The issue no one seems to be facing is why Bairstow was so dozy. The answer is that Jim Maxwell was right. He is not a wicket keeper - certainly at Test level. He has hardly stumped in 18 months. He is physically incapable of assuming the correct positions. He is too meaty from the waist down. He is moderate standing up to the stumps. We lost the first test on his dropped catches and missed stumpings and the second on his dozy batting and 27 byes weren't much help either. You don't just wander blithely out of your crease in the I-Zingari League Division Seven.
Someone needs to take him aside and tell him he is potentially a world-class batsman, but as a stumper he'd struggle to get a place with Derbyshire!
If we bat fourth Bairstow will always do so mentally and physically tired if we let him keep. Foakes isn't marginally better - he's a whole world better, a different class entirely. If you miss a chance to get Steve Smith out you are lucky if it only costs one hundred runs. You wouldn't let Jack Grealish keep goal just because he likes doing it.
The other question to ask is if the umpire is handing the bowler his cap why hasn't he called OVER? The standard of umpiring looked lazy to me at least. The review process reduces the importance of umpires, if they then react by thinking we'll reach the right conclusion with or without them, cricket is in trouble.
Nevertheless had I been Aussie Captain I'd have had a word with Stokes and brought Bairstow back. If I'd have been England Captain I wouldn't have bowled bouncers at a man who was almost immobile. If I'd have been an England player I'd have helped Nathan Lyon off the pitch at the end of the innings. It's not a war. Sport should help us to behave properly. And as Lords Membership is hard to distinguish from a public school no doubt those three naughty members will be summoned to the long room for six of the best. No doubt like everything else it will be available on I-Player.
A whole afternoon of bowling short? Entertaining cricket? A motto for all batsmen - a bouncer can only get you out with YOUR help.
Someone needs to take him aside and tell him he is potentially a world-class batsman, but as a stumper he'd struggle to get a place with Derbyshire!
If we bat fourth Bairstow will always do so mentally and physically tired if we let him keep. Foakes isn't marginally better - he's a whole world better, a different class entirely. If you miss a chance to get Steve Smith out you are lucky if it only costs one hundred runs. You wouldn't let Jack Grealish keep goal just because he likes doing it.
The other question to ask is if the umpire is handing the bowler his cap why hasn't he called OVER? The standard of umpiring looked lazy to me at least. The review process reduces the importance of umpires, if they then react by thinking we'll reach the right conclusion with or without them, cricket is in trouble.
Nevertheless had I been Aussie Captain I'd have had a word with Stokes and brought Bairstow back. If I'd have been England Captain I wouldn't have bowled bouncers at a man who was almost immobile. If I'd have been an England player I'd have helped Nathan Lyon off the pitch at the end of the innings. It's not a war. Sport should help us to behave properly. And as Lords Membership is hard to distinguish from a public school no doubt those three naughty members will be summoned to the long room for six of the best. No doubt like everything else it will be available on I-Player.
A whole afternoon of bowling short? Entertaining cricket? A motto for all batsmen - a bouncer can only get you out with YOUR help.