Print

[ppccopener]

Foakes was interviewed after the game and said himself is is lacking game matches and has been working on keeping all day with Bruce French to get to that match sharpness.

That tells you the sort of level he is at and wants to get to, I think he has been superb this match on a difficult track to keep on, it's going far more and far quicker than the red soil pitch used for the first game.

There's always lots of comments on here about the best batsman playing who are also keepers. But Foakes again has done as much as he can with the bat so far, he played really well and should of had a few more runs with the tail.

So far I have seen two big positives from this match, the keeping and batting and Olly Stone.

The areas causing us a problem are the same ones, the second spinners going for too many runs and too many full tosses and drag downs.

[beaver5]

Very disappointing missed stumping by Foakes, especially as he's so good. You just expect him to take those in his sleep and as a result the bar is set high for him. I really hope that he stays in the team, just gives you confidence. Sadly he's likely to be back to bench warming once Butler returns.

[Bats_Entertainment]

I have always said Foakes is not far off being good enough to be picked for his batting alone. I have often seen him dig Surrey out of a hole. He gets 'tough runs'. England have picked worse batsmen. And he is the best 'keeper.

Besides... I was starting to worry that the Stokes/Foakes/Woakes thing might never happen.

[Jimbo]

I think there's an argument to be made that Foakes' ability to get ugly runs may actually bring a bit of balance to the England batting order. Root, Stokes, Pope are not naturally ugly run scorers. Phenomenal batsmen but their natural game isn't ugly, grinding accumulation. Just gives something a little different to Buttler, who to be fair to him has definitely worked hard on his game.

[cricketbadger]

Plain  and simple, Foakes has to play

[Bats_Entertainment]

It would be harsh to say he's an ugly batsman. He's not.

[ppccopener]

Butler has definatley improved that's for sure, he's been consistent over the last couple of years and I don't see him playing a one day game in a test match, he's done the hardest of all to adapt his natural game to the batting we need.

Foakes probably will return to the bench once Jos is back, that's the way it's been so far.

I sat down the other day and worked out who I think are our best 7 batsmen on recent form and the potential for the future.
The 7th position was the traditional keepers position but must contribute runs consistently, so he's as a batsman as well.

I had both Butler and Foakes in my 7 batsmen team.

[More Glue Than Wood]

If Buttler or Bairstow had missed that stumping there would have been plenty piping up that Foakes would have taken it.

and if Johnny/Jos had top scored and looked our best batsman there would have been plenty saying they are our best batsman/keeper and we need their 'allround' skills over Foakes who is a weaker batsman........

[Bats_Entertainment]

Crawley opens, Pope 3, Buttler 6, Foakes 7?

[Bats_Entertainment]

and if Johnny/Jos had top scored and looked our best batsman there would have been plenty saying they are our best batsman/keeper and we need their 'allround' skills over Foakes who is a weaker batsman........

He possibly is. But not by much.

[Jimbo]

Crawley opens, Pope 3, Buttler 6, Foakes 7?

With Buttler rested, why not that line up with Lawrence at 6? Give him a chance to ease himself into test cricket in a role he's played before. Looked good against SL at 5.

[More Glue Than Wood]

Crawley opens, Pope 3, Buttler 6, Foakes 7?

definitely worth trying - Pope is technically good enough to bat 3

[Jimbo]

He possibly is. But not by much.

First class average is better than Buttler, about 4 worse than Bairstow but test average is better than both albeit over a smaller sample size. He's certainly no mug with the bat.

[More Glue Than Wood]

He possibly is. But not by much.

i'm not saying he is - it is just that is the arguement that some use to say why he shouldn't play

i think both Butler and Foakes should play - it is just who bats at 3 that is the issue

it is not fair on Lawrence to have to, but he has to as there seems to be no other option without Crawley, but even then you have to only play 2 of Pope, Butler and Foakes - and it is clear who the selectors/management want - which is no easy decision and i can see why they normally choose Pope and Butler

[ppccopener]

definitely worth trying - Pope is technically good enough to bat 3

Yes in my top 7 who I think are the best from recent form and potential

Pope has to move to 3 otherwise the other batsman are too high. Technically I think he can

Edit: ruling out Root batting 3