Dropping Foakes makes about as much sense as when Darren Bent was left out of the England World Cup squad. Sometimes you just have to shake your head and say wtf
That's the wrong comparison though. The comparison should be Foakes versus the weakest link.
Foakes Test average 32.20 Crawley Test average 27.60
Foakes Test average under Stokes 38.90 Crawley's Test average under Stokes 25.86
Crawley has had that one massive score of 267 against Pakistan on a pitch that was so much of a road that Buttler scored 152 in the same innings and we did not even win the match. Take that out and Crawley's average drops to 23.61
Most people are probably aware that Crawley enjoys a special relationship with Key. That aside, I wonder whether there is also something about Key looking to see that history doesn't repeat itself? Key averaged 31.00 in Test cricket that included 221 against the West Indies and in his final 7 Test matches and 12 innings he averaged 44.25. However, whilst Key probably had every right to feel hard done by in being dropped his protégé should have no complaints whatsoever.
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
With hindsight - this was always coming once Bairstow announced he was going to keep for Yorkshire. He must have been given a nudge from within the setup to say that would be his way back in the side.
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
Alec Stewart was at pains to use the "best keeper in the world" line in the interview with Atherton and Ward. It was as if he was trying to prevent this situation from happening.
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
Alec Stewart was at pains to use the "best keeper in the world" line in the interview with Atherton and Ward. It was as if he was trying to prevent this situation from happening.
Yeah I watched that interview on Friday. Thought it was very good though he did tiptoe over the 100 issue somewhat but let loose on other stuff.
Interesting that I haven't heard a single pundit/commentator over the last few months/weeks say that this is the right way to go. Every single one of them has said don't drop Foakes. Thats pretty rare.
Anyone know Bairstows record at 5/6 vs 7. And with the gloves vs without.
batting 7 with the tail is in itself a specialist position. When you have someone who has done well in that role as Foakes has then why the hell would you swap them for someone who hasnt.
Another thing. Earlier in the season when Foakes had a slight niggle he was willing to play and Surrey's physios were happy with the risk but the ECB stepped in and said that he was their contracted player and that they wanted him ready for the summers test schedule so he had to miss the game. What a load of shite.
In other news Pope has been confirmed as Englands vice captain. Good call in my view. and could be more significant than we think in the immediate future as I get the feeling that Stokes will sit out the Ireland test.
Is Pope "Captain" material? He's never struck me as being particularly vocal
Iirc he’s been earmarked as a future England captain for a while.
Most respondents to this Tweet are in agreement that Bairstow should play, as should Foakes, but that the comparison, again, that Key has made isn't the whole explanation. What might have happened is that McCullum and Stokes have had a conversation with one or two candidates already in the side about opening but that they weren't prepared to do the job.
What it does demonstrate is that professional cricket can be one cruel game. Although, having personally witnessed what goes on in age group county cricket, favoritism or whatever one wants to call it, starts much, much earlier. The game is, sadly, riddled with it. When you are head coach at a club or school as well as the county age group coach and you are also paid to give a lad 121s you should still be objective and fair when it comes to giving opportunities - especially when these lads are as young as 11 and no coach in the world can predict how those youngsters at that age are going to eventually turn out.
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
Alec Stewart was at pains to use the "best keeper in the world" line in the interview with Atherton and Ward. It was as if he was trying to prevent this situation from happening.
Which is slightly ironic, seeing that as a player Stewart took the gloves from Jack Russell who was also possibly the best keeper in the world at the time!
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
Alec Stewart was at pains to use the "best keeper in the world" line in the interview with Atherton and Ward. It was as if he was trying to prevent this situation from happening.
Which is slightly ironic, seeing that as a player Stewart took the gloves from Jack Russell who was also possibly the best keeper in the world at the time!
If you listen to Stewart then he didn't want that to be the case. He wanted to bat top 3 and not keep and was very good when he did so. the issue was the complete lack of an allrounder so Stewart often had to play that role and bat lower and keep.
Surrey putting out lots of "best keeper in the world" social media posts this morning. Not sure whether thats for ben's benefit or trolling England who knows.
Alec Stewart was at pains to use the "best keeper in the world" line in the interview with Atherton and Ward. It was as if he was trying to prevent this situation from happening.
Which is slightly ironic, seeing that as a player Stewart took the gloves from Jack Russell who was also possibly the best keeper in the world at the time!
If you listen to Stewart then he didn't want that to be the case. He wanted to bat top 3 and not keep and was very good when he did so. the issue was the complete lack of an allrounder so Stewart often had to play that role and bat lower and keep.
And Stewart was a very good player of fast bowling and less good against the spinners, so his batting suffered when he moved down the order as well.
Foakes is still going to be a world class wicket keeper by the time the Ashes starts. He will certainly be in the frame for the first Test against Australia. The make-up of the team to play what is in all but name a warm-up match shouldn't really matter.
England should wipe the floor with Ireland, whoever is picked. Foakes' form won't decline for missing one match against Ireland.
I think he's the best keeper in the world. I think he should be in the England team on ability and form. But I don't think it's a big deal that he'll miss one, short-form Test against weak opponents a few weeks before the proper Test matches this Summer.
It may turn out that it's a sensible precautionary measure. After all, Bairstow has continued to prove his fitness this Summer, while Foakes missed a first class game through injury. Maybe the selection deserves credit if, by playing Bairstow and dropping Foakes, both are fit for selection against the Australians.
Most respondents to this Tweet are in agreement that Bairstow should play, as should Foakes, but that the comparison, again, that Key has made isn't the whole explanation. What might have happened is that McCullum and Stokes have had a conversation with one or two candidates already in the side about opening but that they weren't prepared to do the job.
What it does demonstrate is that professional cricket can be one cruel game. Although, having personally witnessed what goes on in age group county cricket, favoritism or whatever one wants to call it, starts much, much earlier. The game is, sadly, riddled with it. When you are head coach at a club or school as well as the county age group coach and you are also paid to give a lad 121s you should still be objective and fair when it comes to giving opportunities - especially when these lads are as young as 11 and no coach in the world can predict how those youngsters at that age are going to eventually turn out.
I think many of us have experienced the academy system first hand. Certainly in the Kent set up (district > area > county), I found as soon as I got to a level where I didn’t stand out I was obviously ignored by coaches, which is something I didn’t and don’t react well to. Not to say I was a world beater but I wonder how many talented sensitive kids like me got chewed out of the system.
You could make the argument that means I didn’t have the mental strength/mindset to become a pro sportsman which might be fair (if I’m honest I didn’t have the ability either!). But I’d like to think now sports psychology is now very much ingrained in cricket and mental health awareness is more widespread better mental safeguarding for kids is there.
If that does happen then I will be disappointed but I think it says all we need to know about how some players are used and others dictate when and where they play to reflect upon the fact that Foakes has played in just two home series but no less than six away.
Foakes is in the top two or three keeper/batsman in the world and to me you pick your best keeper, five best batsmen, best all rounder and four best bowlers. That should make the selection process easy enough except that, for some reason, England insist on picking Crawley, an opener who isn't even the best at doing the job at his county. A First Class average of 30.47 (as against that of Foakes 39.72), when you don't have a second discipline, shouldn't guarantee you a spot in county cricket let alone opening against the Aussies. If England are using the fact that Crawley has had two or three scores in the CC this season (average 38.89) as credentials then why are they ignoring Foakes' 52.80 compared to Bairstow's 27.67 ???
What Key is really saying is that Foakes will be back touring for England when others are off playing franchise cricket
If that does happen then I will be disappointed but I think it says all we need to know about how some players are used and others dictate when and where they play to reflect upon the fact that Foakes has played in just two home series but no less than six away.
Foakes is in the top two or three keeper/batsman in the world and to me you pick your best keeper, five best batsmen, best all rounder and four best bowlers. That should make the selection process easy enough except that, for some reason, England insist on picking Crawley, an opener who isn't even the best at doing the job at his county. A First Class average of 30.47 (as against that of Foakes 39.72), when you don't have a second discipline, shouldn't guarantee you a spot in county cricket let alone opening against the Aussies. If England are using the fact that Crawley has had two or three scores in the CC this season (average 38.89) as credentials then why are they ignoring Foakes' 52.80 compared to Bairstow's 27.67 ???
What Key is really saying is that Foakes will be back touring for England when others are off playing franchise cricket
Risky game to play pissing off one of the few players who have committed to the red ball game at the expense of white ball (despite being an excellent white ball player and could have had a good career down that route). Foakes even did an interview for Wisden a few weeks back where he said that not really playing much white ball in the last 2 years had massively helped his red ball game. You lose a few players like this and the test side will really be in trouble when the franchises come calling.
If that does happen then I will be disappointed but I think it says all we need to know about how some players are used and others dictate when and where they play to reflect upon the fact that Foakes has played in just two home series but no less than six away.
Foakes is in the top two or three keeper/batsman in the world and to me you pick your best keeper, five best batsmen, best all rounder and four best bowlers. That should make the selection process easy enough except that, for some reason, England insist on picking Crawley, an opener who isn't even the best at doing the job at his county. A First Class average of 30.47 (as against that of Foakes 39.72), when you don't have a second discipline, shouldn't guarantee you a spot in county cricket let alone opening against the Aussies. If England are using the fact that Crawley has had two or three scores in the CC this season (average 38.89) as credentials then why are they ignoring Foakes' 52.80 compared to Bairstow's 27.67 ???
What Key is really saying is that Foakes will be back touring for England when others are off playing franchise cricket
Could it just be that they are taking a look at Bairstow against (on paper) weak opposition in Ireland and Foakes will me back for the Ashes?
Not a chance unfortunately. Key says in the above interview "I think they'll be a time when we see Ben Foakes again, to be honest.......you never know what's going to happen in Test cricket especially Ashes series as well. Especially when you go over to the sub continent, places like that. So I certainly don't think that this is the end for Ben Foakes."
That is saying that Bairstow will play all of the Ashes unless he doesn't perform in say the first three or four Tests, otherwise Foakes will be back, at worst as number two keeper or with the gloves should Bairstow lose form or be unavailable due to franchise commitments, for the winter overseas tours.
Could it just be that they are taking a look at Bairstow against (on paper) weak opposition in Ireland and Foakes will me back for the Ashes?
Not a chance unfortunately. Key says in the above interview "I think they'll be a time when we see Ben Foakes again, to be honest.......you never know what's going to happen in Test cricket especially Ashes series as well. Especially when you go over to the sub continent, places like that. So I certainly don't think that this is the end for Ben Foakes."
That is saying that Bairstow will play all of the Ashes unless he doesn't perform in say the first three or four Tests, otherwise Foakes will be back, at worst as number two keeper or with the gloves should Bairstow lose form or be unavailable due to franchise commitments, for the winter overseas tours.
Any injury between 3 and 7 you'd think Foakes may be a shoo-in with Bairstow moving up, at least if it's not in back-to-back Tests.
But it's still a big fudge to get Bairstow in. Yes he was on fire before he got injured, but Brook has taken that spot, bad luck. He's a worse keeper than Foakes, less fit than Foakes, and has a bad record v the Aussies. Poor decision.
Quite a bit of pressure on Bairstow to score runs and keep well, as every mistake will be massively scrutinised. Not an ideal situation after coming back from a serious injury
Comments
Sometimes you just have to shake your head and say wtf
Foakes Test average 32.20
Crawley Test average 27.60
Foakes Test average under Stokes 38.90
Crawley's Test average under Stokes 25.86
Crawley has had that one massive score of 267 against Pakistan on a pitch that was so much of a road that Buttler scored 152 in the same innings and we did not even win the match. Take that out and Crawley's average drops to 23.61
Most people are probably aware that Crawley enjoys a special relationship with Key. That aside, I wonder whether there is also something about Key looking to see that history doesn't repeat itself? Key averaged 31.00 in Test cricket that included 221 against the West Indies and in his final 7 Test matches and 12 innings he averaged 44.25. However, whilst Key probably had every right to feel hard done by in being dropped his protégé should have no complaints whatsoever.
Interesting that I haven't heard a single pundit/commentator over the last few months/weeks say that this is the right way to go. Every single one of them has said don't drop Foakes. Thats pretty rare.
batting 7 with the tail is in itself a specialist position. When you have someone who has done well in that role as Foakes has then why the hell would you swap them for someone who hasnt.
What a complete load of shite.
If you can't tell this has rather fucked me off.
What it does demonstrate is that professional cricket can be one cruel game. Although, having personally witnessed what goes on in age group county cricket, favoritism or whatever one wants to call it, starts much, much earlier. The game is, sadly, riddled with it. When you are head coach at a club or school as well as the county age group coach and you are also paid to give a lad 121s you should still be objective and fair when it comes to giving opportunities - especially when these lads are as young as 11 and no coach in the world can predict how those youngsters at that age are going to eventually turn out.
England should wipe the floor with Ireland, whoever is picked. Foakes' form won't decline for missing one match against Ireland.
I think he's the best keeper in the world. I think he should be in the England team on ability and form. But I don't think it's a big deal that he'll miss one, short-form Test against weak opponents a few weeks before the proper Test matches this Summer.
It may turn out that it's a sensible precautionary measure. After all, Bairstow has continued to prove his fitness this Summer, while Foakes missed a first class game through injury. Maybe the selection deserves credit if, by playing Bairstow and dropping Foakes, both are fit for selection against the Australians.
Dropping someone for the captain, who won't play anyway, for the first test would be much easier.
.
this is basically how I feel
Not a chance unfortunately. Key says in the above interview "I think they'll be a time when we see Ben Foakes again, to be honest.......you never know what's going to happen in Test cricket especially Ashes series as well. Especially when you go over to the sub continent, places like that. So I certainly don't think that this is the end for Ben Foakes."
That is saying that Bairstow will play all of the Ashes unless he doesn't perform in say the first three or four Tests, otherwise Foakes will be back, at worst as number two keeper or with the gloves should Bairstow lose form or be unavailable due to franchise commitments, for the winter overseas tours.
But it's still a big fudge to get Bairstow in. Yes he was on fire before he got injured, but Brook has taken that spot, bad luck. He's a worse keeper than Foakes, less fit than Foakes, and has a bad record v the Aussies. Poor decision.