That's my take on it too, irrespective of the run-out opportunity. I was trying to think of when I've seen a keeper replaced mid-series because of his poor keeping, even though the replacement wasn't as good with the bat. Obviously I've seen several replaced because of their batting. Off the top of my head, I can only remember Downton being replaced by Taylor after the first two tests in 1981, and that didn't work out too badly.
Read replaced Jones during the 2006/07 series. Read clearly the better keeper but both pretty **** with the bat. Didn't help them though, still 5-0.
It's looking horribly unlikely, isn't it.
Well remembered there. Was that because Jones was having a shocking series behind the stumps? Or had his batting deteriorated so badly that they thought Read might actually make more runs?
He used to be competent but yeah he's been a walking wicket for a while. Always looks fine when he's batting though.
Had a period where his only scoring shot was the dab down to third man. Didn't work obviously
It’s not that simple and it was a genuinely interesting decision..? Nothing wrong with discussion.
He should try the sweep more often like he did in the sweepocalypse vs India.
Mostly the runs as I recall. Old Duncan was one of the original keeper-batter beats pure keeper preachers wasnt he. There was a feeling that Gilchrist and possibly Andy Flower were keeper-batters more than keepers. But not sure who were better pure keepers in their countries than them anyway - Healy was right at the end of his career by then.
Iirc he's a coward and won't.
