• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

When do we start talking about Jos Buttler?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voice of fair play said:
Well that’s where I disagree because at the point you were saying it was bizarre ,for the tests he played straight after that were probably his best, so you could say it was a inspired and brave selection
Click to expand...

As a batsman only and they soon tailed off after the India series, I remember being told how pleased I was that he was failing......

And then Bairstow was being widely criticised for being in a slump, but his record over the time was about the same as Jos' (who was playing as a batsman only). But yet people were still claiming Buttler was miles better, pretty much claiming black was white. It was weird. But Bairstow was dropped and Buttler got the gloves despite doing pretty much nothing to deserve his place. It doesn't sit right with me how differently certain players are treated.

To differentiate from Chunks and The Rey, I couldn't give a shit which 'keeper succeeds, as long as someone does. I'd give Alan Shearer or James Corden a standing ovation if either of them proved to be the answer.
 
Steak Pie said:
As a batsman only and they soon tailed off after the India series, I remember being told how pleased I was that he was failing......

And then Bairstow was being widely criticised for being in a slump, but his record over the time was about the same as Jos' (who was playing as a batsman only). But yet people were still claiming Buttler was miles better, pretty much claiming black was white. It was weird. But Bairstow was dropped and Buttler got the gloves despite doing pretty much nothing to deserve his place. It doesn't sit right with me how differently certain players are treated.

To differentiate from Chunks and The Rey, I couldn't give a shit which 'keeper succeeds, as long as someone does. I'd give Alan Shearer or James Corden a standing ovation if either of them proved to be the answer.
Click to expand...

Don’t think he has ever been miles better than Bairstow tbh, or better full stop, as Bairstow would actually be just as good imo, also think Buttler should never have been picked as a specialist batsman, to pick him at 5 and Roy opening against that brilliant Aussie attack in the Ashes was unfair on both them imo.

I think he gets picked because as a whole package as keeper and batsman, they is nobody out there knocking the door down, and have always thought he plays well under pressure, the selectors which I agree with think there is something more about him than what the bare stats suggest.

His innings last week and Woakes were brilliant they were not just you normal 75 and 80 which will go down in the record books, it was the way they both changed tactics, took the game back to Pakistan, grasped what was required and not only that pulled it off!

I am biased with Buttler, no point saying anything else, but I think he is a cricketer who adapts his game to situation, very quickly assesses the tactics required and then bats accordingly for what the team needs, which is what batting is about for me.

That may not always produce the best average.
 
Last edited:
Steak Pie said:
As a batsman only and they soon tailed off after the India series, I remember being told how pleased I was that he was failing......

And then Bairstow was being widely criticised for being in a slump, but his record over the time was about the same as Jos' (who was playing as a batsman only). But yet people were still claiming Buttler was miles better, pretty much claiming black was white. It was weird. But Bairstow was dropped and Buttler got the gloves despite doing pretty much nothing to deserve his place. It doesn't sit right with me how differently certain players are treated.

To differentiate from Chunks and The Rey, I couldn't give a shit which 'keeper succeeds, as long as someone does. I'd give Alan Shearer or James Corden a standing ovation if either of them proved to be the answer.
Click to expand...
That would be a decent post if it was true. Bairstows average keeping wicket for the year to 18 months before he was dropped was 18 as shown on Skysports during the last test. That makes your post completely null and void as Buttler was outperforming Bairstiw and you cant just discount the India series where Buttler was very good on difficult pitches and Bairstow was hopeless just because it suits your argument. It was that sort of daft logic that left yourself open to accusations of being pleased he was failing.
 
rentaghost said:
That would be a decent post if it was true. Bairstows average keeping wicket for the year to 18 months before he was dropped was 18 as shown on Skysports during the last test. That makes your post completely null and void as Buttler was outperforming Bairstiw and you cant just discount the India series where Buttler was very good on difficult pitches and Bairstow was hopeless just because it suits your argument. It was that sort of daft logic that left yourself open to accusations of being pleased he was failing.
Click to expand...

I didn't discount India though did I? I said it soon tailed off afterwards.......

v Sri Lanka
Bairstow - 125 runs @ 62.50 (1 match)
Buttler - 250 runs @ 41.66

v West Indies
Bairstow - 100 @ 22.00
Buttler - 178 @ 29.66

The Ashes
Bairstow - 214 @ 23.77
Buttler - 247 @ 24.70

In that Ashes series, Buttler was averaging about 9 until the last game and the Ashes had been lost. Then Bairstow is dropped and Buttler gets the gloves, not much there to suggest that's fair. Then Jos has a game in NZ and fails again (21.50), then goes to South Africa as the keeper and averages 16.

And it was just a couple of pricks on the internet playing up, still amuses me now. :lol: Still love to bust out the 'seething' crack, but can't imagine ever being in a place of (seriously) accusing a fan of wanting their own team to do badly. Mental.
Voice of fair play said:
Don’t think he has ever been miles better than Bairstow tbh, or better full stop, as Bairstow would actually be just as good imo, also think Buttler should never have been picked as a specialist batsman, to pick him at 5 and Roy opening against that brilliant Aussie attack in the Ashes was unfair on both them imo.

I think he gets picked because as a whole package as keeper and batsman, they is nobody out there knocking the door down, and have always thought he plays well under pressure, the selectors which I agree with think there is something more about him than what the bare stats suggest.

His innings last week and Woakes were brilliant they were not just you normal 75 and 80 which will go down in the record books, it was the way they both changed tactics, took the game back to Pakistan, grasped what was required and not only that pulled it off!

I am biased with Buttler, no point saying anything else, but I think he is a cricketer who adapts his game to situation, very quickly assesses the tactics required and then bats accordingly for what the team needs, which is what batting is about for me.

That may not always produce the best average.
Click to expand...

People were c;aiming that on here, have a look back.

Bairstow is a better 'keeper now, by a distance. But his batting has fallen apart so he's out and, rightly or wrongly, Buttler is in.

Thing is, there's not much to suggest that Buttler performed under pressure until last week. A fine innings, building on a half decent series v the Windies. Maybe this is it for him, his 4th or 5th recall and 40+ matches and he starts to show something.

My problem is, and always has been, that he was being given chance after chance not because of his County or Test performances, but because of what he was doing in a different sport.

I still don't think he should 'keep in Sri Lanka, he's just not good enough with the gloves. But we can have that row in 6 months. :D
 
Last edited:
Steak Pie said:
I didn't discount India though did I? I said it soon tailed off afterwards.......

v Sri Lanka
Bairstow - 125 runs @ 62.50 (1 match)
Buttler - 250 runs @ 41.66

v West Indies
Bairstow - 100 @ 22.00
Buttler - 178 @ 29.66

The Ashes
Bairstow - 214 @ 23.77
Buttler - 247 @ 24.70

In that Ashes series, Buttler was averaging about 9 until the last game and the Ashes had been lost. Then Bairstow is dropped and Buttler gets the gloves, not much there to suggest that's fair. Then Jos has a game in NZ and fails again (21.50), then goes to South Africa as the keeper and averages 16.

And it was just a couple of pricks on the internet playing up, still amuses me now. :lol: Still love to bust out the 'seething' crack, but can't imagine ever being in a place of (seriously) accusing a fan of wanting their own team to do badly. Mental.
Click to expand...

Yes but the 'tailed off soon afterwards' is just to make your argument stronger as if you are comparing Bairstow and Buttler India was a key series. It was the series that started to shape the decision to drop Bairstow and give Buttler the gloves so its hugely relevant to the debate. Also its interesting that you have included a one test series against Sri Lanka where Bairstow got a ton but completely discounted a one test series against Ireland where he got a pair :lol: So why in the stats you have just created have you not included:

v India - series averages
Bairstow - 25
Buttler - 39

v Ireland - series average
Bairstow - 0 :lol:
 
Steak Pie said:
I didn't discount India though did I? I said it soon tailed off afterwards.......

v Sri Lanka
Bairstow - 125 runs @ 62.50 (1 match)
Buttler - 250 runs @ 41.66

v West Indies
Bairstow - 100 @ 22.00
Buttler - 178 @ 29.66

The Ashes
Bairstow - 214 @ 23.77
Buttler - 247 @ 24.70

In that Ashes series, Buttler was averaging about 9 until the last game and the Ashes had been lost. Then Bairstow is dropped and Buttler gets the gloves, not much there to suggest that's fair. Then Jos has a game in NZ and fails again (21.50), then goes to South Africa as the keeper and averages 16.

And it was just a couple of pricks on the internet playing up, still amuses me now. :lol: Still love to bust out the 'seething' crack, but can't imagine ever being in a place of (seriously) accusing a fan of wanting their own team to do badly. Mental.


People were c;aiming that on here, have a look back.

Bairstow is a better 'keeper now, by a distance. But his batting has fallen apart so he's out and, rightly or wrongly, Buttler is in.

Thing is, there's not much to suggest that Buttler performed under pressure until last week. A fine innings, building on a half decent series v the Windies. Maybe this is it for him, his 4th or 5th recall and 40+ matches and he starts to show something.

My problem is, and always has been, that he was being given chance after chance not because of his County or Test performances, but because of what he was doing in a different sport.

I still don't think he should 'keep in Sri Lanka, he's just not good enough with the gloves. But we can have that row in 6 months. :D
Click to expand...

See the thing is, and it’s the same with the England football team, people are under the misapprehension imo, that selection should be fair and consistent based of your club or county performances, but selectors are not paid to give players selection as a reward.

They paid to pick the people who they think will win them games of sport,and that is why you have selectors ,otherwise you would just pick the players with the best stats.

Sometimes that maybe unfair but it’s the way it is!

He is been given chance after chance because in their opinion and they the experts and paid to do the job, they must think rightly or wrongly, performances against international cricket teams is one day cricket is a better yardstick than county cricket.

I am not necessarily saying they right ,but it’s up to them as they paid to pick players who think will win them the games of cricket, and that’s the explanation to your question, not as a reward for county performances, obviously sometimes that goes hand and hand
 
rentaghost said:
Yes but the 'tailed off soon afterwards' is just to make your argument stronger as if you are comparing Bairstow and Buttler India was a key series. It was the series that started to shape the decision to drop Bairstow and give Buttler the gloves so its hugely relevant to the debate. Also its interesting that you have included a one test series against Sri Lanka where Bairstow got a ton but completely discounted a one test series against Ireland where he got a pair :lol: So why in the stats you have just created have you not included:

v India - series averages
Bairstow - 25
Buttler - 39

v Ireland - series average
Bairstow - 0 :lol:
Click to expand...

Im not sure how many times people have say he did well v India before you accept it. So "the series that started to shape the decision to drop Bairstow and give Buttler the gloves". And all we had to do was give him three more series over 18 months and then change coaches before we dropped him. Because Butter didn't play v Ireland. And it was a three Test series v Sri Lanka where Bairstow was injured in the Odis then recalled once fit. Haway man.....

And as always, you're ignoring the fact that nobody is making the case for Bairstow to have been retained, its the case that Buttler didn't deserve to take over.
Voice of fair play said:
See the thing is, and it’s the same with the England football team, people are under the misapprehension imo, that selection should be fair and consistent based of your club or county performances, but selectors are not paid to give players selection as a reward.

They paid to pick the people who they think will win them games of sport,and that is why you have selectors ,otherwise you would just pick the players with the best stats.

Sometimes that maybe unfair but it’s the way it is!

He is been given chance after chance because in their opinion and they the experts and paid to do the job, they must think rightly or wrongly, performances against international cricket teams is one day cricket is a better yardstick than county cricket.

I am not necessarily saying they right ,but it’s up to them as they paid to pick players who think will win them the games of cricket, and that’s the explanation to your question, not as a reward for county performances, obviously sometimes that goes hand and hand
Click to expand...

I know all that man. Good thing too as it gives us the scope to discuss it on here when its raining....
 
Last edited:
Steak Pie said:
Im not sure how many times people have say he did well v India before you accept it. So "the series that started to shape the decision to drop Bairstow and give Buttler the gloves". And all we had to do was give him three more series over 18 months and then change coaches before we dropped him. Because Butter didn't play v Ireland. And it was a three Test series v Sri Lanka where Bairstow was injured in the Odis then recalled once fit. Haway man.....

And as always, you're ignoring the fact that nobody is making the case for Bairstow to have been retained, its the case that Buttler didn't deserve to take over.


I know all that man. Good thing too as it gives us the scope to discuss it on here when its raining....
Click to expand...

Well I am trying to fit work in as well:D
 
Steak Pie said:
Im not sure how many times people have say he did well v India before you accept it. So "the series that started to shape the decision to drop Bairstow and give Buttler the gloves". And all we had to do was give him three more series over 18 months and then change coaches before we dropped him. Because Butter didn't play v Ireland. And it was a three Test series v Sri Lanka where Bairstow was injured in the Odis then recalled once fit. Haway man.....

And as always, you're ignoring the fact that nobody is making the case for Bairstow to have been retained, its the case that Buttler didn't deserve to take over.


I know all that man. Good thing too as it gives us the scope to discuss it on here when its raining....
Click to expand...

Hes simply responding to your point that Buttler got his chance 'based on playing a different sport'. The county circuit it could be argued is less preparation for facing top class international cricketers than one day international cricket is. Neither are perfect preparation for the challenges you face in test matches. Its fair enough to argue that Buttler hasnt taken his chance but ive no issue for the rational of picking someone who had at least proven he was confident and capable of facing the best bowlers in the world albeit in a different format.
 
rentaghost said:
Hes simply responding to your point that Buttler got his chance 'based on playing a different sport'. The county circuit it could be argued is less preparation for facing top class international cricketers than one day international cricket is. Neither are perfect preparation for the challenges you face in test matches. Its fair enough to argue that Buttler hasnt taken his chance but ive no issue for the rational of picking someone who had at least proven he was confident and capable of facing the best bowlers in the world albeit in a different format.
Click to expand...

Yep of course there isn’t, as clearly shows he has the mentality to perform exceptionally at the top level when the pressure is on, the World Cup final been a classic example along with many others.

Whether that is a better preparation for test cricket than county cricket I guess is the debate.

But in mine and the selectors opinions it is certainly a reason to be picked for the test team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top