Print

[Nato]

Watching the coverage of England's warmup game against Australia A, and seeing Joe Root keeping wicket, made me wonder why Johnny Bairstow wasn't asked to come back to the ground to keep as a substitute following Matt Prior's calf strain? As I understand it, Australia A had agreed that Bairstow could keep as a substitute, so why not take advantage of this? It seems daft to me that England wouldn't utilise their backup keeper. Even if he had left the ground, surely it would have made sense to call him back? He can't have been that far away.

[Alvaro]

It's the rules. He couldn't keep as a sub fielder.

[smilley792]

Don't they often throw rules out on these games though?

I'm thinking England Essex, when Essex bowlers failed, so they replaced them With England subs?

[Manormanic]

More than the restrictions, which usually get waived by gentleman's agreement, it would have been the fear of an injury.

[WalkingWicket37]

Don't they often throw rules out on these games though?

I'm thinking England Essex, when Essex bowlers failed, so they replaced them With England subs?

England vs Essex lost its first class status because it became a Mickey Mouse game, they probably didn't want this game to go the same way

[Vitas Cricket]

The fear of injury to Bairstow, and therefore having no keepers on the tour combined with the loss of any status this game may have had, first class? I doubt anyone wanted to take that away from Carbs, we all know how hard he's battled to get this far.

[pacman75cricket]

The fear of injury to Bairstow, and therefore having no keepers on the tour combined with the loss of any status this game may have had, first class? I doubt anyone wanted to take that away from Carbs, we all know how hard he's battled to get this far.

Surely can't be the case as Root more vital to england than Bairstow.

[WalkingWicket37]

Surely can't be the case as Root more vital to england than Bairstow.

Root isn't a keeper though, why risk not having a keeper fit when you don't have to.
And I don't think Root is quite as vital as people think, he seems to be the golden boy but he's by no means indisposable as the perception seems to be.

[Nato]

It's the rules. He couldn't keep as a sub fielder.

According to the commentary team Australia A had agreed for Bairstow to be allowed to keep. Seems daft not to take advantage when it would have been good practice in match conditions.

[Manormanic]

Root isn't a keeper though, why risk not having a keeper fit when you don't have to.
And I don't think Root is quite as vital as people think, he seems to be the golden boy but he's by no means indisposable as the perception seems to be.

Long term he is, short term they'd prefer to have him than not but he is not yet at the level of protection afforded to Cook, Pietersen, Prior, Bell, Broad, Swann and Anderson who are often rested from the shorter forms of the game.

[Manormanic]

Incidentally, to close the keeping debate, it has been pointed out to me that Bairstow actually took the field to keep after the Australian's agreed to allow him to do so as a sub fielder, but the Umpires refused to allow it.

[billyb]

Perhaps the selector or umpires are gingerist, and couldn't deal with the fiery red locks interfering with their view of the ball every delivery-   could even affect DRS!

[WalkingWicket37]

Perhaps the selector or umpires are gingerist, and couldn't deal with the fiery red locks interfering with their view of the ball every delivery-   could even affect DRS!

Or perhaps the umpires were aware of the law stating only someone in the original 11, not a substitute fielder, is allowed to keep wicket...

[ProCricketer1982]

Or perhaps the umpires were aware of the law stating only someone in the original 11, not a substitute fielder, is allowed to keep wicket...

Gingerist sounds more amusing though

[Nato]

There's an ECB video from this game showing Bairstow working with Bruce French during the two wet days. Certainly looks like he's been putting plenty of work in regardless this week anyway.