To an extent, I'd equally say the way he's been treated by England is a product of his test record! Averaging in the 30s and contributing regular 50s/the odd ton is good stuff for a keeping no.7, not acceptable for a test 5 though. Plus the keeper should bat at 7, hardly any point in picking a batsman there (see: South Africa for the last 10 years or so). Definitely he's improved and I hope he does well, but get a young batsman with the potential to be higher up the order one day in at 5. Bairstow should be working hard on his keeping too rather than having the added pressure of batting higher.
Really? I think that's an unduly harsh view.
Ignoring those first three Roach induced nightmares, he made 95 and 54 in his fourth test against a genuinely great South African attack. He was then left out until the last test in India, playing one competitive game in three and a half months (plus his dismissal was not actually out). He then missed another two months before being parachuted back in against NZ.
Back to the UK, he did okay against NZ and Australia, both with good attacks. Indeed, he was unlucky to be dropped.
He then waited five months before suddenly being thrown in for two tests to keep.
Recalled 18 months later, he was good against Australia in a bowler dominated series. Very good in Abu Dhabi...then given the gloves again. Even with them on, he was comfortably our best player in South Africa.
Is his record great? No - but that is defensible given that he has been so badly messed around and that he has not been able to feast on poor Sri Lankan, Indian (abroad) West Indian, Zimbabwean or Bangladeshi attacks. Given seven games this Summer at five, I reckon we'd be looking at 1000+ runs.