Phil Mustard

[Richard]

Not upto it as a limited overs batsmen, certainly not a specialist batsmen if they plan to play him along side Foster (who's a better choice IMO). Against the top draw, he can't score quickly enough on the flat decks, and on the tougher surfaces he isn't good enough to build. Might do better as a middle order batsmen, but England have better options in the middle order IMO. Personally I'd have Foster in a clearly defined role down the order.

Whatever role you define for Foster, he's not capable of performing it. Foster's batting is not suited to one-day cricket, he's too orthodox and too defensive. Foster is not and never will be a hitter. Foster should be one of the last considered for ODIs at the current time (it's utter madness that he ever played any).

I honestly would prefer Prior to him - and that really, really is saying something.

When it comes to keepers I believe you pick the best young keeper and teach him how to consistently contribute with the bat, it's a long term thing, there are no quick fixes. Boucher is a great example, wasn't the best batsmen when he came in, but he's done that same lower order finishing/salvage role for so long that he's become very good at it, and obviously his keeping is top notch.

You can't teach someone how to bat if he doesn't have the talent. What I suggest is always the best option is to decide who is good enough with the gloves, then pick the best batsman of them. The best OD batsman in the country who is also a competent wicketkeeper is Chris Read - however, I still don't know if he's given-up the ICL. If he has, I hope he'll be back in the side (though I won't hold my breath).

If not, Tim Ambrose, batting at five or so, would be my preferred option.

P.S. how's that South African Craig Kieswetter with the gloves?

Not bad, and certainly another possible option. Obviously, I'm as disappointed that he's chosen to aim for England as I was at McLaren and the like (apparently) doing so.

 

[oitoitoi]

Whatever role you define for Foster, he's not capable of performing it. Foster's batting is not suited to one-day cricket, he's too orthodox and too defensive. Foster is not and never will be a hitter. Foster should be one of the last considered for ODIs at the current time (it's utter madness that he ever played any).

I honestly would prefer Prior to him - and that really, really is saying something.

You can't teach someone how to bat if he doesn't have the talent. What I suggest is always the best option is to decide who is good enough with the gloves, then pick the best batsman of them. The best OD batsman in the country who is also a competent wicketkeeper is Chris Read - however, I still don't know if he's given-up the ICL. If he has, I hope he'll be back in the side (though I won't hold my breath).

If not, Tim Ambrose, batting at five or so, would be my preferred option.

Not bad, and certainly another possible option. Obviously, I'm as disappointed that he's chosen to aim for England as I was at McLaren and the like (apparently) doing so.

Agree with your theory regarding keepers, my point was that keeping ability far outweighs batting ability. I thought Foster hasn't been too bad for the last couple of years, able to partner a top order bat at the death.

I'm a big advocate of Chris Read, should never have been dropped after that Pakistan series, just started looking the part. Dropping him for Jones as well was just inexcusable. Has he actually played a game in the ICL? I mean after he signed on were there any matches? Mclaren perplexes me, it seems he's more chosen Kent over South Africa, than England. Bizarre. Kieswetter just pisses me off to be frank, he didn't need to aim for England, there really was no need whatsoever, South Africa may well have looked at him as long term replacement for Boucher. Now he'll probably just score runs against pop gun attacks in county cricket for 5 years.

 

[Richard]

Agree with your theory regarding keepers, my point was that keeping ability far outweighs batting ability.

I'm not sure it does though. I think it needs to be less of a weighing scales (weighing one against the other) than a case of ticking certain boxes then being entered onto a set of scales. No wicketkeeper should play until his keeping is of a certain standard, but once it is, whether it's good or sensational isn't important - all that matters is how good his batting is.

I thought Foster hasn't been too bad for the last couple of years, able to partner a top order bat at the death.

I'm a big advocate of Chris Read, should never have been dropped after that Pakistan series, just started looking the part. Dropping him for Jones as well was just inexcusable. Has he actually played a game in the ICL? I mean after he signed on were there any matches?

I don't know, I don't give a damn about Twenty20 so thus haven't been taking the slightest notice of who's actually been playing games in the ICL and what's been happening in ICL games - all I care about is who's signed contracts with them, because that's what impacts on a player's eligibility for real cricket.

And I know for certain that Read did sign. However, it now seems that some may come back and Read was one of the first signatories, who may have not realised that he was sacrificing international cricket to do it. So I hope he might do. I hope it doesn't mean him playing Tests again because between him and Foster I believe Foster is an equally skilled wicketkeeper and a better long-form batsman. But Read is so much better at one-day batting than Foster it's untrue.