Does Ben Foakes have a legitimate case for Test selection?

[Brook's side]

I’m encouraged that at 53 and currently unable to exercise due to injury, I might still be described as “wiry”.

And it’s a bit of silly question to ask if Foakes has a case to be selected in England’s test side. He’s proven himself a very good keeper and a decent batsman at test level. You don’t leave someone like that out of a discussion about your test side.

You bring age into it, but I didn't mention age when including evans in the short and wiry list. In his early career he fits the description.

 

[Burgey]

I’m bringing my age into it. Not his.

 

[Ali TT]

To put the ridiculous exchange above into context, it's useful to have a reminder of how this started, which was that a poster @Ali TT (who has since repeatedly vehemently taken issue with the whole concept that an international keeper can be primarily a batsman, or a converted batsman) wrote,

"England have had a few cases of selecting batting keepers who are a bit hapless with the gloves to start with..."

to which I replied (I thought helpfully) with a list of the keepers that England have picked in the last approx 30 years, with their number of caps, and nominally assigning them between the 2 'groups' of keepers (which for the sake of providing a designation for the 2 lists, I labelled specialist and non-specialist).

Since I did that, the poster who made the original point about "selecting batting keepers who are a bit hapless with the gloves" and various others have appeared intent on trying to make me out to be "ignorant" for suggesting any such thing.

Vehemently a bit of a strong word. I'm very happy to say that England, and other test sides as well (can't believe Pant is the best gloveman in India), have picked keepers based upon (perceived) superior batting skills over options who were superior behind the stumps. Where I disagree is with your assertion these were batters picked to then keep wicket at international level. As I've said before, all were or had been keeping wicket for their counties and many had done while coming up through the ranks from junior level. You then said that they were still all "converted" batters but it's not clear to me at that point this conversation has to take place after which they can never be considered wicketkeepers, unless you're going to argue that specialists are born with webbed hands.

 

[Brook's side]

England, and other test sides as well (can't believe Pant is the best gloveman in India), have picked keepers based upon (perceived) superior batting skills over options who were superior behind the stumps.

Where I disagree is with your assertion these were batters picked to then keep wicket at international level. As I've said before, all were or had been keeping wicket for their counties and many had done while coming up through the ranks from junior level.

You then said that they were still all "converted" batters but it's not clear to me at that point this conversation has to take place after which they can never be considered wicketkeepers, unless you're going to argue that specialists are born with webbed hands.

1. It appears from the 2nd quote above, that you have inferred that I was suggesting that England have plucked batsmen out of county cricket who have never worn the gloves and told them they are playing as wicket keeper. I've never suggested any such thing.

2. It appears from the 2nd quote above that you aren't taking issue as much with my contention that they are "converted" batters as such, but rather whether that remains of significance once they have established themselves as wicket keepers. This is a point which could form the basis of a rational and interesting discussion, which I would find it mildly interesting to either engage in or read. Unfortunately the conversation has descended into a mob who have chosen to argue (seemingly merely because it's contrary to a comment that I made) apparently to the effect that all people who put on a pair of wicket keeping gloves are born equally adept at the art.

3. No I don't argue that some players are born with webbed hands. I argue that they are born with (or grow into) soft hands, lithe, supple bodies and fast movements etc, and that those characteristics lead them to wicket keeping at an earlier age and enable them to excel at it.

 

[Brook's side]

I’m bringing my age into it. Not his.

But you seem to recognise that body shapes change with age.

 

[honestbharani]

Yesssss. Yesssss. Keep going Zac.

It’s all coming together for Australia in the Ashes.

Its gonna be decided by a battle of Crawley Vs Harris, isn't it?

 

[Blenkinsop]

Unfortunately the conversation has descended into a mob who have chosen to argue (seemingly merely because it's contrary to a comment that I made) apparently to the effect that all people who put on a pair of wicket keeping gloves are born equally adept at the art.

Literally no-one has argued that. What people have argued with is your assertion that various England keepers were converted batters or non-specialist keepers. Which is simply untrue.

Just because eg. Matt Prior or Jos Buttler were chosen ahead of better keepers because of their batting doesn't mean they weren't specialist keepers.

 

[Burgey]

But you seem to recognise that body shapes change with age.

Believe me it’s a phenomenon I’m more than familiar with.

 

[Brook's side]

What people have argued with is your assertion that various England keepers were converted batters or non-specialist keepers. Which is simply untrue.

The other most prolific poster in the discussion besides yourself and myself, has just asserted that he has argued with what he had (wrongfully) perceived as my suggestion that england had a habit of picking as wicket keepers, batsmen who had not previously kept wicket.

A contention that various England wicket keepers were converted batters is certainly true (not untrue as you assert), and a contention that england has picked various wicket keepers who were non-specialist wicket keepers, is a matter of subjectivity and degree.

 

[Blenkinsop]

A contention that various England wicket keepers were converted batters is certainly true (not untrue as you assert),

It's true of Stewart. Just possibly also of Pope though I seem to recall he was a keeper when he broke into the Surrey side.

I'm just totally baffled as to why you don't consider, say, Geraint Jones a specialist wicket keeper. Did he ever play a first-class match where he didn't keep wicket?

 

[Brook's side]

It's true of Stewart. Just possibly also of Pope though I seem to recall he was a keeper when he broke into the Surrey side.

I'm just totally baffled as to why you don't consider, say, Geraint Jones a specialist wicket keeper. Did he ever play a first-class match where he didn't keep wicket?

So it's not simply untrue then.

 

[peterhrt]

Isn't it a case of the difference between the top-class keeper, ignoring batting, geeing-up, tactical input, etc, and the guy short of the highest class behind the stumps who gets picked with these other factors in mind? Both can be specialist wicket-keepers, but they are different.

Chris Read v Geraint Jones may be an example.

 

[Ali TT]

It's true of Stewart. Just possibly also of Pope though I seem to recall he was a keeper when he broke into the Surrey side.

I'm just totally baffled as to why you don't consider, say, Geraint Jones a specialist wicket keeper. Did he ever play a first-class match where he didn't keep wicket?

Always thought GoJo was quite wiry too

 

[Brook's side]

Isn't it a case of the difference between the top-class keeper, ignoring batting, geeing-up, tactical input, etc, and the guy short of the highest class behind the stumps who gets picked with these other factors in mind? Both can be specialist wicket-keepers, but they are different.

Chris Read v Geraint Jones may be an example.

I think that's a fair comment.

I think we can all agree that Jones was never known as a truly outstanding keeper. When he became a keeper and why is beyond my knowledge.

Chris Read v Geraint Jones (a full time keeper) might be an example of a different situation to say Ben Foakes v Ollie Pope (a part time keeper), or Matt Prior (a batsman who took up the gloves as a 2nd string).

When I separated out the England keepers into the 2 groups, I would have thought that the discussion would have proceeded (if at all) along the lines of

'that's interesting, maybe England don't value top class wicket keeping' or
'that's interesting, maybe England don't produce many top class wicket keepers' or
'that's interesting, maybe some of these batsmen are able to become almost as effective in terms of team contribution, as those with the most outstanding skills in the role'.

But instead posters took it in terms to bash the headings I gave to the two lists, or for even the idea of making a distinction in terms of wicket keeping ability at all.

Anyway, we seem to be moving on now hopefully.

 

[Brook's side]

Always thought GoJo was quite wiry too

I agree. He does look like a keeper. I think the truth is that we all know what a keeper looks like.

I'm sure that we could all think of people who look like wicket keepers who aren't actually great wicket keepers, but I struggle to think off the top of my head of a truly outstanding keeper who didn't physically look like a wicket keeper.

Obviously there's more to it than that though, but it's a good starting place.

 

[Ali TT]

I think that's a fair comment.

I think we can all agree that Jones was never known as a truly outstanding keeper. When he became a keeper and why is beyond my knowledge.

Chris Read v Geraint Jones (a full time keeper) might be an example of a different situation to say Ben Foakes v Ollie Pope (a part time keeper), or Matt Prior (a batsman who took up the gloves as a 2nd string).

When I separated out the England keepers into the 2 groups, I would have thought that the discussion would have proceeded (if at all) along the lines of

'that's interesting, maybe England don't value top class wicket keeping' or
'that's interesting, maybe England don't produce many top class wicket keepers' or
'that's interesting, maybe some of these batsmen are able to become almost as effective in terms of team contribution, as those with the most outstanding skills in the role'.

But instead posters took it in terms to bash the headings I gave to the two lists, or for even the idea of making a distinction in terms of wicket keeping ability at all.

Anyway, we seem to be moving on now hopefully.

Maybe think harder about your terms in the future, especially if you make worse by then describing a bunch of quite physically different individuals as "wiry".

I don't think this issue of valuing keeping skills over batting is an England-only one. Nor is it recent.

Nor is it limited to the national side - the sifting out of keepers who can't bat happens before the pro level. Of 18 keepers in the country games this week, only 2 have averages less than 30 (+1 who has only played a handful of games).

 

[Brook's side]

Maybe think harder about your terms in the future, especially if you make worse by then describing a bunch of quite physically different individuals as "wiry".

I don't think this issue of valuing keeping skills over batting is an England-only one. Nor is it recent.

Nor is it limited to the national side - the sifting out of keepers who can't bat happens before the pro level. Of 18 keepers in the country games this week, only 2 have averages less than 30 (+1 who has only played a handful of games).

No I'm not going to think harder about my ****ing terms.

I went to the effort of listing the keepers and the caps.

You should be ****ing grateful, not telling me to think hard about my ****ing terms.

 

[wpdavid]

Isn't it a case of the difference between the top-class keeper, ignoring batting, geeing-up, tactical input, etc, and the guy short of the highest class behind the stumps who gets picked with these other factors in mind? Both can be specialist wicket-keepers, but they are different.

Chris Read v Geraint Jones may be an example.

Ditto Knott vs Taylor in the late 1960s/early 1970s, although Knott was no slouch behind the stumps.
irc Jim Parks also got the nod due to his batting ability, but I'm not 100% sure who was excluded as a result. Maybe John Murray.

 

[Ali TT]

No I'm not going to think harder about my ****ing terms.

I went to the effort of listing the keepers and the caps.

You should be ****ing grateful, not telling me to think hard about my ****ing terms.

Well don't be upset if people think they're wrong then.

 

[Brook's side]

The most prudent thing to do seems to be to change tack from being someone who tries to provide useful information on a pertinent point, to being a poster who criticises the terms used by posters who provide insight and information in good faith.