there with his hands in his pockets pretending to be a wicket-keeper because he deserves time to prove he isn't good enough.

Or alternatively, those who like their wicket-keepers to be able to bat, and those who like him to stand there with his hands in his pockets pretending to be a batsman because he deserves time to prove he isn't good enough...

There's one way to put an end to it all I suppose and that's for the selectors to just get their act together and find the player who can do both. It can't be that hard, can it?

Well, it all stems from the "Flintoff issue", where England's premier all-rounder isn't fit enough to bowl in a four man attack but isn't good enough to bat in the top six. England have been scrambling around trying to make up for the shortfall in runs from somewhere else.

What's the answer? You solve one problem and it unbalances the side elsewhere, leading to a whole other problem.

I say line them all up, gun them down, start again.

The answer is... an all-rounder who can justify his place with both bat and ball, and a keeper who can justify his place with both bat and gloves. Piece of piss, really...

One thing is for certain, Prior has cost England two matches in the last fortnight with his two drops of Shiv.

It's not easy, it's not perfect, and it might not be successful all the time, but it's got a better chance of not being UNsuccessful all the time like the current fudge: -

6 x Your Best Bats
1 x Your Best Keeper (Batting a bonus)
4 x Your Best Bowlers

If we can't find 4 bowlers who can take wickets, adding a 5th choice isn't going to make the attack as a whole any better.

At least with a keeper who can catch a ball, you've got a better than even chance of taking the chances that the attack does create, it doesn't demoralise that bowling, doesn't release the pressure and reprieve the opposing batsmen, you don't give away boat loads of byes to boost their total, and it sets a virtuous circle of tidiness in the field.

It's not working at the moment, we've won 1 game in 16 this winter, and that solely due to John Dyson being a doofus, so what precisely have we got to lose?

Nowt.

I take it that's referring to Tests, as you have to use 5 bowlers in the shorter game and can't always rely on a part-timer like Collingwood to bowl a full spell if conditions don't suit.

I guess it's fair enough that what we've got isn't working, but I still think that would be worse - absolutely no chance of 20 wickets unless the pitch was really helpful, in which case we'd get rolled for 150 anyway. But it's a fairly pointless debate, as we haven't got good enough players to win Tests on a regular basis against decent opposition, or practically anyone away from home.

Tests - aye.

You continue to justify the selection of someone who patently isn't up to what ought to be his primary skill by (understandably) decrying the skills of the rest of the side who are often not up to the job.

Acceptance of gross inadequacy from one member of the side on account of mediocrity in the rest of the side just doesn't make sense to me.

Well I just think the primary skills are batting and bowling - good fielding is a bonus, alongside running between the wickets, appealing, judgement of when to use the referrals and reading the Duckworth-Lewis tables!

If your aim is to win Tests, first pick enough bowling to do so (four if at least three of them are world-class, five otherwise) then pick your strongest possible batting line-up including someone who happens to keep wicket.

If like the West Indies at the end of the recent series, your aim is to draw Tests, pack your side with as much batting as you can and pick the minimum amount of specialist bowlers that is reasonable.

Luxury players like specialist wicketkeepers can be considered when you have batsmen and bowlers good enough that you can afford to leave out one from either department!

I'm a big fan of his batting, but i'm afraid ultimately he'll get dropped if he continues to drop chances & has shockers like in the last test.

Will totally unbalance the side, though I feel we'll then need to pick the best 6 batsman and that doesn't include Flintoff who has to play at 7 as one of a four man attack.

If he isn't fit enough to do that, then it's time to move on. At least this way you can go Flintoff 7 & Foster 8 for example...

Just wait until Flintoff eventually calls it a day, then we'll have the next great all-rounder search as well as probably still having the ongoing keeper debate... just think about all the can't-bat-can't-bowl dross merchants we picked after Botham retired, and prepare to watch more of them over the following few years!

By then Broad will have scored 5 test hundreds & be skittling sides for fun...

JKLever wrote:By then Broad will have 5 more test wickets & be eating Skittles for breakfast...

Fixed.

6 x Your Best Bats
1 x Your Best Keeper (Batting a bonus)
4 x Your Best Bowlers

Going by that formula, the side should be something like-

Strauss(c)
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Shah/Bopara
Flintoff
Foster+
Swann
S.Jones (distant dream, I know...But he's one of the best)
Sidebottom/Hoggard/Anderson

Jonah will probably only ever be able to bowl a maximum of 15 overs a day. Same with Flintoff from now on. Hoggard, Sidebottom and Anderson can bowl 20 overs a day no problem when fit. Swann can bowl 20, and Collingwood, Pietersen and Bopara would have to make up the final 20. 20 overs a day from part timers is probably 10 too many.
If Flintoff can't complete 20 overs a day (and all the evidence suggests that he'll break down within a month if he does) then he should consider either working overtime on his batting to somehow try and justify a spot at number six, or consider retiring from test cricket ro concentrate on ODI's and T20's.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:One thing is for certain, Prior has cost England two matches in the last fortnight with his two drops of Shiv.

It's not certain. At all.

Prior's poor keeping was highlighted a lot when Ramdin took an almost identical catch off Prior himself to the one Prior dropped of Shiv earlier in the day.

When all is said and done, I still think Prior is the best all round batsman-keeper option for England at the moment. The same people who are criticising Prior for his keeping were criticising Chris 'Rabbit in the headlights' Read for his batting 2 years ago.

Ramdin is quite easily one of the best international keepers going and as discussed previously - in real time - it was a difficult one to say the least.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:One thing is for certain, Prior has cost England two matches in the last fortnight with his two drops of Shiv.

It's not certain. At all.

It's as certain as any two single incidents by a single individual can ever be in determining the result of a match.

It's like blaming Northern Rock for the entire global recession.