Prior is not the best keeper/batsman in the world!
He's batted fantastically in the last Test, no doubt about it and he was a key ingredient in England's win. But even some knowledgable journalists have been suggesting he's the best keeper/batsman in the world which is clearly insane. Kumar Sangakkara averages 56 batting against the newish ball predominantly, versus Prior's 45 coming in at 7. And don't tell me Prior is the better keeper and still has a claim - even if you think he might just be superior, a difference in average of 11 is huge. No-one (I don't think?) would even suggest that Prior is the best keeper in England, good glove man though he has become.
As Simon Hughes says here, Prior's great skill is the tempo he gets his runs at and he's a huge asset. But let's keep a sense of reality...
3 comments:
But Ed, Kumar isn't a Test match 'keeper any more...!
Agreed, but a bowler is still a good bowler when they're not bowling and a good batsman a good batsman when they're sitting with their feet up watching their colleagues.
So Sangakkara is the best keeper batsman in the world (by a distance) whether he chooses to keep in Tests or not!
Does that logic work?!?
I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison on Prior. Whilst Kumar has a much better average, this has come about from matches he's not kept wicket in. When he's been keeper, his test average is only 40.5 compared with Prior's 44.5. Whilst I agree Kumar's batting and keeping are independently better than Prior, and therefore he can be considered a better keeper or batsman than Prior, he can't be considered a better keeper / batsman. Players should be judged on achievement not potential.
Post a Comment