England: Really, really good question. You've got a batsman who's wicketkeeping and making a hash of it, and then falls away as a batsman. The other option is a wicketkeeper, a genuine one, who's dropped a little too soon because he's short of runs and he doesn't dive much, and dropped one catch. Then there's a third part, another batsman, well over 30, picked only for the World Cup. Since there's nobody good enough for that role in England, they should pick the single best wicketkeeper, and let Collingwood or Dalrymple do a more-than-occassional job with the ball.
India: Just too obvious. It's Dhoni all along. Even in Test matches, he's capable of playing some good innings. He's coming in a little too high, and at six, he has to bat like a proper batsman, which is a tough ask for a wicketkeeper. He's as good as any batsman in the Test side after Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Sehwag. He's got more power. And a second skill. Karthik can't match him; he can't bat at all, if current form is anything to go by. You can't expect a 'sensible innings' from him all the time, and the striking power is missing. He's good enough as a specialist wicketkeeper, but no good as a wicketkeeping all-roudner. That said, they're both significantly better than Parthiv Patel and Rahul Dravid, with whom the selectors were stuck in the early 2000's.
