Jones vs Nixon --- England WKs

[GIMH]

Not a wicketkeeper. Try Gareth Cross.

As for Jones vs. Nixon, it's a pretty redundant question to ask at this point in time. Neither are ever going to get anywhere near the England side again (although either would be an improvement on Prior.) But for what it's worth, I'd go Jones. His keeping had improved beyond recognition by the time he was dropped and he was atleast as good as Read with the gloves when Fletcher decided to play Rafa Benitez. Nixon was never anything more than a stopgap.

This is true, it seems his batting and keeping were always destined to be weighted against one another, but Geraint kept very well away to India (I can only think of one clanger, which admittedly might have cost us the first Test, but still, it's only one mistake) and Read was never likely to be an improvement with the bat, so that was always likely to be a bizarre decision.

 

[Richard]

To be fair Ambrose isn't not Australian....

Indeed. Shame he's not on the poll.

I'd disagree there. Nixon may well have been the best option, but a coupla months before the only ODI tournament that really matters an arse isn't the time to be introducing an uncapped 36-year-old. It was a tacit admission that all of our selectors' "planning" over the preceeding 4 years had amounted to squat. If Nixon was the best option he should've been picked long before.

Yep, absolutely. Purely and simply, Jones was picked and shouldn't have been. Should never, ever have played ODIs. Then Read got back in and, really, didn't get a fair crack (certainly nothing like that which Jones got).

There's much to be said, and I've said it, about the lack of quality one-day cricketers in this country in recent years, but selectorial stupidity in the last 6 years hasn't helped, at all. There's been all the noise about planning, and they've chosen the right method by planning and saying "we're planning" - it's just the planning itself has been shocking. So many players have been picked that I could tell you before they were picked had next to no chance of success.

 

[FBU]

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"
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.

Horton is not our 2nd keeper. Cross is and I think much better than Sutton.

If I was picking 5 keepers -

1 Read
2 Foster
3 Pothas
4 Batty
5 Hodd

Nixon has a problem similar to ADHT. He has to do exercises to try and correct it.

 

[Dan]

Sorry, i just took a quick look at cricinfo and it had wicketkeeper plastered under Horton's name

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nixon was a good choice, he had a good WC, one of very few England players who can actually say that.

The problem being that if you're comparing him to the rest of the England team he doesn't have a lot to live up to

 

[Richard]

So?

Who else can he be compared to? As I said before, England can only pick who's available to England.

 

[GIMH]

The problem being that if you're comparing him to the rest of the England team he doesn't have a lot to live up to

He did okay compared to the other WKs, didn't he?