A question of keeping

As India cruise towards victory in the Oval Test and a 2-0 series win that will make them the joint second-best team in the world (level with England, lest we beat ourselves up too much), criticism seems to be heaped primarily on Matt Prior, whose wicketkeeping skill has slumped over the series. He let 33 byes past him and dropped Tendulkar and Laxman as India rattled past 650.

This is reminiscent of the criticism that was aimed at Geraint Jones in the first stage of his career, before his keeping became actually quite good and his batting slumped. Prior can't have helped his cause by making a duck today as England lurched towards the follow-on. Two fifties and a hundred in his first seven Tests is not bad for a keeper, but if his batting starts to slide then the attention will focus even more strongly on his keeping.

Bob Willis moaned in typical Willis fashion about there being 15 keepers better than Prior in England. No one challenged him to name them, and it would be cruel to say how many analysts there are who are better than Willis, but it does create an interesting debate about who England should select for their winter tours. Prior will go - he deserves that - but England must take another keeper who offers skill with gloves as well as bat and theremust be genuine competition between them.

The obvious candidates to my mind are Chris Read, James Foster and Tim Ambrose. The first is still the best glovesman in the country, the last is averaging 54 this season (still ten fewer than the supposedly untalented batsman Read) and Foster offers perhaps the best balance (and like Read has made a maiden double-hundred in the county championship this season). There are other candidates (Nic Pothas, Jones, Steven Davies, Luke Sutton, Ben Scott) but whoever the ECB selects, they must not just be a drinks carrier for the tours.

Comments

[Peter McGuinness]

Sir Mick Jagger makes an excellent point.

In addition to his stature as the world's most energetic and sexy senior citizen, he should be respected for bloody well knowing his cricket! Legend.

The whole tail should be responsible for the compilation of a total in the absence of success in the top order. Selectors (from any country) can't manufacture a Gilchrist or a Sangakarra simply because they wish it was so.

There is a price to be paid for insisting upon the highest quality 'keeping coinciding with a Test average of 50. It is failure on both counts.

Selectors expect that perfect wicketkeeping will accompany top order performance with the bat. It is a fantasy.

Very few players can truly achieve both. For example, Dujon was spectacular to the untrained eye, but deeply flawed behing the stumps. Alec Stewart's budding career in the top order was ruined by saddling him with 'keeping responsibilities because he was 'adequate' with the gloves.

In fashioning a place for an extra bowler, England selectors denied the team the genius of Jack Russell, while also taxing Stewart's ability to contribute with the bat.

Australian selectors did likewise to the potential of Wayne Philips in the 80's. Other examples around the world are abundant.

In Test Match cricket, elite wicket keeping is integral to the taking of 20 wickets. In One Day cricket, an 'adequate' keeper can do the trick provided he can bat.

Elite keeping and elite batting do not often coincide in one individual, despite the delusions. Better in Test Matches to develop your very best 'keeper into a middle order bat who can reliably average 30 and carry the tail, than to pick an all-rounder who you hope won't drop Tendulkar or Ponting on nought.

England compound the problematic trend by making 'loudness' another irrational criterion for a 'keeper's selection.

20 wickets win Tests.

Read's the best in the world, as was Russell in his day.

When selectors look at the bowlers and expect nothing from them with the bat, they are tempted to devalue the exacting art of elite wicket-keeping as a consequence.

The moral of the story is that great wicket keepers can bat well (Knott, Marsh, Healy, Bari, Russell, Boucher) if given the chance. To expect that every great keeper should be an Engineer or a Gilchrist is stupid.

You only end up with half a decent batsman and half a decent 'keeper.

Get Read out there for God's sake!!

End of rant.

[MickJ]

If any of the England bowlers could bat, there wouldn't be such pressure on the wicket keeper. It was heartening to see the tail finally chipping in a few runs in England's first innings at the Oval but all too often Prior (or his equivalent) comes in with everyone knowing he's our last hope. I don't expect our bowlers to magically turn into all-rounders, just to follow the example of Shane Warne and develop a couple of useful strokes plus the ability to hang around for a bit.

[Peter McGuinness]

For God's Sake...

At the expense of sounding like a broken friggen record - WHAT'S WRONG WITH PICKING THE BEST GLOVEMAN?

No need to regurgitate the endless observations about the loud but hopeless Nicco. But your current summer underlines the crazy propensity of England selectors to ignore the obvious.

The sooner England decides that the technical task of keeping wickets is more important than misguided notions of 'spirit' or 'vigour', the better off you Poms will be.

Mouthing off continually and sledging are 'attributes' that an international 'keeper can be allowed once his core game is in order. It should not be the #1 criterion upon which to gift the honour of custodianship in International Matches.

You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson with the laughable - but loud - Nixon.

'Abrasiveness' amounts to nothing, if the basics of keeping wickets are deficient. Specifically, a rookie loudmouth does no damage if he's dropping catches. If anything, everytime he opens his gob, he gives his opponents strength. Refer good old Paul. And now - it seems - Prior. Shut the f*ck up and do your job over a decent period. Then you may get some respect for your 'chirp'.

Time for the world's best keeper (yes - that's coming from an Aussie) to get back down to the local pawnbrokers and get his England kit out of hock.

If England don't pick Chris Read soon and stick with the poor bastard, then they've learned nothing from the past 18 months. As a cricket fan, I hope common sense prevails. As an keen observer of English cricket, I expect that it won't.

[Tim]

I'd take Ambrose and Foster - but, as you said, they'll stick with Prior.

[Terry W]

'Foster offers perhaps the best balance', spoken like a true Essex fan Patrick.