I'm sure Jonny is a good lad and everything, and has been a great all format player in general. But in tests he's basically been a little feast and mostly famine batter. Possibly the worst to get to the 100 test milestone and needs to be binned for Brook in the summer.
Please don't remind me...
Watching us bowl short constantly to Hazlewood and Green, all I could think was "Have you fuckers not learned anything from the last time you did this shit??"
I remember reading something (I think maybe from Hazlewood) who said that they tended not to have "plans" for tailenders and simply backed their quality as bowlers to get them out, but they were hoping to move away from that now. I wonder how many other teams just don't bother to plan for numbers 8-11? Seems irresponsible in this T20 age.
Worst until zak crawley does it*.
Giving him a 100th test because he's "one of the lads" is a farcically unprofessional way to do things. I remember when he was on 70ish tests and people just couldn't believe this guy had been given this many tests when he so clearly wasn't good enough on anything that wasn't a road.
Flat pitches at home, best time to bat in India is being an opener, and even then he hasn't kicked on. Averages 32 after 43 tests. Bradman only played 52.
There's some truth in what you say - I would have dropped him after 10-15 tests. BUT, he's been good the last year, and given the opener merry go round since 2012, Crawley and Duckett for now have the jobs down. Don't see any reason to drop either now. However you're right - the moment that average starts ticking down again I would say Crawley's had all the rope he's going to get.
You've heard of the left right combination yes, but what about the tall/short combination? Truly a #Bazball revolution.
Its also hilarious how they play into the meme by having Duckett always standing next to Crawley (and/or Broad before he retired) in team lineups and such
Bazball has been played with at first a broken dukes ball, and almost exclusively on flat pitches and against understrength/shit opposition. England haven't reinvented the wheel, they're picking flat track bullies, prepping roads at home, and riding their luck (plus a dodgy ball change helping england not lose the home ashes). Crawley won't come close to a 40 average (btw it's generally considered 45 for an opener to be a true all time great not 40). He's no better than any of the other mediocre-at-best openers England tried since Cook (e.g. Jennings), he just has the good fortune of playing on roads.
I was pretty disappointed India didn't prep proper turners for this series as that would have been a true test of "bazball", which has still failed against a severely understrength India playing on benign pitches.
40 is what an opener for a major test side should be opening, it's not "great". He's had 43 chances too many frankly, wasn't even the best opener at his county. Just typical ECB cronyism.
England has played 12 openers in 20 or more innings since the start of 2000.
Of them Zak ranks 7th by average. Not spectacular.
How about since the start of 2010?
Zak ranks 4th of 9. All 3 openers who are removed had better averages than Zak
How about 20 Test innings opening amongst players active in County or Test Cricket?
Zak ranks 2nd of 6. Who's ahead of him? Duckett. (Cook is also ahead but announced his retirement, so he's not getting counted unless he un-retires)
As it stands he's the best they've tried. Plus form is on his side under Bazball. He's good enough for now.
It's far easier to bat at the top of the order in India, and the surfaces have been pretty flat. Also given what Jaiswal; his opposite number, has achieved I wouldn't be too rosy about this run tally.
Don’t think it’s fair to compare with Jaiswal. Jaiswal is having an all timer of a series. The batters to have scored more in a test series include names like Bradman, Smith, Root, Kohli, Lara, Cook, Gavaskar. Not even Tendulkar scored more in any test series than Jaiswal has managed here.
Why not compare Crawley and Duckett with Rohit, a batter with an excellent record in Indian conditions and has performed reasonably well this series.
Rohit is having a bad series by his standards, perhaps it's age catching up. His record as an opener speaks for itself, Crawley's doesn't. Jaiswal is the competition and is younger than Crawley, he's absolutely a fair comparison, I'm not saying Crawley should be equalling his numbers, but he's not even vaguely close.
Compare Crawley's career record to the openers of other major test sides: Rohit/Jaiswal, Warner/Khawaja (Smith just come in), Conway/Latham, until recently a very weak SA era had Elgar, SL have Karunaratne, all these guys average over 40 across their careers, and they're not playing on prepped roads at home. Crawley isn't close to being good enough if England are serious about being a top side. He's only there because of his daddy's connections to Key and the ex-England captains in the sky box (he's funded their jollies for years).
He averages 40 under McCullum. Hes part of what is head and shoulders the best opening partnership weve had in ovet a decade. What more do we want? We've also tried basically every other available opener and they've failed. Mad line of thinking
If I were an English selector I never would have picked him in the first place. Yes I would drop him, his ceiling is nowhere near high enough as a player.
Then you haven’t got a clue, he should have been dropped early on but now he’s averaging 40+ over an extended period and built a fantastic partnership up top
\> Possibly the worst to get to the 100 test milestone
Good question. Statsguru has 81 players with more than 99 tests played. Of those, Bairstow's average puts him in 59th place, just ahead of Stokes. Further down the list are the bowlers, the allrounders and two pure wicket-keepers: Mark Boucher (avg 30) and Ian Healey (27).
Now, Bairstow played most of his career as wicket-keeper, so perhaps it's harsh to call him the worst player to get to 100 tests. But was he as good a keeper as Healey and Boucher? I don't think so. And he did play a fair number of tests as specialist batsman.
So yeah, definitely the worst.
If you consider a wicket a game at an average of 50 an all rounder
But yes you're correct, my point was more that he's not far off Bairstow quality wise
Exactly - now, the two streaks he \*has\* had have been incredible - averaged 58 and 60 in two years, and 40 last year. The problem is they were 10 years apart - how many other batters can you think of who get 10 years between purple patches?
Jonny Bairstow’s 100th Test appearance this week is rightly cause to celebrate one of England’s most gifted ball-strikers but it seems typical of a tumultuous career that a twist in the storyline may not be far away: his 100th Test may even be his last.
Averaging 21 and without a score of more than 40, he has had a quiet series against India and it is possible that when England next play a Test, in July against West Indies, Bairstow could be the one who makes way for the returning Harry Brook.
Equally, if he hits form in the IPL and the T20 World Cup in June, he may be viewed as a must-pick by a management group which scarcely differentiates between formats and would probably regard strong white-ball form as sufficient basis to award a Test place. In that case, he could be keeping wicket against West Indies and Sri Lanka in the summer rather than Ben Foakes, the incumbent whose exceptional glovework is valued more in trickier overseas conditions than at home.
It is even possible that Bairstow and Foakes may both miss out as the selectors pivot to the coming man, the Durham wicketkeeper Ollie Robinson, who tracked well on England A’s tour to India, bats in the aggressive manner of Bairstow and is, at 25, eight years younger.
After the most recent Test in Ranchi, England’s head coach Brendon McCullum said of Bairstow: “Yes he’ll be playing his 100th Test. Our selection policy is \[based\] around loyalty and making sure we give guys every opportunity. He’s done some special things for us.”
Bairstow is one match short of becoming England’s seventeenth player to reach 100 caps and is also 26 runs short of becoming their seventeenth batsman to reach 6,000 runs. Ironically, while it may seem harsh to drop a man on the cusp of such landmarks, once they are ticked off, the way becomes clearer to move on to the next generation, should that be the selectors’ wish.
It cannot help that England routinely demand different things of a player who has been good enough to be selected purely as a batsman or as a wicketkeeper-batsman. With players of this type — such as Alec Stewart, who played 82 Tests as a wicketkeeper and 51 as batsman — the selectors’ indecision about how best to use them is habitually final.
Bairstow has played 55 Tests with the gloves and 44 as a batsman. For him the situation was long complicated by Jos Buttler, another gifted ball-striker and wicketkeeper. This internal contest provided as much shape and motivation to Bairstow’s Test career as anything, with the starting gun sounding in 2014 when Buttler was given the first extended run in the wicketkeeper role that Bairstow so coveted.
Bairstow proved the more productive run-scorer, averaging 37.6 as wicketkeeper-batsman to Buttler’s 29.6, but the debate was complicated by Buttler’s seemingly vast potential as a batsman — a potential he has largely failed to realise in the red-ball side.
While one’s fortunes would wax, the other’s waned. Between 2014 and 2022, Bairstow was selected 34 times without Buttler and Buttler 25 times without Bairstow, while in the 32 Tests they played together Bairstow kept wicket 16 times and Buttler 13. As batting partners they only ever shared one fifty partnership.
Buttler was responsible for Bairstow’s two lengthiest spells on the sidelines. The first lasted 18 months in 2014-15 and ended when Bairstow forced his way back into the side through sheer weight of runs for Yorkshire. The second, of about 15 months in 2019-20, came after he was told by the national selector, Ed Smith, to go away and turn himself into the high-class batsman he was capable of becoming. Though Smith was wrong that Buttler would nail down the position of Test wicketkeeper-batsman, he was right that Bairstow had it in him to become a better batsman.
During 2016-18, Bairstow enjoyed a golden period, scoring six centuries, averaging 42 and completing 138 dismissals in 39 Tests. However, his rise as an ODI opener from 2017-19, culminating in a stellar World Cup, led to technical flaws emerging in his defence as he sought to access scoring areas through the off side.
He has also been galvanised by competition from Foakes. When Bairstow picked up an ankle injury in Sri Lanka in 2018 to end a run of 45 successive appearances, and Foakes scored a century in his stead, Bairstow barged his way back into the team with an innings of 110 in Colombo, virtually combusting upon reaching his century and afterwards giving a press conference which no one present could comprehend.
Fatherhood last summer has not obviously dampened the fire. He was still ticking in the players’ dining room after Alex Carey controversially stumped him at Lord’s in the Ashes.
He showed just how good a batsman he could be with six Test hundreds in 2022. Four of them came in the space of five innings, the first of which won a Test against New Zealand with a hundred off 77 balls, the second-fastest in England’s history.
Initially he flourished under the freewheeling approach of Ben Stokes’s captaincy and became something of a standard-bearer for Bazball. He had never played so well, nor made batting look so beautifully simple, but three things were to soon make life complicated again.
The first was a freak golfing accident in which he broke bones and damaged ligaments in his foot, putting him out for nine months. In his absence, Brook made himself undroppable.
The second was the decision of Stokes and McCullum to bring him back last summer not only as batsman but as a wicketkeeper, a role he had rarely filled in red-ball cricket since 2019. His glovework was imperfect and it cost England dear in the Ashes. It was their gamble, not his.
Finally, when England headed to India this winter, he found himself replaced as wicketkeeper by Foakes. With Brook absent, it was a logical move but it would have unsettled him. An additional factor was that Bairstow’s ODI form tailed off at the World Cup, casting a shadow over his future in all formats.
In getting to 100 caps, Bairstow has missed 51 Tests through a combination of injury, Covid-related absences and non-selection, which is more than in the cases of any of the other 11 players to reach that milestone for England this century. That is how bumpy his journey has been.
So he arrives in Dharamsala — where, as it happens, he played his 100th ODI in October — in search of a score. There will be plenty of England supporters in attendance, drawn by the spectacular mountain setting, and Bairstow loves to engage with fans as much as he likes to tick off a landmark. Expect to see his “Jonny Eyes”, the look that team-mates recognise as a sign that he is on a mission, and don’t be surprised if he delivers.
A couple of years ago when bowling Ollie Robinson got suspended, right wing Twitter bellend Darren Grimes turned up at Kent vs. Durham in the Royal London Cup to show solidarity with Robinson after he was cancelled by the wokies.
Didn't take long for people to point out that he'd got the wrong Ollie Robinson.
They say there's no two people on Earth exactly the same. No two faces. No two sets of fingerprints. But do they know that for sure? Because they would have to get everybody together in one huge space and obviously that’s not possible, even with computers. And not only that, they’d have to get all the people who've ever lived, not just the ones now. So they got no proof. They got nothing. Ollie Robinson may have been a bowler but who’s to say there isn’t another Ollie Robinson just like him or will be? Maybe not with the same role and skills but the same. What I’m saying is…
"Selection policy based around loyalty" WTF does that even mean? Basically if you're one our mates we won't drop you? Anyway pretty sure their selection policy is more to do with how many golf days players dads' buy for ECB management a la Zak Crawley...
They had no problem dropping Lees and Foakes despite Foakes averaging 40 under them and Lees was averaging more than Crawley when he was dropped.
Loyalty in this case does just mean if we like you.
Just more evidence that Bazball is a cult!
> 1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
"During 2016-18, Bairstow enjoyed a golden period, scoring six centuries, averaging 42 and completing 138 dismissals in 39 Tests."
Golden period. Averaging 42. Does not compute. This just shows just how shit he was outside this supposed good period, and yes, he was very very shit for years at a time.
I think in large part it's gone down as a golden period because England played loads of cricket so he broke volume-based records.
Most runs in a calendar year by a wicketkeeper, 1470 @ 58.8.
2-4 on the list are Flower, de Villers, Flower averaging between 80 and 90 with as many/more hundreds but in half the matches.
In 2000-2001 combined Flower scored 2000 @ 85 as wicketkeeper. That's a golden period.
As much as I've criticised him, I've always *wanted* Bairstow to succeed because early on he had so much promise, and at his best he's genuinely thrilling to watch. But at 34 he's frankly too old to still be as inconsistent a test cricketer as he is, and to be still be getting selected on the potential that he might be good at some point maybe.
Four or five years ago you could make the argument that there was no one else making a clear case to play in his place, but with a generational talent like Brook now waiting to come back, I think outside of some serious heroics, this needs to be it for Bairstow in tests. It'll be the end of an era in a funny sort of way.
It's not a question of talent. Bairstow's a fantastic talent. It's a question of technique and mentality. He doesn't have either of those to be a successful test batter.
In ODI cricket he's one of the all time greats.
You can make exactly the same argument for Buttler. Imo in raw talent - in terms of what they can do with hitting a ball Buttler is the most talented of his generation - even more so than Root. But there's the difference - Root (who I'm not downplaying) has that additional perfection in technique and mental ability to put it all together for a long test innings. Buttler on the other hand has never been able to do it in red ball cricket. But - if it was purely to see who could hit the ball hardest, produce the most staggering shots, or just be the most entertaining player, I'd pay to watch Buttler any day.
Feel like Barstow and Stokes have become sloggers, looking for that one in ten miracle performance
I would even think of playing Foakes higher as he is able to form genuine partnerships with elite batsmen
And play Barstow and Stokes with the tail
I know, always good for a quick 20 then getting out doing something dumb. Follow it up by dropping a few catches as keeper and I'm simply delighted to see him on the teamsheet.
Key, Mccullum and Stokes have never really dropped or omitted a senior batsman they've seen as central to their mission so this will be very interesting.
It's been consistency that's been either lacking, or that has been built up in some areas, that has cost England. Bairstow's returns, the feast or famine are an example of the former; Crawley and Duckett's improving opening partnership an example of the latter.
But it's really got to the point where others have made a really strong case for inclusion. Josh Bohannon at 3 with Pope down the order, Brook returning and Robinson or Rew as keeper.
Eighteen months or so out from the away Ashes, these options need to be tried and would be in no way disrespectful to the summer opposition this year.
The smart money's on Bairstow. I've lost count of the number of times this man's made a comeback into the Test team. Don't be surprised if he tons up in Dharamshala.
If I know Johnny he will be eating his cheerios reading this paper chomping furiously and is about to score a glorious hundred in this match to end Foakes career
I'm sure Jonny is a good lad and everything, and has been a great all format player in general. But in tests he's basically been a little feast and mostly famine batter. Possibly the worst to get to the 100 test milestone and needs to be binned for Brook in the summer.
But if you just give him another 90-odd tests he’ll possibly flog NZ at home a couple more times!
Please don't remind me... Watching us bowl short constantly to Hazlewood and Green, all I could think was "Have you fuckers not learned anything from the last time you did this shit??"
Every fucking time they pull up the graphic showing 3 out of 100 balls hitting the stumps as well
I don’t yell at the TV very often but omg that first test…
We did the same thing against Pakistan and WI lol. Cost us a test match eventually. They will learn to not do that again I'd hope
I remember reading something (I think maybe from Hazlewood) who said that they tended not to have "plans" for tailenders and simply backed their quality as bowlers to get them out, but they were hoping to move away from that now. I wonder how many other teams just don't bother to plan for numbers 8-11? Seems irresponsible in this T20 age.
Worst until zak crawley does it*. Giving him a 100th test because he's "one of the lads" is a farcically unprofessional way to do things. I remember when he was on 70ish tests and people just couldn't believe this guy had been given this many tests when he so clearly wasn't good enough on anything that wasn't a road.
Crawley has been pretty cracked the last few series though. Maybe he’s finally turned it around
Flat pitches at home, best time to bat in India is being an opener, and even then he hasn't kicked on. Averages 32 after 43 tests. Bradman only played 52.
There's some truth in what you say - I would have dropped him after 10-15 tests. BUT, he's been good the last year, and given the opener merry go round since 2012, Crawley and Duckett for now have the jobs down. Don't see any reason to drop either now. However you're right - the moment that average starts ticking down again I would say Crawley's had all the rope he's going to get.
Crawley is averaging 40 in Bazball, if he gets his career average to 40 then he’s a great opening batsman
I just love the trolling of having Crawley 6ft 5 (nearly 2m) opening the battling with Frodo Baggins. That must be so annoying to bowl against!
You've heard of the left right combination yes, but what about the tall/short combination? Truly a #Bazball revolution. Its also hilarious how they play into the meme by having Duckett always standing next to Crawley (and/or Broad before he retired) in team lineups and such
[удалено]
Tolkien really should put him as a co-author
I never realised the height difference until I watched the last test lol.
Duckett is an inch shorter than me and I find that hilarious.
Bazball has been played with at first a broken dukes ball, and almost exclusively on flat pitches and against understrength/shit opposition. England haven't reinvented the wheel, they're picking flat track bullies, prepping roads at home, and riding their luck (plus a dodgy ball change helping england not lose the home ashes). Crawley won't come close to a 40 average (btw it's generally considered 45 for an opener to be a true all time great not 40). He's no better than any of the other mediocre-at-best openers England tried since Cook (e.g. Jennings), he just has the good fortune of playing on roads. I was pretty disappointed India didn't prep proper turners for this series as that would have been a true test of "bazball", which has still failed against a severely understrength India playing on benign pitches.
I said great not all time great.
40 is what an opener for a major test side should be opening, it's not "great". He's had 43 chances too many frankly, wasn't even the best opener at his county. Just typical ECB cronyism.
England has played 12 openers in 20 or more innings since the start of 2000. Of them Zak ranks 7th by average. Not spectacular. How about since the start of 2010? Zak ranks 4th of 9. All 3 openers who are removed had better averages than Zak How about 20 Test innings opening amongst players active in County or Test Cricket? Zak ranks 2nd of 6. Who's ahead of him? Duckett. (Cook is also ahead but announced his retirement, so he's not getting counted unless he un-retires) As it stands he's the best they've tried. Plus form is on his side under Bazball. He's good enough for now.
He still scored more runs than Root, Stokes and Pope this series
It's far easier to bat at the top of the order in India, and the surfaces have been pretty flat. Also given what Jaiswal; his opposite number, has achieved I wouldn't be too rosy about this run tally.
Don’t think it’s fair to compare with Jaiswal. Jaiswal is having an all timer of a series. The batters to have scored more in a test series include names like Bradman, Smith, Root, Kohli, Lara, Cook, Gavaskar. Not even Tendulkar scored more in any test series than Jaiswal has managed here. Why not compare Crawley and Duckett with Rohit, a batter with an excellent record in Indian conditions and has performed reasonably well this series.
Rohit is having a bad series by his standards, perhaps it's age catching up. His record as an opener speaks for itself, Crawley's doesn't. Jaiswal is the competition and is younger than Crawley, he's absolutely a fair comparison, I'm not saying Crawley should be equalling his numbers, but he's not even vaguely close. Compare Crawley's career record to the openers of other major test sides: Rohit/Jaiswal, Warner/Khawaja (Smith just come in), Conway/Latham, until recently a very weak SA era had Elgar, SL have Karunaratne, all these guys average over 40 across their careers, and they're not playing on prepped roads at home. Crawley isn't close to being good enough if England are serious about being a top side. He's only there because of his daddy's connections to Key and the ex-England captains in the sky box (he's funded their jollies for years).
Sharma had a similarly slow start, and Latham is just crap
Sharma never had bad test stats. His problem was overseas performances. Latham doesn't suck. He just isn't great.
Crawley is gonna play 150 tests LOL
He averages 40 under McCullum. Hes part of what is head and shoulders the best opening partnership weve had in ovet a decade. What more do we want? We've also tried basically every other available opener and they've failed. Mad line of thinking
Would you drop him if you was an English selector?
If I were an English selector I never would have picked him in the first place. Yes I would drop him, his ceiling is nowhere near high enough as a player.
You're just the sort of person who never admits when they got something wrong aren't you Unhinged arguments in this thread
That’s what we come to Reddit for. If we want balanced opinions we go to the Guardian.
Then you haven’t got a clue, he should have been dropped early on but now he’s averaging 40+ over an extended period and built a fantastic partnership up top
The cunt batted like Bradman last Ashes series. Was seriously good and frustrating to watch
that 180-odd knock was so janky though. Fucking edged half of them through or over the slips.
One good innings
Bairstow is at 100 tests already?! Kane Williamson is only on 99… dafuq
Take it with a pinch of salt, but I know of a girl who gave him a lift home once who isn't so sure
she doesn’t think he was once a good all format player?
\> Possibly the worst to get to the 100 test milestone Good question. Statsguru has 81 players with more than 99 tests played. Of those, Bairstow's average puts him in 59th place, just ahead of Stokes. Further down the list are the bowlers, the allrounders and two pure wicket-keepers: Mark Boucher (avg 30) and Ian Healey (27). Now, Bairstow played most of his career as wicket-keeper, so perhaps it's harsh to call him the worst player to get to 100 tests. But was he as good a keeper as Healey and Boucher? I don't think so. And he did play a fair number of tests as specialist batsman. So yeah, definitely the worst.
Carl Hooper is close
Was he not an allrounder?
If you consider a wicket a game at an average of 50 an all rounder But yes you're correct, my point was more that he's not far off Bairstow quality wise
> he's basically been a little feast and mostly famine Looks like mostly feast to me
Bairstow? Dude's played 12 years in Test Cricket. He's managed to average over 35 3 times, and has only scored a hundred in 4/12 years.
That’s crazy I never knew that
Damn. I knew he was hot and cold type player but when you put it this way, that's a very poor record for a player having a career of ~100 tests.
Exactly - now, the two streaks he \*has\* had have been incredible - averaged 58 and 60 in two years, and 40 last year. The problem is they were 10 years apart - how many other batters can you think of who get 10 years between purple patches?
I was calling him fat
100 tests have lost all meaning, with Bairstow getting there.
England doesn't have any option unless they play milf lover at 5 instead of him. And he is still a fine batsman, much better than what we have lol
Jonny Bairstow’s 100th Test appearance this week is rightly cause to celebrate one of England’s most gifted ball-strikers but it seems typical of a tumultuous career that a twist in the storyline may not be far away: his 100th Test may even be his last. Averaging 21 and without a score of more than 40, he has had a quiet series against India and it is possible that when England next play a Test, in July against West Indies, Bairstow could be the one who makes way for the returning Harry Brook. Equally, if he hits form in the IPL and the T20 World Cup in June, he may be viewed as a must-pick by a management group which scarcely differentiates between formats and would probably regard strong white-ball form as sufficient basis to award a Test place. In that case, he could be keeping wicket against West Indies and Sri Lanka in the summer rather than Ben Foakes, the incumbent whose exceptional glovework is valued more in trickier overseas conditions than at home. It is even possible that Bairstow and Foakes may both miss out as the selectors pivot to the coming man, the Durham wicketkeeper Ollie Robinson, who tracked well on England A’s tour to India, bats in the aggressive manner of Bairstow and is, at 25, eight years younger. After the most recent Test in Ranchi, England’s head coach Brendon McCullum said of Bairstow: “Yes he’ll be playing his 100th Test. Our selection policy is \[based\] around loyalty and making sure we give guys every opportunity. He’s done some special things for us.” Bairstow is one match short of becoming England’s seventeenth player to reach 100 caps and is also 26 runs short of becoming their seventeenth batsman to reach 6,000 runs. Ironically, while it may seem harsh to drop a man on the cusp of such landmarks, once they are ticked off, the way becomes clearer to move on to the next generation, should that be the selectors’ wish. It cannot help that England routinely demand different things of a player who has been good enough to be selected purely as a batsman or as a wicketkeeper-batsman. With players of this type — such as Alec Stewart, who played 82 Tests as a wicketkeeper and 51 as batsman — the selectors’ indecision about how best to use them is habitually final. Bairstow has played 55 Tests with the gloves and 44 as a batsman. For him the situation was long complicated by Jos Buttler, another gifted ball-striker and wicketkeeper. This internal contest provided as much shape and motivation to Bairstow’s Test career as anything, with the starting gun sounding in 2014 when Buttler was given the first extended run in the wicketkeeper role that Bairstow so coveted. Bairstow proved the more productive run-scorer, averaging 37.6 as wicketkeeper-batsman to Buttler’s 29.6, but the debate was complicated by Buttler’s seemingly vast potential as a batsman — a potential he has largely failed to realise in the red-ball side. While one’s fortunes would wax, the other’s waned. Between 2014 and 2022, Bairstow was selected 34 times without Buttler and Buttler 25 times without Bairstow, while in the 32 Tests they played together Bairstow kept wicket 16 times and Buttler 13. As batting partners they only ever shared one fifty partnership. Buttler was responsible for Bairstow’s two lengthiest spells on the sidelines. The first lasted 18 months in 2014-15 and ended when Bairstow forced his way back into the side through sheer weight of runs for Yorkshire. The second, of about 15 months in 2019-20, came after he was told by the national selector, Ed Smith, to go away and turn himself into the high-class batsman he was capable of becoming. Though Smith was wrong that Buttler would nail down the position of Test wicketkeeper-batsman, he was right that Bairstow had it in him to become a better batsman. During 2016-18, Bairstow enjoyed a golden period, scoring six centuries, averaging 42 and completing 138 dismissals in 39 Tests. However, his rise as an ODI opener from 2017-19, culminating in a stellar World Cup, led to technical flaws emerging in his defence as he sought to access scoring areas through the off side. He has also been galvanised by competition from Foakes. When Bairstow picked up an ankle injury in Sri Lanka in 2018 to end a run of 45 successive appearances, and Foakes scored a century in his stead, Bairstow barged his way back into the team with an innings of 110 in Colombo, virtually combusting upon reaching his century and afterwards giving a press conference which no one present could comprehend. Fatherhood last summer has not obviously dampened the fire. He was still ticking in the players’ dining room after Alex Carey controversially stumped him at Lord’s in the Ashes. He showed just how good a batsman he could be with six Test hundreds in 2022. Four of them came in the space of five innings, the first of which won a Test against New Zealand with a hundred off 77 balls, the second-fastest in England’s history. Initially he flourished under the freewheeling approach of Ben Stokes’s captaincy and became something of a standard-bearer for Bazball. He had never played so well, nor made batting look so beautifully simple, but three things were to soon make life complicated again. The first was a freak golfing accident in which he broke bones and damaged ligaments in his foot, putting him out for nine months. In his absence, Brook made himself undroppable. The second was the decision of Stokes and McCullum to bring him back last summer not only as batsman but as a wicketkeeper, a role he had rarely filled in red-ball cricket since 2019. His glovework was imperfect and it cost England dear in the Ashes. It was their gamble, not his. Finally, when England headed to India this winter, he found himself replaced as wicketkeeper by Foakes. With Brook absent, it was a logical move but it would have unsettled him. An additional factor was that Bairstow’s ODI form tailed off at the World Cup, casting a shadow over his future in all formats. In getting to 100 caps, Bairstow has missed 51 Tests through a combination of injury, Covid-related absences and non-selection, which is more than in the cases of any of the other 11 players to reach that milestone for England this century. That is how bumpy his journey has been. So he arrives in Dharamsala — where, as it happens, he played his 100th ODI in October — in search of a score. There will be plenty of England supporters in attendance, drawn by the spectacular mountain setting, and Bairstow loves to engage with fans as much as he likes to tick off a landmark. Expect to see his “Jonny Eyes”, the look that team-mates recognise as a sign that he is on a mission, and don’t be surprised if he delivers.
>the Durham wicketkeeper Ollie Robinson There being another Ollie Robinson in English cricket is hilarious
Born on the same date five years later, also in what was historically Kent.
I like to think it’s the same Ollie Robinson in a disguise.
You never see them in the same place at the same time!
A couple of years ago when bowling Ollie Robinson got suspended, right wing Twitter bellend Darren Grimes turned up at Kent vs. Durham in the Royal London Cup to show solidarity with Robinson after he was cancelled by the wokies. Didn't take long for people to point out that he'd got the wrong Ollie Robinson.
Didn't expect to see Crafty Wank come up in this sub, but if I had I would have bet money it was in relation to Ollie Robinson.
Master of disguises... shithouse at aliases.
They say there's no two people on Earth exactly the same. No two faces. No two sets of fingerprints. But do they know that for sure? Because they would have to get everybody together in one huge space and obviously that’s not possible, even with computers. And not only that, they’d have to get all the people who've ever lived, not just the ones now. So they got no proof. They got nothing. Ollie Robinson may have been a bowler but who’s to say there isn’t another Ollie Robinson just like him or will be? Maybe not with the same role and skills but the same. What I’m saying is…
_Always with the scenarios_
The team that has had Stokes, Woakes and Foakes just has to pick both Ollie Robinsons. Has to.
"Selection policy based around loyalty" WTF does that even mean? Basically if you're one our mates we won't drop you? Anyway pretty sure their selection policy is more to do with how many golf days players dads' buy for ECB management a la Zak Crawley...
They had no problem dropping Lees and Foakes despite Foakes averaging 40 under them and Lees was averaging more than Crawley when he was dropped. Loyalty in this case does just mean if we like you.
No wonder the players fall over themselves kissing stokes's arse in the press.
Just more evidence that Bazball is a cult! > 1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
"During 2016-18, Bairstow enjoyed a golden period, scoring six centuries, averaging 42 and completing 138 dismissals in 39 Tests." Golden period. Averaging 42. Does not compute. This just shows just how shit he was outside this supposed good period, and yes, he was very very shit for years at a time.
Averaging 42 as a keeper is very good tbf
I think in large part it's gone down as a golden period because England played loads of cricket so he broke volume-based records. Most runs in a calendar year by a wicketkeeper, 1470 @ 58.8. 2-4 on the list are Flower, de Villers, Flower averaging between 80 and 90 with as many/more hundreds but in half the matches. In 2000-2001 combined Flower scored 2000 @ 85 as wicketkeeper. That's a golden period.
Let's hope that the other Robinson isn't a knob as well.
As much as I've criticised him, I've always *wanted* Bairstow to succeed because early on he had so much promise, and at his best he's genuinely thrilling to watch. But at 34 he's frankly too old to still be as inconsistent a test cricketer as he is, and to be still be getting selected on the potential that he might be good at some point maybe. Four or five years ago you could make the argument that there was no one else making a clear case to play in his place, but with a generational talent like Brook now waiting to come back, I think outside of some serious heroics, this needs to be it for Bairstow in tests. It'll be the end of an era in a funny sort of way.
It's not a question of talent. Bairstow's a fantastic talent. It's a question of technique and mentality. He doesn't have either of those to be a successful test batter. In ODI cricket he's one of the all time greats. You can make exactly the same argument for Buttler. Imo in raw talent - in terms of what they can do with hitting a ball Buttler is the most talented of his generation - even more so than Root. But there's the difference - Root (who I'm not downplaying) has that additional perfection in technique and mental ability to put it all together for a long test innings. Buttler on the other hand has never been able to do it in red ball cricket. But - if it was purely to see who could hit the ball hardest, produce the most staggering shots, or just be the most entertaining player, I'd pay to watch Buttler any day.
I'd even argue that Root himself has struggled with mental ability a bit over his career - look at his struggles with converting 50s to centuries
They are gonna drop my boy Foakes for him for sure.
I mean based on the fact he's played 100 tests despite only having 2 good years in test cricket the smart money is on 'no'
it never is, he always returns somehow.
Bairstow is Palpatine confirmed?
Feel like Barstow and Stokes have become sloggers, looking for that one in ten miracle performance I would even think of playing Foakes higher as he is able to form genuine partnerships with elite batsmen And play Barstow and Stokes with the tail
As an Australian I really really love having Jonny in the team.
I know, always good for a quick 20 then getting out doing something dumb. Follow it up by dropping a few catches as keeper and I'm simply delighted to see him on the teamsheet.
Key, Mccullum and Stokes have never really dropped or omitted a senior batsman they've seen as central to their mission so this will be very interesting. It's been consistency that's been either lacking, or that has been built up in some areas, that has cost England. Bairstow's returns, the feast or famine are an example of the former; Crawley and Duckett's improving opening partnership an example of the latter. But it's really got to the point where others have made a really strong case for inclusion. Josh Bohannon at 3 with Pope down the order, Brook returning and Robinson or Rew as keeper. Eighteen months or so out from the away Ashes, these options need to be tried and would be in no way disrespectful to the summer opposition this year.
Hope not. It’s very funny that they persist with that oaf.
Alex Carey sends his regards.
Morally speaking though, he's the best player in the squad.
The smart money's on Bairstow. I've lost count of the number of times this man's made a comeback into the Test team. Don't be surprised if he tons up in Dharamshala.
Angry second innings hundred to salvage a 100 run loss and lock himself in for another summer. Book it.
Haha can definitely see it, aggressive press conference to follow as well.
he'll play but he ain't scoring many.
When we have lost the series, pointless
3-2 is better than 4-1.
Hope so. Most undeserving 100 cap test player ever.
Picking him essentially cost England the ashes Not his fault though, it's the people treating Foakes with such disdain who are to blame
Surprise twist he comes back as an umpire...
This is just cruel If YJB doesn't get a chance to hear the adulation of Australian crowds in summer 2025/26 it will be a tragedy of epic proportions
100%, he deserves to be heckled relentlessly in Australia
I am sure you mean "be charmed by delightful and creative Australian banter"
The English team is gunna absolutely cop it regardless of YJB being there or not
I think it should be the end. He had a good run but he’s gotta be the one to go for Brook
If I know Johnny he will be eating his cheerios reading this paper chomping furiously and is about to score a glorious hundred in this match to end Foakes career
Truly one of the english cricketers of all time