Who to replace Jonny No-runs at #6?

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:Well, I'm never keen on handing debuts to 30-year-olds, but we can't be throwing raw kids in with bugger all county experience.

The old journeyman pro still owns county cricket in the most part, and we're not going to pick second XI players for Test cricket on potential. When someone's tearing up the county scene at 19 then obviously get him in, but nobody's done that for years. Sometimes taking a punt on a young talent has paid off (Cook for example) but others have sunk without trace due to being thrown in too soon.

Just looked at a couple of England legends. Compton was 19, May and Cowdrey both 21.

Yeah, some nice relevant recent experience there!

beamer wrote:

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:Well, I'm never keen on handing debuts to 30-year-olds, but we can't be throwing raw kids in with bugger all county experience.

The old journeyman pro still owns county cricket in the most part, and we're not going to pick second XI players for Test cricket on potential. When someone's tearing up the county scene at 19 then obviously get him in, but nobody's done that for years. Sometimes taking a punt on a young talent has paid off (Cook for example) but others have sunk without trace due to being thrown in too soon.

Just looked at a couple of England legends. Compton was 19, May and Cowdrey both 21.

Yeah, some nice relevant recent experience there!

No, would have thought it was stamdard England selection policy. Was surprised it wasn't.

We can't pick young players if they're not playing at county level. The fault lies with the county system, a lot of talented players from U19 level go missing in the black hole known as second XI cricket.

Fair comment, but at what age did Bairstow make his county debut?

FC debut 2009, so he was 19. Not sure how quickly he established himself as a first choice player after that.

Ages at Test debut for current England players:
Anderson 20
Bairstow 22
Bell 22
Bopara 22
Bresnan 24
Broad 21
Compton 29
Cook 21
Finn 20
Morgan 23
Onions 26
Panesar 23
Pietersen 25 (due to qualification period)
Prior 25
Root 21
Swann 29 (went on a tour many years earlier)
Taylor 22
Tremlett 25
Trott 28

So most of those who have stuck around were relatively young, though they weren't necessarily good straight away... most of our greats probably have debuted around 21 but you can probably count the number of teenagers to have played for England on one hand.

So back to my original point. Bairstow is hardly a callow youth as he was portrayed.

No but he's well short of the age at which most players hit their peak.

He's also being played only as a specialist bat when he's a keeper-batsman ... and has been kept hanging at the top level (as previously explained).

Test tyro status is not only a question of yearcount.


As beamer indicates, comparison with this or that legend of the past is not entirely relevant. In those days, young players could be discreetly blooded into a comparatively low-pressure game, with cursory mentions in columns of the better newspapers and politely applaude from crowds who were rarely baying for triumph.

Nowadays, the financial rewards are great, hence grounds for criticism nuch extended - but it's full bore publicity exposure, with intense porings-over, often with demands for immediate stardom - and either much fair criticism, or premature exhilarations or thorough penetrations evenb by such organs as this forum.

This sorta stuff is likely to hamper or delay some blossomings. THe gladiator needs to be readied, or he's quickly dead. Even Amla was not an overnight sensation. But was granted the time by the quota system.

Wrong again. Amla was actually dropped and sent back to FC to sort his technique out.

The point still remains that Bairstow's problems cannot be blamed on his or lack of experience.

I would guess that he played a hell of a lot more FC than Amla before he was capped.

Now that England have the Ashes, won't they be more inclined to replace Bairstow with a batsman (Compton) than a bowler (Tremlett)?

Well, we might as well go for wins and ranking points rather than making a negative selection... suppose they are usually more inclined to make negative selections anyway, though can't see them picking Compton in the middle order.

Taylor would be the safe pick. The Cook pick. The Flower pick. He would be the pick that symbolises this England team- Grinding, regimented...maybe even dull.

If England really are serious about becoming the best team in the world, then I don't think they should pick Taylor. They should take a bit of a gamble and pick a more dynamic player, because their one dynamic batsman, KP, hasn't got all that long left.

Well, we've tried the dynamic player in Bairstow and he hasn't come off. I suspect he will get at least another Test, perhaps was lucky to be spared having to come out and bat today when a failure might have had the selectors' axe hanging over his head.

It's been an issue ever since Collingwood departed, but if you have to have a problem position, number 6 is perhaps the least disruptive one to have - although the top three is a real concern we know Cook and Trott have the class to turn things around.

Not many teams pick teenagers anymore. Usually only Pakistan occasionally. England have obviously decided that Bairstow is the one to invest in, although to be honest, looking at him bat, I'm not really sure why. There's just something about his game that doesn't look like he's an international quality batsman.

*sigh* @ taipan....

taipan wrote:Wrong again. Amla was actually dropped and sent back to FC to sort his technique out.

The point still remains that Bairstow's problems cannot be blamed on his or lack of experience.

I would guess that he played a hell of a lot more FC than Amla before he was capped.

> On your first bolded point (above) - I've bolded and underlined (see below) what I said, so you can actually read what you dismiss out of hand.

> On your second bolded point (above) - I have also bolded (not underlined) the points I suggested on that - arguing that Bairstow's case is not merely about calendar years. Though it is partly about experience.

As for your "guess", as you put it ...

I don't think that the relative shortage of matches in South Africa's domestic FC programme - the basis, it seems, of your view that Bairstow is quite experienced - is the most relevant point here.

Here's a bit of evidence for my views, to set against your (as so often, fundamentally intolerant) attitude, in this case your "guess":

Bairstow made his FC debut @ 19 (a match in 2009), played for Yorkshire Seconds and the first team after that, went on a Lions tour to WIndies @ 21 (2011). His nervous fringe status around England teams ever since, included in the squad but rarely actually playing (especially in the last year) deprived him of invaluable playing experience, as bat, wicketkeeper, and generally as a player.

Amla made his FC debut @ age 16, toured NZ with SA U19 @ 17, CAPTAINED SA U19 @ 19 in the WC of 2002, was CAPTAIN of the former Natal, and had scored 4 centuries in the first eight innings of 2004-05 when he was fast-tracked into the Test team 4 months short of his 22nd birthday.

He was from the start a specialist batsman (unlike Bairstow).

His recall in April 2006 @ age 23 obviously had nothing to do with the quota system whatsoever, and was universally greeted, on this forum too, as the recall of a star.

 
My reference to Amla, btw, was an illustrative one, not particularly about Amla. To show that even the best do not always succeed quickly - for what may be a variety of reasons.

Maybe it is true that Bairstow is utter shite, always was, always will be, irrespective of any other factors. But I don't think that case is proven.

And to repeat, FWIW, in case you didn't bother to read it before discounting it, I think England would be best advised to let the ginger one get more experience with Yorks, with bat and gloves. Not by dropping him like a stone, as England tended to do in the 90s, but with an assurance he is still in the frame of England's plans, and expected to do well.

Or didn't I say that? ..................................................................

PeterCS wrote:I like Bairstow. His attitude, his dedication, enthusiasm and his fielding.

But not yet his batting at the top level. I've said before he is extremely jittery (perhaps not surprising in view of his youth, and the way England kept him hanging on but prevented him from playing over a long while, for too long).

But the best/kindest thing to do in the short term might be to give him back to Yorks - with an assurance he is still earmarked - and introduce say Taylor.

Not that they are at all likely to do this - as Baz says above. Esp if England get out of the current tight spot tomorrow.

PeterCS wrote:He's also being played only as a specialist bat when he's a keeper-batsman ... and has been kept hanging at the top level (as previously explained).

Test tyro status is not only a question of yearcount.


As beamer indicates, comparison with this or that legend of the past is not entirely relevant. In those days, young players could be discreetly blooded into a comparatively low-pressure game, with cursory mentions in columns of the better newspapers and politely applaude from crowds who were rarely baying for triumph.

Nowadays, the financial rewards are great, hence grounds for criticism nuch extended - but it's full bore publicity exposure, with intense porings-over, often with demands for immediate stardom - and either much fair criticism, or premature exhilarations or thorough penetrations evenb by such organs as this forum.

This sorta stuff is likely to hamper or delay some blossomings. THe gladiator needs to be readied, or he's quickly dead. Even Amla was not an overnight sensation. But was granted the time by the quota system.

Oh FFS my only point is that he cannot be regarded as a youth and that set off yet another pontification.

It then led to a discussion of the age that England players are picked with Beamer.

Having said that, you are talking total shit about Amla. Most here, me included, thought he had technical difficulties. He proved us wrong as he changed certain things in his absence, notably his backlift and trigger movement. His return was never greeted as a return of a star. Not on this forum, nor in SA.

I'm not sure if this song was in Neil D's mind when he started the thread, but it keeps popping up in mine when I see the title!

You've fallen back on your tired position about me "pontificating" again.

Some of us enjoy exchanges of views, and prefer reasoned debate, with a certain amount of tolerance - and hey, even a bit of evidence if necessary - to one-upmanship and knockdowns.

You however seem to need things spelt out in some detail, and then fall back on calling foul when this is done for you. I've tried to do this, I hope for one last time. But, as I've suggested before, you seem to be in forum terms a lost cause, a scrapper in your own cause. And an intolerant one, at that.


btw: I thought my points about "nothing at all to do with the quota system" and "universal greeting of the return of a star" were very obviously heavily ironic - but you missed that too. Yet again. When it's not your own swingeing sarcasm, yet another case of complete irony and humour by-pass on your part!

The same as your " sarcasm" was blown out of the water on your woman comments?

And I am the intolerant one. For years you have not been able to bear anyone disagreeing with your pronouncements. Your normal style of debate is to try and bore any opposition into submission. Of course no one else has ever commented on this before.

Jesus Christ.

1. He's nearly 24, I don't care what you say - that's no callow youth.
2. 72 FC matches is in no way inexperienced.

3. The arguments about 1. and 2. are the most immaterial - he is technically deficient in many areas of batsmanship and it is frankly astounding to offer any sort of argument to his continued inclusion. Of all of our recent number sixes he stands out as the most inept.

I'm tempted by the idea of Luke Wright at 6 ...

For the football team? He might be the new James Milner. Or the new Norman Hunter.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:I'm tempted by the idea of Luke Wright at 6 ...

Couldn't do any worse than Bairstow. And he'd provide an extra bowling option.