Jones vs Nixon --- England WKs

[Richard]

Nixon's selection was only ever a very short-term option and it was a selection that made perfect sense. Nixon did a decent - not outstanding, obviously - job in 2006\07, and that's all he was required to do.

We all know there's virtually no good wicketkeeper-batsmen in OD cricket... it mirrors the situation in other areas. But frankly, "the future" can go to hell 2 months before a World Cup. So can accusations of conseverativism - Nixon was a far better option than Geraint Jones, whose ODI credentials had always been something close to zero (at least he initially had a bit more than that in Tests). And there was no-one else even suggesting they deserved a shot that winter.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nixon's selection was only ever a very short-term option and it was a selection that made perfect sense. Nixon did a decent - not outstanding, obviously - job in 2006\07, and that's all he was required to do.

We all know there's virtually no good wicketkeeper-batsmen in OD cricket... it mirrors the situation in other areas. But frankly, "the future" can go to hell 2 months before a World Cup. So can accusations of conseverativism - Nixon was a far better option than Geraint Jones, whose ODI credentials had always been something close to zero (at least he initially had a bit more than that in Tests). And there was no-one else even suggesting they deserved a shot that winter.

Nixon was a poor choice amongst poor options. English selections are flushed with conservatism. The fact you had to dig up a 36 year old who was decidedly average shows there's something drastically wrong somewhere. Alec Stewart probably would have been a better choice if you were determined to 'go old'

Virtually no good wicketkeeper batsmen? I think there's a few.

 

[Richard]

Stewart might have been... if he'd been available, and if he'd picked-up a cricket-bat the last 3 years.

The fact Nixon played doesn't show there's anything wrong anywhere. He was a good choice among poor options. It's no fault, nor anything to do with selectorial conservativism, that there aren't many good one-day batsmen in England, never mind those who can also keep wicket. It's just the way things are. Selectors can do no more than make the best of what is available. Nixon was the best option at that point in time. No more, no less. If there are so many good one-day wicketkeeper-batsmen, name 'em. Rather than just making assumptions. Most wicketkeeper-batsmen in this country average in the low 20s or even the teens in the one-day game. Read is the only one who's ever made any impression, and he'd just looked unutterably clueless in the Champions Trophy.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Stewart might have been... if he'd been available, and if he'd picked-up a cricket-bat the last 3 years.

The fact Nixon played doesn't show there's anything wrong anywhere. He was a good choice among poor options. It's no fault, nor anything to do with selectorial conservativism, that there aren't many good one-day batsmen in England, never mind those who can also keep wicket. It's just the way things are. Selectors can do no more than make the best of what is available. Nixon was the best option at that point in time. No more, no less. If there are so many good one-day wicketkeeper-batsmen, name 'em. Rather than just making assumptions. Most wicketkeeper-batsmen in this country average in the low 20s or even the teens in the one-day game. Read is the only one who's ever made any impression, and he'd just looked unutterably clueless in the Champions Trophy.

Were you talking worldwide or in England?...I can believe there weren't many in England. The fact Nixon was selected suggests exactly that.

I'd take Stewart without having picked up a bat for three years.

 

[Richard]

Were you talking worldwide or in England?...I can believe there weren't many in England. The fact Nixon was selected suggests exactly that.

Well given that we can't pick from those not eligable for England suggests I was talking about those eligable for England only. You were the one who brought-up the topic of selectiorial conservativism.

You can hardly criticise England's selectors for not picking Brad Haddin or Kaushal Silva.

I'd take Stewart without having picked up a bat for three years.

I might... if he was available. Which he wasn't.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Geraint Jones died after the latest Ashes series. Just died. Should never play cricket again, not even for a FC club.

 

[Burgey]

v

?

Meh. Neither.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well given that we can't pick from those not eligable for England suggests I was talking about those eligable for England only. You were the one who brought-up the topic of selectiorial conservativism.

You can hardly criticise England's selectors for not picking Brad Haddin or Kaushal Silva.

I might... if he was available. Which he wasn't.

Yes, but when you say 'there aren't many good wicketkeeper batsmen' I get blinded by the fact you are prone to making sweeping generalisations about the world in general

I stand by the selectorial conservatism comment, it's one of the things wrong with English cricket. For references see Ashley Giles playing the first two tests in 2006 because he was supposed to strengthen the batting...another problem is development, where you see yourselves stuck with a 36 year old wicketkeeper who is mediocre.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Sorry had to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1af4rRdvu0

 

[Richard]

Yes, but when you say 'there aren't many good wicketkeeper batsmen' I get blinded by the fact you are prone to making sweeping generalisations about the world in general

Nah.

I stand by the selectorial conservatism comment, it's one of the things wrong with English cricket. For references see Ashley Giles playing the first two tests in 2006 because he was supposed to strengthen the batting...another problem is development, where you see yourselves stuck with a 36 year old wicketkeeper who is mediocre.

You can't develop ability that's not there ITFP, but yes, there obviously is something of a problem in general with the development of one-day cricketers in this country of late.

Selection may of times be conservative, but Nixon's case proves nothing on that note.

Giles playing those Tests really has nothing in common with Nixon playing ODIs. His was a poor selection, he'd not played for over a year and didn't play again.

Conservative does not equal poor. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong, same way being adventurous is sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

 

[Jono]

NIXON!

Along with Andrew Hall and Nicky Boje, he'd be one of the first players in my "Jee wiz, you gotta respect them" world XI.

 

[Majin]

I think the true sign of just how much Adam Gilchrist has given to the Australians is how badly he's ****ed up the keeping selection for countries like England who are now set on trying to get a keeper in the team who spanks the ball about and is an attacking batsman rather than actually being a good keeper. Don't know much about Ambrose tbf, but Jones, Prior etc were rubbish choices, imho. Gilly doing Aus proud.

 

[Goughy]

James Pipe FTW.

Why?

 

[Captain Cricket]

Broady!

 

[NZTailender]

Broady!

Pray tell who do you mean?

 

[Captain Cricket]

Chris Broad match referee.

On a serious note, stick with Matty Prior. I wouldn't let Geraint Jones play imo.

 

[NZTailender]

Chris Broad match referee.

And what did that have to do with the thread, I wonder?

 

[Dan]

Honestly, england have more keepers than they can throw a sharp stump at. Only problem is they are either "Batsman who keep to get themselves into a team" vs "Genuine keepers who are more at home batting 8-11"

List of Pommie Wicket-keepers by county

Derbyshire: James Pipe (BA-25), Thomas Poynton (BA-0.66), Ross Whitely (Yet to make debut)
Durham: Phil Mustard (BA-27) Garry Park (BA-37)
Essex: James Foster (BA-34[My Pick])
Glamorgan: William Bragg (BA-13), Mark Wallace (BA-27)
Gloucestershire: Steve Adshead (BA-30),
Hampshire: Tom Burrows (BA-23), Nic Pothas (BA-40[Possibility after qualification?])
Kent: Geriant Jones (BA-31)
Lancashire: Luke Sutton (BA-32), Paul Horton (BA-45)
Leicestershire: Paul Nixon (BA-33)
Middlesex: David Nash (BA-35)
Northamptonshire: NONE ELIGIBLE
Nottinghamshire: Chris Read (BA-32), David Alleyne (BA-29)
Somerset: Carl Gazzard (BA-20), Craig Kieswetter (BA-29), Sam Spurway (BA-30)
Surrey: Jonathan Batty (BA-33)
Sussex: Matthew Prior (BA-38)
Warwickshire: Tim Ambrose (BA-34), Richard Johnson (Yet to Debut)
Worcestershire: Steve Davies (BA-35), Josh Knappett (BA-32)
Yorkshire: Simon Guy (BA-16), Gerard Brophy (BA-32 [Chance once qualified?])

That makes 29 candidates, the selectors are spoilt for choice BUT a lot of them are either part time keepers or batsman that wicketkeep to hold a spot.

Who would you pick? I'm leaning between Davies, Foster and Pothas despite his age.

 

[Perm]

Captain Cricket - Dire.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Honestly, england have more keepers than they can throw a sharp stump at. Only problem is they are either "Batsman who keep to get themselves into a team" vs "Genuine keepers who are more at home batting 8-11"

List of Pommie Wicket-keepers by county

Derbyshire: James Pipe (BA-25), Thomas Poynton (BA-0.66), Ross Whitely (Yet to make debut)
Durham: Phil Mustard (BA-27) Garry Park (BA-37)
Essex: James Foster (BA-34[My Pick])
Glamorgan: William Bragg (BA-13), Mark Wallace (BA-27)
Gloucestershire: Steve Adshead (BA-30),
Hampshire: Tom Burrows (BA-23), Nic Pothas (BA-40[Possibility after qualification?])
Kent: Geriant Jones (BA-31)
Lancashire: Luke Sutton (BA-32), Paul Horton (BA-45)
Leicestershire: Paul Nixon (BA-33)
Middlesex: David Nash (BA-35)
Northamptonshire: NONE ELIGIBLE
Nottinghamshire: Chris Read (BA-32), David Alleyne (BA-29)
Somerset: Carl Gazzard (BA-20), Craig Kieswetter (BA-29), Sam Spurway (BA-30)
Surrey: Jonathan Batty (BA-33)
Sussex: Matthew Prior (BA-38)
Warwickshire: Tim Ambrose (BA-34), Richard Johnson (Yet to Debut)
Worcestershire: Steve Davies (BA-35), Josh Knappett (BA-32)
Yorkshire: Simon Guy (BA-16), Gerard Brophy (BA-32 [Chance once qualified?])

That makes 29 candidates, the selectors are spoilt for choice BUT a lot of them are either part time keepers or batsman that wicketkeep to hold a spot.

Who would you pick? I'm leaning between Davies, Foster and Pothas despite his age.

It's hardly spoilt for choice when none of them actually fit what the selectors want, ie a balance between wicketkeeping and batting skills. It will be interesting to see what Ambrose does in New Zealand, failing that they will have to pick the best keeper - Foster - and bat him at 9 if necessary.