Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
Banton will go the same way as Smeed - he hasn't been picked for a County Championship game for a year - and become a white ball contracted only player. His 50 over record is poor and he's not the best of keepers either but still has his moments in T20 and will probably still make a career out of doing a tour of various low grade franchises. From what I understand about the lad, he enjoys a good time and that might be the reason he hasn't been as successful as he might have been. A very similar thing, but on an even worst scale due to his well documented gambling issues, happened to Ryan Davies who is now playing for Sandwich in the Kent League, batting at 7 and not even keeping. It was a big thing when he was poached from Kent as an 18 year old to go straight into the Somerset first team but those off the field issues, sadly, resulted in him never fulfilling his early promise.MarcusH26 said:cantersaddick said:
Dom Sibley scored a double ton at 16. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Just saying.MarcusH26 said:Double ton now for James Rew , looks one hell of a special talent.
Was also thinking of the hype that was around the last wicketkeeper batsman out of Somerset that's never quite kicked on in Tom Banton.
Rew's performances are very impressive and no doubt he will go on a Lions Tour this winter. He's not a Banton or Davies but, sometimes things come too quickly whereas with someone like Ollie Robinson (Durham) he has had to take a different path and make things happen for him by moving counties. One can argue that his ridiculous SR of 87.17 and average of 66.73 is being achieved in Div 2 of the CC but it's difficult to crab his Blast average of 47.50 at a SR of 134.75. He is also a top keeper. How many players are doing it to that scale in both red and white ball and have a second discipline too?2 -
disappointed with how banton's progressed, i was in oz during the 19/20 big bash and was blown away by this 21 y/o smashing the ball to all parts who was english!1
-
The equivalent of England picking Will Jacks. Let them; it'll be a disastercantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.1 -
I am worried now, how well Maxwell will play if selectedLeuth said:
The equivalent of England picking Will Jacks. Let them; it'll be a disastercantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.0 -
beware of the 'Marsh Syndrome'Johnnysummers5 said:
I am worried now, how well Maxwell will play if selectedLeuth said:
The equivalent of England picking Will Jacks. Let them; it'll be a disastercantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.0 -
Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.0
-
Watching Shoaib Bashir bowling right now. This lad is gonna be fast-tracked. How did Surrey let him go??!0
-
Does seem to be a group of young keeper batsmen around the county scene which does bode well long term with Jamie Smith , Rew, other Ollie Robinson and Ollie Carter all looking like good prospects.
Will be interesting to see who goes on the Lions tour this winter.0 -
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.0 -
Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?0 - Sponsored links:
-
jordan cox can keep wicket too.MarcusH26 said:Does seem to be a group of young keeper batsmen around the county scene which does bode well long term with Jamie Smith , Rew, other Ollie Robinson and Ollie Carter all looking like good prospects.
Will be interesting to see who goes on the Lions tour this winter.0 -
kentaddick said:
jordan cox can keep wicket too.MarcusH26 said:Does seem to be a group of young keeper batsmen around the county scene which does bode well long term with Jamie Smith , Rew, other Ollie Robinson and Ollie Carter all looking like good prospects.
Will be interesting to see who goes on the Lions tour this winter.
As a Sussex fan I've tried to forget his 238 he scored against us the other year in the Championship 😂😂0 -
Nowhere near good enough in red ball compared to at least a couple of the above with bat or gloves. His average tends to be skewed by one or two big scores a season. This year he averages 26.92 - even that isn't great but take out his top score of 133 and that drops to 18.08kentaddick said:
jordan cox can keep wicket too.MarcusH26 said:Does seem to be a group of young keeper batsmen around the county scene which does bode well long term with Jamie Smith , Rew, other Ollie Robinson and Ollie Carter all looking like good prospects.
Will be interesting to see who goes on the Lions tour this winter.0 -
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
0 -
Addick Addict said:There has been little between the sides but we do have to factor in those three tosses and the fact that, apart from that 20 minute period in the First Test during which Crawley and Duckett were dismissed, we have had the best of the conditions in all three Tests. Would the differential have been as close had Australia won the toss? We could reasonably argue that had we taken all our chances in the field we would be ahead but those were within our own control. The toss isn't. We need to improve the former if we going to counteract the latter unless, of course, Cummins turns out to be one of the worst tossers in Ashes' history and calls wrong in both the remaining matches.
I know Cummins didn't reverse the appeal but seems a tad harsh 🧐1 -
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.2 -
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.0 -
Ignoring the merits of Maxwell as a spinner (and personally I would stick with Murphy but drop Warner) given that, effectively, they would have two part time spinners in the team, this batting line up and the five man seam attack doesn't look too shabby does it?
Khawaja
Head
Labuschagne
Smith
Marsh
Maxwell
Green
Carey
Starc
Cummins
Hazlewood
1 -
Addick Addict said:Ignoring the merits of Maxwell as a spinner (and personally I would stick with Murphy but drop Warner) given that, effectively, they would have two part time spinners in the team, this batting line up and the five man seam attack doesn't look too shabby does it?
Khawaja
Head
Labuschagne
Smith
Marsh
Maxwell
Green
Carey
Cummins
Hazlewood
Starc
That looks very very solid. Worryingly so, the only weak link might be Marnus but that's only because he looks completely out of form.1 -
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.6 - Sponsored links:
-
And as we are talking about Jacks, but more to the point, Foakes......not content with catching Young today he stumped him too for good measure
3 -
https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/fifth-ashes-test-free-to-air-tv-england-australia-old-trafford-level-series-2470641
Fifth Ashes Test could be shown on free-to-air TV if England beat Australia at Old Trafford to level series
3 -
As long as its still on Sky too.Callumcafc said:https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/fifth-ashes-test-free-to-air-tv-england-australia-old-trafford-level-series-2470641Fifth Ashes Test could be shown on free-to-air TV if England beat Australia at Old Trafford to level series
0 -
I'd love to see it being broadcast on big screens across every city in the country.Callumcafc said:https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/fifth-ashes-test-free-to-air-tv-england-australia-old-trafford-level-series-2470641Fifth Ashes Test could be shown on free-to-air TV if England beat Australia at Old Trafford to level series
1 -
Good to see England's inability to catch has been adopted by the women's team too...0
-
Opposite of the commentators' curse!Pelling1993 said:Good to see England's inability to catch has been adopted by the women's team too...0 -
Bazball.blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.0 -
I don't believe that even stands up because his batting record when he keeps is poor but in the 3rd/4th innings its a disaster. so batting after keeping in the match massively affects him. His record at 7 is shocking compared to his record at 5. Foakes is the perfect number 7 a good foil for the other payers in the side and an infinitely better keeper (on current form if not always).blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.
Bairstow bats or he doesn't play. IMO6 -
That's something the selectors always seem to overlook, that keeping wicket is hard work and will affect the keeper's batting, especially is he isn't used to standing out there for 80-120 overs.cantersaddick said:
I don't believe that even stands up because his batting record when he keeps is poor but in the 3rd/4th innings its a disaster. so batting after keeping in the match massively affects him. His record at 7 is shocking compared to his record at 5. Foakes is the perfect number 7 a good foil for the other payers in the side and an infinitely better keeper (on current form if not always).blackpool72 said:
The only possible argument for picking Bairstow over Foakes is for his batting.Chizz said:
I didn't say you did - and I have never met you in a pub as far as I know!Addick Addict said:
Can you tell us exactly what Foakes was told as "you are sure"? By all accounts, Foakes didn't, quite understandably, like or appreciate that message. It is one that has also cost the England team too given the EIGHT chances Bairstow has missed and the fact that he only averages 23.50 with the bat. Foakes was in the team and did nothing wrong. Bairstow wasn't. Being dropped and seeing someone do your job, especially so poorly and costing your country games, is infinitely worse than rumours of someone else taking your place. Foakes had the rumours during the winter but he still did well. His fears were well founded with the decision an ill judged one and now means that, if and when he returns, he finds that he has to justify his position all over again when he shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.Chizz said:
Sure Foakes has had his confidence knocked by being dropped, but I am sure that McCullum and Stokes spoke to him in such a way that he knows exactly where he stands. No, I mean the players in the team who attract disproportionate amounts of criticism from people who didn't want them to be picked. The point about Murphy's confidence that @killerandflash made was with regards to someone that's in the team, but may have had his confidence knocked by the potential call-up of someone from outside the squad.Addick Addict said:Chizz said:
There are several England players whose confidence is often tested in a similar way. Fortunately, I think confidence is something that McCullum and Stokes are both very good at protecting and enhancing.killerandflash said:Can't be good for Murphy's confidence, all this talk of dragging another spinner in after one game.
Like Foakes you mean?
Better examples of the players I mean are Crawley and Bairstow, both of whom receive - in my view - disproportionate criticism for having the audacity of being picked. And both of whom are - again, in my view - probably being handled very well by the coach and captain.
When people are dissatisfied with the team selection, the ire should be thrown in the direction of the selectors. After all, if a fan knows better than the coach and captain, they should let them know, in no uncertain terms. (Although the record of McCullum and Stokes is pretty good so far). I'd much sooner see that than the gleeful attitudes of some pub bores who take great delight when Bairstow fumbles a catch or Crawley nicks a wide one. I've even seen people try to explain why it would be great if Bairstow failed. Each to their own though, I guess.
The point about Murphy is a good one. I hope continued speculation ruins his confidence, thereby giving the Australian selectors an even harder set of choices for the next two Tests.
Just for the record, though, I've never shown glee, as you put it, at Crawley's failures with the bat or Bairstow's failure with the bat and gloves and my "ire" has always been directed at the "jobs for the boys" attitude that prevails in county and international cricket. The recent report only scratched the service so far as what has and does go on and it is one that I have pointed out for the last decade on here.
No, I can't tell you exactly what Foakes was told. But I am sure he was spoken to. That's from everything I know and have seen from the way in which McCullum and Stokes go about their business.
I get that you - and others - would prefer to see different selections. (And, in pretty much every series that I have watched since the mid 1970s, I would have preferred to see different selections). But, if you're adamant that the two selectors have made repeated, obvious and serious errors, then it would make sense to call for the heads of the selectors. I wouldn't join that call, because, all things taken into consideration, they've done a spectacularly good job so far.
If you agree with me that undermining a player's confidence is not in the best interest of the player or the team, then that's the end of the conversation. And if you don't, then... same, really.
But as he is badly out of form with both bat and gloves I fail to see why he is still being picked.
Bairstow bats or he doesn't play. IMO
The same thing happened with Alec Stewart and Jack Russell, where by giving Stewart the gloves, they turned an excellent opener into an average middle order player.2 -
killerandflash said:
FFS couldn't the useless Aussies have called him up before he scored 81 against Kent today?cantersaddick said:Talk of Maxwell being called into the Aus squad and side as the spinner. Suspect it'll just to be to give them another option in the squad and he's already in the country so it's convenient. But he would certainly strengthen their lower middle order. Runs today against Kent.
Glamorgan are giving a game to Michael Neser who's with the Australian squad and an outside call for a start in the fourth Test.
English cricket loves to shoot itself in the foot. Steve Smith was given a short-term contract with Sussex before the Ashes and here we have Maxwell and Neser playing in the current round of CC matches.
I can't imagine a scenario where members of the England squad would be picked to play in the Sheffield Shield ahead of an Ashes series down under.
0
