• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Test squad v Ireland


Very harsh on Foakes. Also how does Lawrence get into the squad, only averaging 33 this summer so hardly knocking the door down
 
Great squad, agree with all of it

Root, Brook, Bairstow, Stokes

Wow, what a middle order.

Bairstow scored 6 test 100s last year. Brook then got 4 of 5? Neither can open, I don’t understand the controversy? You can’t drop Brook for Foakes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bri
SuperSub said:
Very harsh on Foakes. Also how does Lawrence get into the squad, only averaging 33 this summer so hardly knocking the door down
Click to expand...
I'd rather have Foakes in than him
MustardAndOnions said:
Great squad, agree with all of it

Root, Brook, Bairstow, Stokes

Wow, what a middle order.

Bairstow scored 6 test 100s last year. Brook then got 4 of 5? Neither can open, I don’t understand the controversy? You can’t drop Brook for Foakes.
Click to expand...
Nobody has suggested Foakes for Brook
 
mikemanc said:
I'd rather have Foakes in than him

Nobody has suggested Foakes for Brook
Click to expand...

Then for Bairstow? They are both a lot better than Foakes in my view.

I don't get the controversy unless I a missin something?
SuperSub said:
Very harsh on Foakes. Also how does Lawrence get into the squad, only averaging 33 this summer so hardly knocking the door down
Click to expand...

Word in NZ was he was reserve batsman as could open or bat 3. Think he is very talented.
 
Last edited:
Wonder how stokes' knee is doing.

Otherwise, no surprises.

Shame for Foulks, did nothing wrong, but Bairstow is first. That's the way it goes sometimes.

If Brooks doesn't find form then he'll be looking over his shoulder.
 
MustardAndOnions said:
Then for Bairstow? They are both a lot better than Foakes in my view.

I don't get the controversy unless I a missin something?


Word in NZ was he was reserve batsman as could open or bat 3. Think he is very talented.
Click to expand...
The loyalty being shown to Crawley seems to massively outweigh the loyalty being shown to Foakes. Personally I'm not convinced Bairstow is 100% after his injury but would absolutely have him in if fully fit. I don't think Crawley scoring a quick 100 every 8 games is worth his place.
 
mikemanc said:
The loyalty being shown to Crawley seems to massively outweigh the loyalty being shown to Foakes. Personally I'm not convinced Bairstow is 100% after his injury but would absolutely have him in if fully fit. I don't think Crawley scoring a quick 100 every 8 games is worth his place.
Click to expand...

I just don't get the relevance of Crawley to Foakes though? Bairstow and Brook can't open. Drop Crawley if want but need to find another opener. People seem to forget how good Bairstow and Brook have been, would be so unfair and counterproductive to the team to get them to open.

Foakes has done decent but averages 32 with strike rate of 50, its OK. They left him out 4 tests ago so its hardly a surprise surely?
 
MustardAndOnions said:
Then for Bairstow? They are both a lot better than Foakes in my view.

I don't get the controversy unless I a missin something?


Word in NZ was he was reserve batsman as could open or bat 3. Think he is very talented.
Click to expand...
bairstow scored his runs at 5 playing as a specialist batter, he hasnt performed with the bat and gloves for over 4 years and ends up batting too far down the order.

Taken from cricinfo, Bairstows stats with the gloves
year 20171165211934.311----352-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 2018947810129.871----292-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 201972165218.000----223-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 20211373718.500



An absolute scandalous decision this
 
scotch said:
bairstow scored his runs at 5 playing as a specialist batter, he hasnt performed with the bat and gloves for over 4 years and ends up batting too far down the order.

Taken from cricinfo, Bairstows stats with the gloves
year 20171165211934.311----352-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 2018947810129.871----292-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 201972165218.000----223-
You must be logged on to see external links
year 20211373718.500



An absolute scandalous decision this
Click to expand...

What’s that got to do with the form since mccullum n stokes took over?

Stokes has won 10 of his 12 test and yet people think they know better.
 
MustardAndOnions said:
I just don't get the relevance of Crawley to Foakes though? Bairstow and Brook can't open. Drop Crawley if want but need to find another opener. People seem to forget how good Bairstow and Brook have been, would be so unfair and counterproductive to the team to get them to open.

Foakes has done decent but averages 32 with strike rate of 50, its OK. They left him out 4 tests ago so its hardly a surprise surely?
Click to expand...
It's not a surprise, but I think it's disappointing. The relevance of Crawley and Foakes is the treatment of both. Foakes is dropped at the drop of a hat but Crawley gets backed and backed and backed, I think that sends conflicting messages and suggests favouritism. As pointed out above, Foakes' average is roughly similar to Pope's. I know he's not flash but I think he's stood up and delivered what England have needed from him.

For the record I'm not suggesting dropping or opening with Brook or Bairstow. I know Crawley and Foakes isn't a 1 to 1 swap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top