England's squad for the Test series against India this winter is boring. Fact.
By offering Matt Prior and Tim Ambrose incremental contracts (contracts for people that the selectors don't really know what to with) they both have to be taken to India. Thanks to this ridiculous system James Foster has been left out again.
Foster has proved that he is the best keeper in the country this season and finished with a batting average of 50. There's not a whole lot more he can do to show the selectors how good he is. To not even get a place in the Performance squad shows the selectors have some sort of vendetta going on or else they are losing their minds.
The selection of a strong batting line up means that England don't even need a keeper who can score lots of hundreds - Foster will get runs at Test level and a few hundreds. In addition he will save hundreds of runs behind the stumps by taking nearly every chance the bowlers (quicks and spinners) create. The whole keeper situation is mad and there are suggestions of a closed Team England yet again - both Prior and Ambrose were at Sussex with England coach Peter Moores. (This leads to another interesting point - he spent years with the two of them and still doesn't know who is better?!?)
Showing posts with label James Foster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Foster. Show all posts
Monday, 29 September 2008
Friday, 29 August 2008
England's keeper issue
The one-day team appear to be happy with Matt Prior and based on his performances so far I think he's doing a good job. He has kept well so far, most noticeably at Trent Bridge where he took 6 catches in the game equalling the record for most catches in an ODI by a keeper. His batting appears to have the same problem as last time, in that he gets in and hits the ball around for 30 0r 40 runs and then finds a way to get out.
In this current opening partnership that's not a real problem as Ian Bell is finding his feet and looks as if he can start to play the anchor role that allows Prior to go play his shots. Should Bell's promise prove to be another false hope (we appear to have been hoping for his transformation into a batsman who can play substantial innings for over 2 years) then his approach may need reconsidering.
The test keeper is a more interesting issue. The best gloveman in the country is James Foster. The Sky commentators have a bit of a love-in with Foster but the fact is that he performs in every game he plays and gives confidence to the slips around him. First slip knows which edges Foster will go after and which he won't, meaning you rarely get an edge passing between the two of them. The bowlers feel confident that the chances they create will be taken.
England's obsession with finding an English Adam Gilchrist has led to a ridiculous turnover of keepers in the last 5 years - keepers are chosen based upon their ability with the bat. They invariably go through a bad series with the bat, which affects their keeping and leads to them being dropped for not taking all the chances. I would rather have a keeper who took all the chances created by the bowlers and made 30 every game, than a keeper who dropped a couple and occasionally got a big score with the bat. If the top order batsmen did their jobs you wouldn't be so desperate for the keeper to make big scores - his runs would be a bonus. With Flintoff and Broad in the team and scoring runs, the keeper doesn't have to be capable of scoring hundreds every game.
Foster averages 35 in his first class career. He is more than capable of making consistent runs at Test level and may get a couple of hundreds much like Mark Boucher. When added to his keeping ability he is the obvious candidate for the test spot and deserves another go at international cricket. Having scored 2 hundreds in his last 2 first class games, he is giving the selectors a nudge ahead of this winter's tour to India, a place where you need a very good keeper.
In this current opening partnership that's not a real problem as Ian Bell is finding his feet and looks as if he can start to play the anchor role that allows Prior to go play his shots. Should Bell's promise prove to be another false hope (we appear to have been hoping for his transformation into a batsman who can play substantial innings for over 2 years) then his approach may need reconsidering.
The test keeper is a more interesting issue. The best gloveman in the country is James Foster. The Sky commentators have a bit of a love-in with Foster but the fact is that he performs in every game he plays and gives confidence to the slips around him. First slip knows which edges Foster will go after and which he won't, meaning you rarely get an edge passing between the two of them. The bowlers feel confident that the chances they create will be taken.
England's obsession with finding an English Adam Gilchrist has led to a ridiculous turnover of keepers in the last 5 years - keepers are chosen based upon their ability with the bat. They invariably go through a bad series with the bat, which affects their keeping and leads to them being dropped for not taking all the chances. I would rather have a keeper who took all the chances created by the bowlers and made 30 every game, than a keeper who dropped a couple and occasionally got a big score with the bat. If the top order batsmen did their jobs you wouldn't be so desperate for the keeper to make big scores - his runs would be a bonus. With Flintoff and Broad in the team and scoring runs, the keeper doesn't have to be capable of scoring hundreds every game.
Foster averages 35 in his first class career. He is more than capable of making consistent runs at Test level and may get a couple of hundreds much like Mark Boucher. When added to his keeping ability he is the obvious candidate for the test spot and deserves another go at international cricket. Having scored 2 hundreds in his last 2 first class games, he is giving the selectors a nudge ahead of this winter's tour to India, a place where you need a very good keeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)