OT - The Ashes

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

18 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

People forget Bairstow won us three tests last summer with some absolutely ridiculous batting, the likes of which we’ve rarely seen before. Outrageous to suggest he should be dropped.

Last summer is last summer.  He also needs to find some form with the gloves for the one dayers as will be needed and playing well for those. Ultimately, Foakes is a better keeper and as good a bat.

[king canary 7,702]

41 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

People forget Bairstow won us three tests last summer with some absolutely ridiculous batting, the likes of which we’ve rarely seen before. Outrageous to suggest he should be dropped.

I'd agree if he was in as a batsman, but his keeping has been godawful. Can't keep playing someone because he played brilliantly a year ago.

To me the opportunity was missed to have them both in the team with Pope's injury. 

[Captain Holt 522]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Last summer is last summer.  He also needs to find some form with the gloves for the one dayers as will be needed and playing well for those. Ultimately, Foakes is a better keeper and as good a bat.

He doesn’t keep in white ball cricket.

[Captain Holt 522]

48 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'd agree if he was in as a batsman, but his keeping has been godawful. Can't keep playing someone because he played brilliantly a year ago.

To me the opportunity was missed to have them both in the team with Pope's injury. 

He’s played three once in a career innings in the space of his last ten tests. 

[Gordon Bennett 794]

1 hour ago, Captain Holt said:

People forget Bairstow won us three tests last summer with some absolutely ridiculous batting, the likes of which we’ve rarely seen before. Outrageous to suggest he should be dropped.

All about form. If he was hitting big scores then his keeping could possibly be overlooked but he's done neither particularly well in three tests. It's a big call but England have a chance of pulling something remarkable off and I think they need to do it. 

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

5 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

He doesn’t keep in white ball cricket.

He might need to if there’s an injury. He is, quite simply, not good enough with the gloves for this test side. 

[Aggy 766]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Foakes is … as good a bat.

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).

2 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

All about form. If he was hitting big scores then his keeping could possibly be overlooked but he's done neither particularly well in three tests. It's a big call but England have a chance of pulling something remarkable off and I think they need to do it. 

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. 

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

16 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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. 

That’s just a load of blah blah statistics that I can’t even be arsed to bother looking at - and largely irrelevant as you’re comparing apples and pears. Bairstow has heavily benefited from playing as a batsman alone as well as a keeper-batsman, so stats are misleading, doing both is always going to cost a few runs down on the Ave.  Foakes is widely regarded as the best keeper in this country., his batting average is just a few runs shy, so yes, he is as good.  He certainly wouldn’t let us down with the gloves in the way that Bairstow has, dropping on average 2-3 good chances per game and, currently, costing us matches. As a Kent fan I can’t stand Surrey, but Foakes should be in the side.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Yobocop 1,105]

Not a huge cricket fan but love the ashes and what a fantastic afternoon of cricket today! 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

22 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

Not a huge cricket fan but love the ashes and what a fantastic afternoon of cricket today! 

 

It was - it’s on Sky (an entirely different argument about access - or lack of - to the game for future generations) so I rarely get to see any broadcast cricket these days - but did get to see the post lunch session today. 

[Aggy 766]

29 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s just a load of blah blah statistics that I can’t even be arsed to bother looking at - and largely irrelevant as you’re comparing apples and pears. Bairstow has heavily benefited from playing as a batsman alone as well as a keeper-batsman, so stats are misleading, doing both is always going to cost a few runs down on the Ave.  Foakes is widely regarded as the best keeper in this country., his batting average is just a few runs shy, so yes, he is as good.  He certainly wouldn’t let us down with the gloves in the way that Bairstow has, dropping on average 2-3 good chances per game and, currently, costing us matches. As a Kent fan I can’t stand Surrey, but Foakes should be in the side.

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.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Aggy

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

19 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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.

 

Did you read my reply. I said the stats are not comparable - and told you why. I’m not going to again.

[Aggy 766]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Did you read my reply. I said the stats are not comparable - and told you why. I’m not going to again.

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. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Aggy

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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 am a stats man, so there’s the difference between us. You don’t appear to acknowledge that keeping and batting is different from batting alone: anyone would expect the average for someone doing both to be a fair bit lower. Bairstow has benefited from playing as a batsman at times, hence the stats aren’t a fair comparison.  As for keeping, he’s not even the best in Yorkshire’s team.

PS I think this is the whole problem - there’s very few people who can understand why Foakes isn’t in the side.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Aggy 766]

4 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I am a stats man, so there’s the difference between us. You don’t appear to acknowledge that keeping and batting is different from batting alone: anyone would expect the average for someone doing both to be a fair bit lower. Bairstow has benefited from playing as a batsman at times, hence the stats aren’t a fair comparison.  As for keeping, he’s not even the best in Yorkshire’s team.

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?

 

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

43 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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?

 

Deleted the original reply - I ended up boring myself!

I’ve now seen that article, as it says it’s very complex (and the data will now have reverted back behind after two low scoring tests). 

Imo keeper is a specialist role, and the better keeper should play unless there is an extremely marked difference in their batting. All I’m saying is that, in this instance there isn’t enough for it not to be Foakes, certainly on current form.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Barham Blitz 666]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I'd agree if he was in as a batsman, but his keeping has been godawful. Can't keep playing someone because he played brilliantly a year ago.

To me the opportunity was missed to have them both in the team with Pope's injury. 

Not with Stokes not bowling - effectively we needed Woakes and Ali in to provide bowling options without lengthening the tail.  It was replacing the all-rounder options in effect to balance the team.

That said, selection for the next test will be interesting if Stokes is fit to bowl.  I suspect Bairstow will still have the gloves though even though it personally isn't the way I would go.

[king canary 7,702]

9 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

Not with Stokes not bowling - effectively we needed Woakes and Ali in to provide bowling options without lengthening the tail.  It was replacing the all-rounder options in effect to balance the team.

That said, selection for the next test will be interesting if Stokes is fit to bowl.  I suspect Bairstow will still have the gloves though even though it personally isn't the way I would go.

Yeah that's fair.

It basically comes down to 2 decisions.

Foakes or Bairstow?

Bairstow or Brook?

Right now decision one feels easy to me. Even if Bairstow was in form with the bat his keeping is costing us so many runs that it basically is a wash. I think it was in the first innings of the first test that the runs Bairstows drops cost us was almost exactly equal to the amount he scored. So unless he's batting at a superhuman level like last year he's actually a net negative.

Decision two is tougher. Bairstow bats better when he isn't keeping, is highly experienced and is very bazball. But Brook is young, exciting and plays better at 5. 

Right now Bairstow is the odd one out. I think it might have been a tougher call without Brook hitting the key runs in the second innings yesterday.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

Foakes in for Ali and have Root do the spinning, or drop Duckett to allow Foakes to come in and play Ali as opener. All sorted.😍

[shefcanary 2,503]

Surely the stat for the Bairstow / Foakes debate has to be how many runs does each dropped catch & missed stumping Bairstow makes cost England, versus Bairstow's current series run average. This means whatever Foakes can score is irrelevant because Bairstow has yet to recoup the runs given away by his drops / mis-stumping through his batting.

As mentioned in this thread many times if we had held on to all our chances we probably would have already won this series! 

Ergo someone who will not miss chances behind the wicket at the moment is more important than which of them can score more runs! As someone living in Yorkshire this is difficult but sorry Bairstow, we cannot afford to carry you in case you start hitting batting form, its effectively starting about 40 runs down at the moment which in a close contest are crucial.

[Aggy 766]

47 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Surely the stat for the Bairstow / Foakes debate has to be how many runs does each dropped catch & missed stumping Bairstow makes cost England, versus Bairstow's current series run average. This means whatever Foakes can score is irrelevant because Bairstow has yet to recoup the runs given away by his drops / mis-stumping through his batting.

As mentioned in this thread many times if we had held on to all our chances we probably would have already won this series! 

Ergo someone who will not miss chances behind the wicket at the moment is more important than which of them can score more runs! As someone living in Yorkshire this is difficult but sorry Bairstow, we cannot afford to carry you in case you start hitting batting form, its effectively starting about 40 runs down at the moment which in a close contest are crucial.

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. 

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

34 minutes ago, Aggy said:

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. 

That’s the thing with statistics, you can get too caught up in them.  Even in cricket where there’s a wealth of stats you sometimes have to go with what you can see.  But in this series JB averages 23.5 and his strike rate is not that high at 64…though that one depends hugely on circumstances (he played well on Friday to see out time, for example).  Other than Wood (s/r 250) the highest is Crawley at 80.  It seems weird we are even looking at s/r for Tests.

Imo on current form are only losing the ‘potential’ for some runs if JB doesn’t play, and that’s assuming Foakes (Ave 44 this summer) fails.

 I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s clear to me that keeper needs to be considered a specialist role. 

 

[king canary 7,702]

19 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s the thing with statistics, you can get too caught up in them.  Even in cricket where there’s a wealth of stats you sometimes have to go with what you can see.  But in this series JB averages 23.5 and his strike rate is not that high at 64…though that one depends hugely on circumstances (he played well on Friday to see out time, for example).  Other than Wood (s/r 250) the highest is Crawley at 80.  It seems weird we are even looking at s/r for Tests.

Imo on current form are only losing the ‘potential’ for some runs if JB doesn’t play, and that’s assuming Foakes (Ave 44 this summer) fails.

 I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s clear to me that keeper needs to be considered a specialist role. 

 

I get why strike rate is important for Bazball. There is a lot about the style that is about tempo, psychology and putting your opponents on the back foot. It's why Crawley can knick off for 35 every other innings without worry for his place- the staff love that tempo and pace setting he brings and there is no doubt him scoring 44 off 55 like he did yesterday is probably better for the team than scraping 50 off 200. 

However...I think there needs to be a place for a player or two who doesn't play like that, especially if they bring other skills to the party like Foakes would. It can't be that all selection decisions above number 8 are based on whether you keep your strike rate over 70. 

[The Bristol Nest 520]

I would suggest that the slip catching is affected by the keeper. Bairstow actually left one for his slip which was his catch. 

If you are confident in your keeper you relax in the field 

[king canary 7,702]

No changes to the squad for the next test, remarkable really. It does start to feel a bit 'jobs for the boys' when your keeper can keep dropping clangers and keep his place despite an excellent alternative waiting in the wings.

Feel a bit sorry for Bairstow now. So much pressure on him going into this next test- if we lose and he drops a couple then the lost series will be disproportinatly blamed on him.

[Badger 2,414]

On 09/07/2023 at 23:13, Aggy said:

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.

Agree - would we ever play Foakes as a specialist batter? I think not!

[Branston Pickle 3,733]

38 minutes ago, Badger said:

Agree - would we ever play Foakes as a specialist batter? I think not!

Foakes usually bats at 5 for Surrey, so is considered decent enough by the top county in this country.  Whether you’d play him as a specialist bat for England isn’t the question - it’s why we’re playing a sub-standard keeper in order to shoehorn a guy into the side.

I long ago said that we should be playing Foakes and if we were desperate to keep Bairstow, drop one of the openers (presumably Crawley).

Edited July 11, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[king canary 7,702]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Foakes usually bats at 5 for Surrey, so is considered decent enough by the top county in this country.  Whether you’d play him as a specialist bat for England isn’t the question - it’s why we’re playing a sub-standard keeper in order to shoehorn a guy into the side.

I long ago said that we should be playing Foakes and if we were desperate to keep Bairstow, drop one of the openers (presumably Crawley).

Exactly!

The point is right now his keeping is costing us enough runs to basically make his superior batting largely irrelevant. If he's costing us 50 or 60 runs an innings with drops he basically needs to be scoring centuries more often than not to make it worthwhile. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,651]

I'm a huge fan of Foakes and was very disappointed when he was dropped. One of the great joys for me in watching cricket is seeing a class 'keeper go about their business. I think the slightly under-discussed issue is that leaving him out didn't actually do Bairstow any favours, in that he does better as a batter (especially in the second innings) when he's not keeping. So by leaving Foakes out, we even haven't got the 2022 Bairstow (who was playing as solely as a batter) in return.

But it was a selection problem to which there wasn't a perfect solution. It's all very well advocating dropping an opener, but it's such a specialist position, who was going to move from the middle order to fill that role? And if you didn't do that, picking Foakes would have meant leaving Bairstow or Brook out, which would have been crazy given their form in 2022/3. In the end, I think they made the only decision they could.

[king canary 7,702]

34 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I'm a huge fan of Foakes and was very disappointed when he was dropped. One of the great joys for me in watching cricket is seeing a class 'keeper go about their business. I think the slightly under-discussed issue is that leaving him out didn't actually do Bairstow any favours, in that he does better as a batter (especially in the second innings) when he's not keeping. So by leaving Foakes out, we even haven't got the 2022 Bairstow (who was playing as solely as a batter) in return.

But it was a selection problem to which there wasn't a perfect solution. It's all very well advocating dropping an opener, but it's such a specialist position, who was going to move from the middle order to fill that role? And if you didn't do that, picking Foakes would have meant leaving Bairstow or Brook out, which would have been crazy given their form in 2022/3. In the end, I think they made the only decision they could.

I totally agree that with that process for the start of the series before we saw how poorly Bairstow was keeping. It's just pig headed at this point though.