"I find it amusing that to be considered a 'specialist keeper' by some purists, you have to be a shit batsman! As if the two disciplines are in any way connected, and that very shitness with the bat, makes them a better keeper. "
Not sure that's right. I'm not an expert at keeping (other than to grumble when they don't stop the one ball in 50 I bowl that I actually turn) but I understood that it is broadly accepted that there are better glovemen but they aren't as good with the bat. Matt Prior is the best compromise (a good keeper and a batsman with an average of 40) but I don't think "specialist keeper" equates directly to shit batsman.
Would you agree that there are some better keepers even though it can't be argued that there are no better batsmen who could keep.
The upshot is - could Matt get better or would any top keeper have missed the stumping and not gloved the edges? [Halisham's point about the thick edges noted].
I didn't see the two edges, but the fact is that Prior has held EVERY regulation catch all series, and a couple of really good ones. His byes total has been miserly, despite some extravagant late swing (after the stumps). This is all down to his hugely improved footwork - note he is throwing himself around far less than he used to - he doesn't need to, as he's getting across early. When he does need to throw himself, he's as athletic as anyone. After all his experince keeping to Mushy, Monty and Swann, he is actually pretty good standing up. I doubt Swann would want to swap him for Read or Foster, tbh.