Have split this as it isn't chat about the champo.Still an absolute disgrace mind you.Apparently the view was that opening is a specialist position so they couldn't move someone up to replace Crawley meaning it was a choice of one or the other.Having come back from a triple fracture of his leg and carrying some extra timber, I just don't see picking Bairstow as keeper is a good option.Also worth noting he has been brilliant as a slip when he hasn't kept.Neither of these things should be under estimated.I still think that Brook has the technical ability to open and score more runs than Crawley.Which puts Bairstow in his natural position.Foakes offers so much to this team, ditching him is ridiculous.
Bairstow has not been the ultra attacking keeper bat who has changed any games.It’s without the gloves at 5 he has been a success over the last 12 monthsAnd he has been outstanding in that period
The argument is simple, as you rightly say. I also fear those espousing it may be as well!I agree, Bairstow is the better batsman. Foakes is the better keeper. But to limit consideration in this way is awfully reductive. Yes, Bairstow might average x more than Foakes (or more accurately might play one truly match altering innings in a Summer) but the dismissals Foakes will make that Jonny won't more than offset that. Especially if its Labuschagne, early doors on a shirtfront. And the damage to Bairstow's ageing, not entirely svelte body of keeping damages his long term availability across three formats.Indeed, the argument should not even be between the two - it should be a question of who the best XI players are - and I think consensus would be that both come into that category, and one Zac Crawley does not. Maybe that means Foakes is told to try opening and just give it his best shot (lets face it, he can't do worse than the new Liebenburg!), maybe it means someone else is.
Do you think hes going to go into his shell now hes been given the gloves?
I think where possible players should stay in the position they have done well in, not always possible agreed.He won’t go into his shell but had untold opportunities previously and did not better than Buttler.Bairstow has had his best year last year without the gloves. So I would leave him there.It’s a bonkers deceision dropping Foakes the only logical explanation is Key and Crawleys dad are best mates.
Don't think the Buttler point is relevant or even correct. But granted Bairstow didnt hit the heights of last years batting when he was keeping previously.If your argument is that players should stay in the position they've done well in you haven't solved the problem. You've got Bairstow and Brook both batting at 5. Where is your other opener coming from? Im a fan of Foakes myself so Im not arguing against his selection but Its easier to find the problem than the solution in this case.
Bairstow can't open. So one of Brook, Root, Pope or Stokes would have to do it.Root is at 4 and it would be mad to change that.Pope doesn't have the technique for 3 let alone to open, he should be 4 or 5 too.So one of Brook or Stokes. Either could do it for me. But as Duckett is a leftie, so I would go with Brook.