Buttler’s time is probably up. Foakes for me but he doesn’t seem to be their favourite, so perhaps they will turn to a youngster again in Robinson.
Foakes isn't out of favour it's just Smith wants to give his "wild card" Buttler as long as possible in the job. Foakes is absolutely 100% next on the rank and as much as Ollie Robinson is a friend and I would love to see him do the job, he isn't ahead of the best glove man in England who has a Test average of 41 and a First Class average of 38. And is still only 26.
And Billings would surely be ahead of Robinson anyway?
All depends how much keeping Billings is going to do. I get the impression that he mightl play as a batsman only in the County Championship because of his shoulder.
Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit
England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him. For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny.
Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit
England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him. For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny.
Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit
England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him. For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny.
This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense
Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly?
Buttler’s time is probably up. Foakes for me but he doesn’t seem to be their favourite, so perhaps they will turn to a youngster again in Robinson.
Or, they will stick with a winning formula..?
Without a doubt you are the master of wind ups
I don't think the right time to change a key, senior member of the team is in the immediate aftermath of a three-match winning run. If you disagree, that's fine: it would be interesting to know why.
Buttler’s time is probably up. Foakes for me but he doesn’t seem to be their favourite, so perhaps they will turn to a youngster again in Robinson.
Or, they will stick with a winning formula..?
Without a doubt you are the master of wind ups
I’m surprised people are still bothering.
I don't think the right time to change a key, senior member of the team is in the immediate aftermath of a three-match winning run. If you disagree, that's fine: it might be interesting to know why.
Buttler’s time is probably up. Foakes for me but he doesn’t seem to be their favourite, so perhaps they will turn to a youngster again in Robinson.
Or, they will stick with a winning formula..?
Without a doubt you are the master of wind ups
I’m surprised people are still bothering.
I don't think the right time to change a key, senior member of the team is in the immediate aftermath of a three-match winning run. If you disagree, that's fine: it might be interesting to know why.
I thought the “Parrott” echoes were on the transfer thread...
Chris Read being one player who kept getting dropped despite England doing well, and Mike Atherton being a player who kept his spot through all sorts of horror as he was about the only one showing any grit
England have a better win/loss ratio with Denly in the team that without him. For that reason, his position shouldn't even be under scrutiny.
This is plain, pure, nuclear-grade nonsense
Are you suggesting England have a better win/loss ratio without Denly?
Actually, don't bother.
What joy do you get from being such an arsehole sometimes? out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?
to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny.
Oh great! I'm really looking forward to Bairstow being bowled through the mile wide gap he leaves between bat and pad
This. He may get a few quick runs bit he will inevitably be bowled though the gate every fucking time. He is never a number 3 in any world. For me he should be backup keeper to Foakes and backup 4/5/6. There is a test player in there as proven by his past record but he needs to play some county cricket to find it.
Denly has been key to this side making big runs as a team all winter. His contribution to providing a platform for our pretty players to br able to play their game against a ball which has lost its shine and bowlers in their 3rd or 4th spell should not be underrated.
England have found a formula which works for the top 3. They are forgetting how bad it was only a few months ago. Even if you dont think Denly is the one to fill that role (I actually dont see him there beyond Sri Lanka) you should pick someone who fits the formula. Not Bairstow.
If Denly hadn't played for Kent nobody on here would care if he was dropped
Disagree. I'm.not a kent fan and I've seen plenty of other non-Kent fans annoyed about this on Twitter. I'm not even a fan of Denly particularly and if you read back on this thread I was calling for him to not play as recently as the last ashes test. But I believe he has done enough this winter and been a key cog which has enabled us to score big runs. Has earnt his spot for Sri Lanka imo.
It would be extremely harsh, and divisive to drop Denly after winning 3-1 away from home, especially when JBairstow has done nothing to warrant getting his place back.
You have to take into account, that Denly has played in a home Ashes and away to SA on some spicy decks - surely you have to let him have a fair go, by letting play in Sri Lanka, where it will be a different kind of challenge.
Totally agree on dropping Buttler, he has done very little since coming back into the test side, to convince me that he is a white ball specialist.
What’s better for the team no.3 going in and getting 45 off 35 balls or going in and getting 30 off 100 balls I know it’s never that clear cut and the 45 is punchy but your answer is there .
The only way I would replace Denly is if Burns is fit to return. Denly deserves to keep his place otherwise. As for Bairstow I don't understand the obsession that the selectors have with him.
For me Bairstow raises a bigger question about techniques and white ball/red ball specialisation.
A few years ago Bairstow was a decent test player and a useful reserve batsman in the whiteball stuff. England weren't completely convinced by Hales so wanted to try Bairstow at the top of the order. As a result he made a few changes to his technique to support his case in those formats. One of those changes was adding that in to out drive which has served him so well in the one day game but has been the cause of him getting bowled every time he faces a moving ball in tests.
At the time it was absolutely the right call for england as the focus was to win the world cup above all else and he formed one half of what is probably the best opening partnership in that format in the world.
The point is Bairstow has shown it's not that easy to switch between formats. Especially if it requires technique change. Weve fined a white ball player and lost a red ball player. Similarly Jason Roy could in my view change his technique and become a test level number 4,5,6 (not that we need one of those). But it would no doubt impact on his white ball game.
This is why I think at international level at least we should pick specialists. Only the truly world class batsman (Root and maybe Pope in the future) the all rounders (Stokes, Moeen, Woakes maybe Sam Curran) and the bowlers with something different (Archer, Wood) should play all formats or even make the squad for all formats. Other than that the teams should be largely separate.
Bairstow has the ability to play test cricket..he has shown that in the past.But in my view he must play his way back into the team ..say 3 hundreds for Yorkshire before June
Yjbs success has come in 1 day cricket of late ..he needs to show higher levels of application and concentration to get back into the test reckoning
For me Bairstow raises a bigger question about techniques and white ball/red ball specialisation.
A few years ago Bairstow was a decent test player and a useful reserve batsman in the whiteball stuff. England weren't completely convinced by Hales so wanted to try Bairstow at the top of the order. As a result he made a few changes to his technique to support his case in those formats. One of those changes was adding that in to out drive which has served him so well in the one day game but has been the cause of him getting bowled every time he faces a moving ball in tests.
At the time it was absolutely the right call for england as the focus was to win the world cup above all else and he formed one half of what is probably the best opening partnership in that format in the world.
The point is Bairstow has shown it's not that easy to switch between formats. Especially if it requires technique change. Weve fined a white ball player and lost a red ball player. Similarly Jason Roy could in my view change his technique and become a test level number 4,5,6 (not that we need one of those). But it would no doubt impact on his white ball game.
This is why I think at international level at least we should pick specialists. Only the truly world class batsman (Root and maybe Pope in the future) the all rounders (Stokes, Moeen, Woakes maybe Sam Curran) and the bowlers with something different (Archer, Wood) should play all formats or even make the squad for all formats. Other than that the teams should be largely separate.
Very much agree with this. Now Bairstow has made the transition to a one day hitter as opposed to a proper test batsman I am not sure he ever could go back. Similarly Roy and Hales. What worries me is the emphasis that will be put on the development of Pope and Crawley. They should continue to develop as a test batsman first and ignore one day cricket first. All the top class players learnt solid technique first and then adapt it where neccessary to one day cricket.
Comments
You do like to sit on the fence
Actually, don't bother.
Drives me up the wall !!
out of the two sentences you wrote, which one do you think he wrote was nonsense?
to save you looking back, it was the one that said his position shouldn’t be under scrutiny.
Denly has been key to this side making big runs as a team all winter. His contribution to providing a platform for our pretty players to br able to play their game against a ball which has lost its shine and bowlers in their 3rd or 4th spell should not be underrated.
England have found a formula which works for the top 3. They are forgetting how bad it was only a few months ago. Even if you dont think Denly is the one to fill that role (I actually dont see him there beyond Sri Lanka) you should pick someone who fits the formula. Not Bairstow.
Will miss his bowling on that tour too.
Steaming pile of shit if you ask me.
You have to take into account, that Denly has played in a home Ashes and away to SA on some spicy decks - surely you have to let him have a fair go, by letting play in Sri Lanka, where it will be a different kind of challenge.
Totally agree on dropping Buttler, he has done very little since coming back into the test side, to convince me that he is a white ball specialist.
I know it’s never that clear cut and the 45 is punchy but your answer is there .
Denly deserves to keep his place otherwise.
As for Bairstow I don't understand the obsession that the selectors have with him.
https://www.burtonsblog.com/post/woody-shakes-it-up-now-pace-and-bounce-pace-and-bounce
A few years ago Bairstow was a decent test player and a useful reserve batsman in the whiteball stuff. England weren't completely convinced by Hales so wanted to try Bairstow at the top of the order. As a result he made a few changes to his technique to support his case in those formats. One of those changes was adding that in to out drive which has served him so well in the one day game but has been the cause of him getting bowled every time he faces a moving ball in tests.
At the time it was absolutely the right call for england as the focus was to win the world cup above all else and he formed one half of what is probably the best opening partnership in that format in the world.
The point is Bairstow has shown it's not that easy to switch between formats. Especially if it requires technique change. Weve fined a white ball player and lost a red ball player. Similarly Jason Roy could in my view change his technique and become a test level number 4,5,6 (not that we need one of those). But it would no doubt impact on his white ball game.
This is why I think at international level at least we should pick specialists. Only the truly world class batsman (Root and maybe Pope in the future) the all rounders (Stokes, Moeen, Woakes maybe Sam Curran) and the bowlers with something different (Archer, Wood) should play all formats or even make the squad for all formats. Other than that the teams should be largely separate.
Yjbs success has come in 1 day cricket of late ..he needs to show higher levels of application and concentration to get back into the test reckoning
He's a better keeper than Buttler though...
What worries me is the emphasis that will be put on the development of Pope and Crawley. They should continue to develop as a test batsman first and ignore one day cricket first.
All the top class players learnt solid technique first and then adapt it where neccessary to one day cricket.