-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Should Nixon get the WK place in England's test side?
- Thread starter dcnstntn
- Start date
ramkumar_gr
U19 Vice-Captain
and also Mal Loye
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
On a serious note, I think he's done very well really - must confess when he came in I thought he was a joke - like Mark Ealham as a test all rounder in '93 bowling half rat power. But I must say I like his moxie - he has a real go. It would be great to see him get a test match, even if it was only a short-term thing.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Ealham played in '97, not '93.
Nixon's selection in ODIs should, IMO, have been a short-term only thing - I hope he was picked and told at the time that it was only for the one winter. Also, the attitude to him from Aussies was more predictable than the sun rising.
Nixon's selection in ODIs should, IMO, have been a short-term only thing - I hope he was picked and told at the time that it was only for the one winter. Also, the attitude to him from Aussies was more predictable than the sun rising.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Read and Jones are toast. Not good enough and we have wasted enough time on them.
Nixon is far from ideal as his batting isnt that of a top order player. However, he provides a number of intangibles which are very valuable.
No doubt he is as tough as they come and provides an element of steely determination that has been lacking.
I would play Nixon or Pothas for a short period whilst grooming someone else for the position.
Nixon is far from ideal as his batting isnt that of a top order player. However, he provides a number of intangibles which are very valuable.
No doubt he is as tough as they come and provides an element of steely determination that has been lacking.
I would play Nixon or Pothas for a short period whilst grooming someone else for the position.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Did James Foster kidnap your wife or summat?
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I hope not, he was very pleasant to her the last time they chatted.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Answer based on logic.Haha.
I'll phrase it another way, then: what's he done for you to prefer Nixon or Pothas as Test wicketkeeper?
I believe Pothas is a better batsman and has out performed Foster domestically over the last couple of years so on performance merit he deserves to be there.
Nixon has performed no worse than Foster with the bat domestically in recent years and he is the man in possession and has done a good job. Also he brings much needed fighting qualities and his keeping is very good.
Illogical Answer
I dont really like the look of Foster
I think Pothas and Nixon deserve to be ahead of Foster now. However, I do agree that Foster should be ahead of Jones and Read. Foster is a good player and a decent batsan, its just I think the 2 I mention are more deserving.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Foster in 2004: 1037 runs at 51.85
Foster in 2005: 771 runs at 36.71
Foster in 2006: 822 runs at 48.35
(Foster so far in 2007: 65 runs for once out)
Nixon in 2004: 361 runs at 20.05
Nixon in 2005: 708 runs at 35.40
Nixon in 2006: 895 runs at 59.66
Pothas in 2003: 44.94
Pothas in 2004: 39.71
Pothas in 2005: 51.21
Pothas in 2006 64.84
I actually didn't realise Pothas' First-Class form was quite so good, TBH.
Always thought of him as more of a one-day batsman.
I think I'd go with him if available and willing.
Foster in 2005: 771 runs at 36.71
Foster in 2006: 822 runs at 48.35
(Foster so far in 2007: 65 runs for once out)
Nixon in 2004: 361 runs at 20.05
Nixon in 2005: 708 runs at 35.40
Nixon in 2006: 895 runs at 59.66
Pothas in 2003: 44.94
Pothas in 2004: 39.71
Pothas in 2005: 51.21
Pothas in 2006 64.84
I actually didn't realise Pothas' First-Class form was quite so good, TBH.
Always thought of him as more of a one-day batsman.I think I'd go with him if available and willing.
Last edited:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I actually dont think Foster has done anything wrong and TBH he has been very unfortunate during his career.
He has IMO, been passed in the pecking order by Nixon and Pothas. He probably deserved more opportunities in the recent past.
Given that he should have played more in the past but shouldnt now, it probably means (given the ECB selection history) that he will be the first name on the teamsheet when the summer Test begin.
He has IMO, been passed in the pecking order by Nixon and Pothas. He probably deserved more opportunities in the recent past.
Given that he should have played more in the past but shouldnt now, it probably means (given the ECB selection history) that he will be the first name on the teamsheet when the summer Test begin.
Spitfires_Fan
State Vice-Captain
I don't know about the state of wickets, although I think Chelmsford is a pretty good batting track? But it must be pointed out that Pothas has scored his runs against 1st Division attacks, whereas Foster and Nixon both play for 2nd Division sides.
I think Pothas is probably the best shout of the lot, but I'm not keen on kolpaks playing for England, especially when they have international experience, no matter how limited, with another country.
Nixon's a good keeper and a useful batsman down the order, and very experienced at domestic level. I don't think he'd be fazed by test cricket, and I suppose that he's the man that's technically 'in possession' of the gloves. But, he's 36. Which is old.
Foster - well, he's decent, he's English and he's a good bit younger as well. I'd probably be inclined to go for him with an eye on Davies for the future, but tbh I wouldn't really mind any of them to get the job.
Don't want Prior or Read though. They've had their chance. As has Jones.
I think Pothas is probably the best shout of the lot, but I'm not keen on kolpaks playing for England, especially when they have international experience, no matter how limited, with another country.
Nixon's a good keeper and a useful batsman down the order, and very experienced at domestic level. I don't think he'd be fazed by test cricket, and I suppose that he's the man that's technically 'in possession' of the gloves. But, he's 36. Which is old.
Foster - well, he's decent, he's English and he's a good bit younger as well. I'd probably be inclined to go for him with an eye on Davies for the future, but tbh I wouldn't really mind any of them to get the job.
Don't want Prior or Read though. They've had their chance. As has Jones.
open365
International Vice-Captain
I think it's pretty difficult for anyone to pick a test wicket keeper right now.
Who honestly gets to watch much county 4 day cricket these days?
We can judge them on stats, but stats tell less of a story when considering someone for test match selection, especialy considering the amount of runs being scored by everyone in the championship over the last few years.
I'm not too certain on any of them, Pothas has the best average and from accounts is a decent keeper but his technique is far from orthodox and may falter at international level. He's also 33 and if he was given a go i'd see his place as being very fragile as he's not going to be improving at the rate Foster and Davies (hopefully) are improving at. Meaning that if he fails early, the selectors won't be too keen on giving him more goes when he's 33, Foster and Davies on the other hadn would be liable to more games as they're younger and can improve in the future.
Foster had been unlucky so far but even though his stats have been good, i'm a bit cirumspect with him at international level. His technique isn't bad, but he reminds me of Read (who scored the same amount of runs at FC level) in that he wouldn't have a hope in hell of batting in the top order or in a tricky situation as his technique is a bit 'light'.
I too used to be anti Nixon as i was sick of people justifying his selection because he shouted behind the stumps. But, with his recent performances which imo have been quite superb i don't think he'd be too bad a choice. If he gets the job it should be for this summer and this summer only, but i wouldn't be displeased if he got a go. His technique isn't flashy, but from watching him bat he makes the most of it and has the ability to play some important innings for his team. His determination and mental fortitude with the bat is what England have been lacking, Nixon may not score significantly more runs than Jones or Read, but i think the runs he does score will be in situations which are more valuable to the team.
In short, i'd probably go for Nixon for this summer as he's the man in possesion then Foster for the winter and then let it be a competition between him and Davies after that.
Who honestly gets to watch much county 4 day cricket these days?
We can judge them on stats, but stats tell less of a story when considering someone for test match selection, especialy considering the amount of runs being scored by everyone in the championship over the last few years.
I'm not too certain on any of them, Pothas has the best average and from accounts is a decent keeper but his technique is far from orthodox and may falter at international level. He's also 33 and if he was given a go i'd see his place as being very fragile as he's not going to be improving at the rate Foster and Davies (hopefully) are improving at. Meaning that if he fails early, the selectors won't be too keen on giving him more goes when he's 33, Foster and Davies on the other hadn would be liable to more games as they're younger and can improve in the future.
Foster had been unlucky so far but even though his stats have been good, i'm a bit cirumspect with him at international level. His technique isn't bad, but he reminds me of Read (who scored the same amount of runs at FC level) in that he wouldn't have a hope in hell of batting in the top order or in a tricky situation as his technique is a bit 'light'.
I too used to be anti Nixon as i was sick of people justifying his selection because he shouted behind the stumps. But, with his recent performances which imo have been quite superb i don't think he'd be too bad a choice. If he gets the job it should be for this summer and this summer only, but i wouldn't be displeased if he got a go. His technique isn't flashy, but from watching him bat he makes the most of it and has the ability to play some important innings for his team. His determination and mental fortitude with the bat is what England have been lacking, Nixon may not score significantly more runs than Jones or Read, but i think the runs he does score will be in situations which are more valuable to the team.
In short, i'd probably go for Nixon for this summer as he's the man in possesion then Foster for the winter and then let it be a competition between him and Davies after that.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Chelmsford is a ground which you can usually score a decent amount of runs at if you can bat.
Grace Road can never be predicted.
And The Rose Bowl is probably the worst place to bat (of regular A-List grounds, obviously) in the country.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's all very true - but is it really likely that if X has outperformed Y at the domestic level, Y will then outperform X at the international?
No.
You can only go with those who have done best at the best level you have available. It's wholly unjust to go for someone above an inferior qualified candidate just because "he looks better". And we've seen soooooo many examples of doing that being a terrible idea (Solanki being picked ahead of Afzaal for ODIs, to name one totally random example) anyway.