Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Especially as that would probably keep Jennings in the side for the next decade!
Of course the other thing to bear in mind if we play all of Bairstow, Burns, Buttler and Foakes is that we will have no wicket keeper cover if all four get injured in the game!
Rashy thinks he's come to the party with a beauty - pitched outside leg and took the right handers outside edge, caught by Stokes in the slips. But is given "not out" on review.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.
Jennings, for all his faults, is a good player of spin. Stokes is a potential match winner, the key word being potential. It does seem a long time since he delivered with the bat.
Of course the other thing to bear in mind if we play all of Bairstow, Burns, Buttler and Foakes is that we will have no wicket keeper cover if all four get injured in the game!
Problem solved I forgot - we could play Pope too and have five keepers in the side.
Very happy for Ben Foakes. Brought in coz he is regarded as best keeper, and then scores a ton ! Hopefully will give the selectors the nudge to play Bairstow as batter only.
Yes but who for in the next Test as Bairstow will be fit then? I think we're all in agreement that we hope, ultimately, it will be for Jennings but it is highly unlikely that the selectors will do that for the next match.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
The correct thing to do would be to drop Stokes........
As I said before the game. That does leave us with only 2 quicks though. Don't really want to rely on Jennings bowling as useful as it may be as backup.
Sri Lanka were quite happy going into this game with 1. Stokes should be bowling a 3 or 4 over spell now, as the game drifts. He isn't. If he isn't bowling, he isn't an all rounder. Bairstow is the better batsman.
Which makes it all somewhat absurd that Stokes, a potential match winner, is being talked about as being dropped whereas Jennings who is an average county player is, in theory, safe.
Jennings, for all his faults, is a good player of spin. Stokes is a potential match winner, the key word being potential. It does seem a long time since he delivered with the bat.
How right you are re Ben Stokes.....we are rich in talents right now and as much as it seems unthinkable to say it, he needs to consider that his place could well be under threat if he doesn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat by way of a decent innings in the near future......and who would have thought that a few months back!
Comments
Foakes 95 n/o is joined at the crease by Anderson...
Sri Lanka were 10-2 in reply but are now 31-2 from 8 overs.
In which case, Burns could be vulnerable thus forcing their hand in opening with Bairstow as there are no other obvious openers in this X1. Or they just continue to leave Bairstow out of the side? Or, as absurd, they drop Foakes!
Ton for Burns in the second innings and my 3 years of Burns for England will also be justified.