Aggy

In this test / series it would probably have been an easier decision in many ways given Pope and Leach’s injuries - Woakes drops out, Foakes at 8, Bairstow and Ali at 7 and 3. That assumes Stokes was fit to pick up Woakes’ share of the pace bowling though. When everyone’s fit it’s tough to see how you would fit both in. I wonder if Foakes was younger whether he’d be given more chances over the next few years with an eye to Bairstow being 34 later this year… he’s only a few years younger than Bairstow though so probably not seen as the long term “replacement”. My guess is he’ll get a few tests against weaker opponents or in places with batsmen friendly tracks, but in the big games Bairstow will continue to be picked over him and there won’t be enough room for both. Edit: agree on Anderson too. Always been able to do it in England and has struggled in terms of getting wickets this time round. Hasn’t bowled badly as such but you do wonder how long he’s got left now unfortunately…

If it hadn’t been an ashes series against probably the best bowling attack in the world, and if Stokes had been fit to bowl more, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see both, especially after the first couple of tests and Bairstow struggling behind the stumps. The balance of the squad at the moment though (and the fact Foakes has only got real test scores on batsmen friendly pitches against attacks like Sri Lanka) I don’t see how you do fit both in at the moment. Choosing one of the two, they clearly rate Bairstow’s keeping more than Foakes’ batting. There’s been a lot of focus on Bairstow’s keeping which is fair enough, but there have been a lot of drops from a lot of players. The catching has been really poor for the majority of the series. Something to work on you’d think.

I’d agree he probably is just about good enough as a lower order bat who can hold up an end while the decent bats are still in. But doesn’t offer what Bairstow does with the bat. But I was responding to the criticism that we weren’t playing a specialist keeper in a specialist role. Nobody does - the batting is usually more important. Chris Read the obvious other English one in my lifetime - would have played a lot more but the likes of Geraint Jones picked for their batting.

When was the last time a specialist keeper was played with no consideration for their batting? Think you’re living in about the mid 80s?

Had championship manager 99/00 I think as my first one, didn’t get the new one every year but every few I upgraded. Think fm 15 is the last one I had. Usually played a “practice run” with Norwich where I’d try out systems and get used to the new game for half a season or so., but then usually started properly with a lower league side. Although one of my most enjoyable saves was at AC Milan the season Yoann Gourcuff had a ridiculous potential rating. Can’t remember what year - pretty sure they still had Maldini, Nesta, Pirlo, Gattuso, Cafu, Seedorf, Kaka etc. Good enough for immediate success but most of them were ancient - had to phase them out and built a right side up around Gourcuff. Probably my longest save. Haven’t played it for a long time now though. Got a bit too time consuming!

Leeds the big one in more recent years. Jim Brennan, Darren Ward and Matthew Louis-Jean were all at Forest at the same time. Huckerby, Dublin and Marc Edworthy were all at Coventry at the same time for a couple of months before Dublin left in the days before transfer windows. ( Edworthy also played with John Hartson, Bellamy, Keith O’Neill and Safri (Hartson and Bellamy left the year Safri and O’Neill joined - obvs O’Neill and Bellamy had already left us but seems to have been quite a bit of cross over with them around then)). Notman, Mulryne, Luke Chadwick and David Healy were, as far as I can tell from Wikipedia, all in one of Man Utd’s youth squads in 1999 - doesn’t really count! Gary Doherty!

Would probably agree. Weather for the last two days isn’t great and think with this many wickets in hand you’d hope we’d get a 150ish lead which might win it either without needing to bat again or without needing too many knocking off. Not sure we’d want to be chasing 200 in the gloom and rain.

Had a season playing for Kidlington cc on Stratfield Brake. Hope the ground all gets sorted in good time!

The bottom pic shows well what I was going to say - the all plain yellow sleeves on our kit look a little weird. I think it’s what throws it off. A stripe on the sleeves (or even maybe completely green sleeves) would have looked better I think. The more muted official photos do look better than the club shop almost orange yellow pictures. But either way not my favourite.

What’s’ the drop / runs cost vs runs scored ratio for Root? Dropped six hasn’t he now? Cummins 40 odd and Marsh 100 odd after Root drops - bet he’s not far off being in the negatives? Bairstow’s speed of scoring and ability to counterattack is the only thing keeping him in the side at the moment. Foakes even in his best nick batting can’t do that. With Pope out too at the moment you’d have a weak batting line up if you swap in Foakes for Bairstow direct. Ali dropping out may be an option if you’re going to bowl Root regularly/decide to go without a frontline spinner.

So being a stats man, you presumably know that before this test Bairstow’s test batting average as a specialist batsman was 36.62 and his test batting average as a keeper batsman was 37.65?

Yeah I read it. It didn’t explain why you thought Foakes’ batting was as good as Bairstows though? PS if Foakes’ batting was anywhere near as good as Bairstow’s, we wouldn’t be having this discussion - he’d be walking into the team.

I’m not a stats man, but dismissing stats in cricket is a bit strange. It’s not like football where you can have a good game without three assists and twenty tackles. If you aren’t scoring runs, you’re not having a good time as a batsman. But, anyway, sounds like, assuming you take my word for it (if not Wikipedia it, it’ll take you five secs), we both agree Bairstow has the better stats. As for apples and pears - you appear to be forgetting you’re the one who just drew the comparison. On what basis do you think Foakes is as good a batsman as Bairstow if you also think you can’t compare them? Anyone who has watched any cricket can surely see Foakes is a number 7 bat at best in tests - he can support a proper batsman and protect the tail if you need to put on an extra 30 or 40 or bat out for a draw. He’s never going to single-handedly change the course of a game though, which Bairstow’s batting can do. I’m not disputing Foakes is the better keeper. I’m just disputing your statement he’s as good a bat as Bairstow. He clearly isn’t.

Really? Bairstow has a better test average at a higher strike rate, Bairstow averages a century every 13 test innings in tests as opposed to Foakes with two centuries in 36 innings, Bairstow scores a half century (or more) every 4 innings as opposed to Foakes every 6, and Bairstow has a higher highest score. Outside of tests, Bairstow also has a higher first class average and a a first class double century (Foakes’ highest ever score is 141). His keeping just isn’t there at the moment - he never was the best keeper and whether his recent injury isn’t helping his mobility or what, I don’t know. If stokes was bowling more, I’m pretty sure we’d have gone into the third test probably without woakes and had Foakes keeping with Bairstow as a specialist bat.

In fairness results against South Africa New Zealand Pakistan and India… Posted before this test that if you add up the averages of the players off the bat in this series, England would have won both tests - the batting isn’t the issue. The issue has been the much higher number of extras from englands bowlers and the dropped catches, sloppy fielding etc. This batting performance isn’t great today/yesterday but had we bowled and fielded better in the first two tests, we’d have probably been sitting here saying you’re allowed one bad day at the office batting when you’re already 2-0 up…

Balance of the team I expect. I reckon if Stokes was fit enough / wanting to bowl more then Foakes gets a look in with Moeen as the spin option. With Stokes not bowling too much, they clearly wanted the extra pace bowling option as well.

The tail certainly looks a lot shorter - but we’ve effectively swapped a top order batsman for an all rounder in Ali. Saw an interesting stat earlier : In this ashes series England have a higher collective batting average than Australia. Both teams have lost 38 wickets (England declared in the first test 8 wickets down and Australia won by two wickets), England have scored 1260 runs off the bat and Australia 1245, making England’s collective average 33.1 and Australia’s 32.7. This England team are the 274th team in men’s test history to be 2-0 down in a series and the first to ever have a higher collective batting average. The difference is England have bowled 118 extras compared to Australia’s 58.

Nearly 20k! Yes might need the Guardian’s plan b in that case… In fairness, I’ve done most of those so if I do tick off Istanbul this year, I may spend my 20k on something else!

Where did I say I did think otherwise? My full first post is repeated below and says virtually exactly the same. The only thing I’ve otherwise said is that Ricardo’s points about Bairstow turning around, grounding his bat etc are incorrect - he doesn’t look round, doesn’t ground his bat, he scratches very quickly and walks off without even checking the keeper has the ball. You then got upset and suggested cricket wasn’t for me. “Can’t get too worked up about the Bairstow “stumping”. The keeper picks it up and throws in one movement, he isn’t waiting for Bairstow to move out of his crease, and it’s split second - Bairstow really shouldn’t have been walking out of his crease at that point. Aussies could have called him back, but it’s like when people get slightly harsh second yellows for silly challenges they didn’t need to make - I haven’t got much sympathy if you put yourself in that position in the first place. If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease then absolutely no issue with it. It is slightly underhand to try and get him if they’ve just seen him walking down a bit early between balls previously - a bit like Mankading - you’d think a quick word in his ear about it first would have been preferable. But like I say, if Bairstow is switched on, it doesn’t happen. That’s the bottom line.”

I’ve been involved in games where we’ve warned a batsman at the non-striker’s end for backing up too much. Some where we’ve warned first, some where the bowler has run him out and then withdrawn the appeal. I don’t think this is that similar. Bairstow isn’t trying to get any advantage. And I do think if I was on the fielding team I’d have withdrawn the appeal. But I wasn’t ever playing test match cricket, on day 5 of an important second test, in an ashes series, where this wicket gets us into the long tail and probably wins us the match. Which brings me back to the point - from the batsman’s view, just don’t let that situation arise.

Err the growing up comment was clearly about your “perhaps cricket isn’t for you” nonsense. I can see the argument about “not in the spirit of the game”, but bottom line is one person could easily have stopped it all by simply not leaving his crease until the umpire had called over. I’ve coached at all age groups and know young kids who wouldn’t leave their crease until over is called. Most of them would also cry less about being given out for failing to follow the rules than many full grown Englishmen are doing on behalf of Bairstow right now. Bairstow more to blame than anyone else. Stays in his crease until over is caused, he isn’t out. As an ex England test captain has said (is cricket for him?) - dozy cricket. No point blaming the Aussies for an Englishman’s “dozy” play.

Possibly - see sky sports news link above at about 45 seconds in. The umpire literally just moves his hands to the cap as the ball hits the stumps - after the keeper has thrown it though. Edit: and to be fair to the Aussies, if the umpires did think the ball was dead it’s on the umpires to say so.

I’ll be alright without having a word with myself thanks. I’m not the one giving out the “perhaps x isn’t for you, I’m right you’re wrong” fingers waggling on noses playground nonsense while pretending not to be worked up about it. The catch clearly wasn’t out. He grounds it while sliding and before he gains control of his body. The run out, Aussies could have called him back and that would have been fair. But they didn’t. Bairstow stands in his crease for an extra two seconds until the keeper has caught it, thrown it, and the umpire calls over, he isn’t out. Really very simple.

Lol, why are you so worked up. It’s a game, grow up. Bottom line is (as lots of pundits who have actually played the game have said multiple times, perhaps it isn’t for them either) - yeah the Aussies could have called him back but bottom line is if he waits for over to be called before aimlessly wandering down the pitch before the keeper even has it in his hands, then he isn’t out.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/20876/12913515/the-ashes-was-jonny-bairstows-controversial-dismissal-fair-dozy-and-within-the-spirit-of-the-game multiple angles of it on the video at the top of this page. Best angle at 1:05. He doesn’t ground his bat (he is well within his crease at the moment the keeper throws the ball though), he doesn’t look around, and his scratching of the ground is one toe very briefly as he is on his way down the wicket. He doesn’t even check to see if the keeper has actually even caught it. If the keeper hadn’t taken it cleanly and Stokes called him through, he’d be on his way for a run - there was no chance Bairstow knew for certain the keeper even had hold of it when he started walking down the track. The bowler hasn’t even started to turn around, none of the fielders have started to walk to the other end etc. Schoolboy. edit: in fact all three views after 1:05 show really good angles of it. The penultimate one - noticeably Stokes is still in his crease.