Wednesday, 28 May 2008

How do you solve a problem like Matt Prior?

Regular readers will be aware of my interest in wicket keeping and my preference for “real” wicket keepers. However, with the effect that Alec Stewart and particularly Adam Gilchrist had on the position, being just a wicket-keeper is no longer good enough. Righly or wrongly, a keeper needs to be selected on the basis of his batting skills more than his keeping skills, otherwise Chris Read would have been the England keeper for the past 5-6 years.

The current group of wicket-keepers vying for places in the England test team range from the pure wicket-keeping, unorthodox batting of Chris Read to the poor wicket keeping but fine batting of Matt Prior with current incumbent Tim Ambrose and James Foster in between (Phil Mustard has been deliberately omitted as neither his matting nor his keeping are adequate for test cricket). This situation is reminiscent of the early 1990s, and the start of the career of England’s archetypal batsman-wicket keeper: Alec Stewart.

Stewart started out as a batsman in 1990 before replacing the specialist wicket keeper, Jack Russell, during the Ashes series of 1991 as England looked for a better balance to the team. This was in the days of Phil Defreitas and Chris Lewis as the England all rounder, who were essentially bowlers who could bat, so the need for an extra bowler or batsman was critical. The next few series then took a familiar pattern. Russell would start as the wicket keeper, with Stewart opening the batting. However, as the results became disappointing, Stewart would be moved to keep wicket to draft in an extra batsman or bowler. As Stewart’s wicket keeping improved, he spent more time as keeper, playing 82 of his 133 tests behind the stumps. This was also to the detriment of his batting average, which was 46.7 as a batsman, but only 35 when keeping wicket.

Despite these movements in his position, Stewart’s position in the team was never in doubt. He was one of England’s premier batsmen and the wicket keeping was good enough (and improving) while never in the same class as Russell. Indeed, he finished the 1990s as the top scorer in test cricket for the decade, taking over as captain of the side in 1998 with a series victory over South Africa, up to the disappointing World Cup in 1999.

So how does this help us with the England wicket keeping position? The closest that England have to Stewart is Matt Prior. Prior averages over 40 in test cricket and during his last series, away to Sri Lanka finished third in the England batting averages, behind Ian Bell and Ali Cook. The series saw a maturity in his batting, which had been previously reliant on scoring quickly. He scored 19 off 100 balls in saving the 3rd test, while he scored half-centuries during the first two tests, the second being a fine example of marshalling the tail. Despite Tim Ambrose’s fine century in the second test in New Zealand, it is difficult to imagine him playing such an innings for England in such circumstances.

Prior has started the season in blistering form. He is averaging 67 in the championship, in a Sussex team where Murray Goodwin is the only other player to average above 40 and has failed to reach fifty just once. With a test average above 40 (and 5 runs better than Stewart’s as a wicket keeper), he is clearly good enough to play for England as a specialist batsman. As with Stewart, once he is ensconced into the team, his presence will give the selectors the option of using his wicket keeping skills, and he will have the confidence to know that he is being judged mainly on his batting, with the keeping allowing other options in the team selection. He would need to improve his keeping, but the knowledge that this is not the be all and end all of his game should allow him to relax into his role

Alec Stewart was not a great wicket keeper, particularly standing up. He was however, a more than adequate keeper and one of the best batsmen in world cricket. Matt Prior could be the heir to Stewart in more ways than one.


Anonymous said...


Very good blog. Would you be interested in exchanging links with my cricket blog Past Point.
Please email me back with your reply.

Chrispy said...

Very good post Richard. I think that Prior should definitely be in the set-up somewhere. Even if he is only in the ODI side, in place of Cook, or possibly Mustard (he is a quick 20 and out guy - leg side bully), it would be a start. His keeping isn't good enough for Test Cricket, but ODI's? He didn't make the mistakes in those and they don't tend to be as costly in limited overs cricket. I think that an ODI side with Matt Prior as WK leaves a better balance, while in Tests it is hard to name someone better to replace Paul Collingwood at 6, with Shah having gone off the boil of late and Wright and Rashid still too young. And, (I have made this point many a time) if England want five bowlers in the team, Prior has to be the wicket keeper, it is as simple as that. He is miles ahead of the rest of the field with the bat and is the only one who could realistically bat at 6 or higher. Ambrose looks to have been found out by the Kiwis. He needs to battle hard and find a shot other than the cut, or the next WK on the merrygoround will be in, isn't it time for the biannual appearance of Chris Read?

Tim said...

This could just be an amazingly prescient article if, as reported, Prior gets a recall tomorrow.

That might be a good 'middle ground' - however, in many ways a keeper is just as important in ODIs as in Tests, with all the standing up to medium-pacers etc.

Richard Lake said...

Given the announcement today, I think his only way back is as a specialist batsman, who will pick up the gloves again at a later date. To be honest, I believe that's the best way forward for him.

Anonymous said...

Wow! what an idea ! What a concept ! Beautiful .. Amazing …

Anonymous said...

An Leaked Lady GaGa Track was Dug Up this evening with no traces of where it originated from.
Some say that it was leaked from GaGa's Record Label's headquarters.

More info at

Free Download of the single at

Anonymous said...

I will not agree on it. I regard as precise post. Especially the appellation attracted me to study the whole story.

Anonymous said...

Well I agree but I think the post should have more info then it has.

Anonymous said...

Nice brief and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you as your information.

Anonymous said...

Opulently I acquiesce in but I think the collection should secure more info then it has.