Bairstow called up to face WI

Ravi Bopara's latest injury has opened up a spot at No 6 for the first test against WI.

Today's squad announcement suggests that, unless they pick 5 bowlers, Jonny Bairstow will make his first appearance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18049570

Most will be surprised he was preferred to James Taylor. I can only assume that the selectors felt that Bairstow is more suited to the Lower Middle Order spot, and Taylor is a higher middle order batsman.

Good luck to Bairstow. In reality you could pick me at number 6 for this series and we should still win!

I think now he's been selected he's got to be given this series to prove himself. Worry is WI are such poor opposition even if he does well (and I'm anticipating he will) it may prove nothing ahead of the very important and challenging SA series.

Getting a bit ahead of myself but lets hope this doesn't pan out as another Bopara batting at 3 or Anthony McGrath situation i.e. score runs against weak opposition in the early season series then out of their depth in the main series.

I'm surprised. Given they both played in the recent Lions game and Taylor made more than double the ammount of runs that Bairstow did, something must be going on. Don't get me wrong, I am convinced Bairstow will be a good test cricketer, but I'm not sure he is yet, and more importantly what message does it send to Taylor? That's several times he's been overlooked now...

Clearly Taylor is considered a potential England player, or he wouldn't have played for the Lions. It may well be the case that they really see him as top order and nothing else (as I have said a few times, the noises are that they view him as Strauss's replacement) but that seems a bit inflexible to me, this is surely a chance to have him living international cricket for a bit. In any case, I am fairly sure Taylor will be sure of the score, even if we're not.

VTR wrote:
I think now he's been selected he's got to be given this series to prove himself.

Not necessarily if Bopara gets fit again, unless he makes himself undroppable. But a grade 2 tear is usually 4-6 weeks out, and at least 3 even given the rehab they get at that level. That makes Bopara a major doubt for the 2nd test at least. Can you then pick Bopara for 1 test only? What if he fails, do you pick him against SA?

VTR wrote:Worry is WI are such poor opposition even if he does well (and I'm anticipating he will) it may prove nothing ahead of the very important and challenging SA series.

I think that's a bit disparaging towards the Windies, who just did ok against Australia. I think they'll struggle but in part because of the early season conditions, which won't help. I think their bowling attack is reasonable, and should provide reasonable test for Bairstow.

Mike, I think the selection ahead of Taylor is primarily due to Taylor's scratchy form in the County Championship thus far, and a marker of just how well Bairstow has performed for Yorkshire, albeit at a lesser level. Also, you're right in that their respective styles mean that Bairstow is perhaps more suited to a number six berth.

I don't feel comfortable with either against South Africa, to be honest, and don't think we have a solid choice for that spot at this moment. Likewise, South Africa don't have the greatest number six in the world, either, though he is vastly more experienced than our options.

I think the 4th bowler spot should come down to Bresnan or Finn, but I'm not sure which one to be honest. I was thinking Finn for development, but Bresnan isn't fully established in the England side and we really should be picking our strongest team. I'd say Bresnan, but maybe give Finn one test.

It would be pointless to play both of them in my opinion. West Indies stronger suit is their bowling, and the extra batsman might come in handy. Conditions should favour bowling as well, and I'm confident any for man attack of Anderson, Broad, Bresnan/Finn and Swann could consistently bowl out the West Indies batting line-up. It's a good chance to get a look at Bairstow. He's done well so far in his fledgling international career, and it will be interesting to see how he goes in the longest form of the game.

Taylor is unlucky to miss out, but it is a very hard squad to break into. A couple of question marks have started to creep in about Strauss' batting, and if Taylor is being lined up as his replacement all he can do is keep scoring runs for his county and the Lions to up the pressure on Strauss.

Must say I'm a little surprised that Bairstow was preferred to Taylor. I can only go on what you fellows are saying , as I have few opportunities to watch the fringe candidates bat , but I have gathered a sense that most think Taylor better suited to the long game while Bairstow - who has looked handy enough a couple of times when I have seen him bat - may be at this time better in ODIs. Is there some weakness in Taylor's technique that suggests he might be vulnerable at the top level ? One might have thought that a century against the same attack he would face in the Test match would be enough to dispel most doubts...
Must say I thought Bairstow looked pretty handy in the field , obviously doesn't need the gloves to be useful - is he considered a significantly better fielder than Taylor ?
Suppose it doesn't matter all that much as they are both young enough and will get their chances sooner or later, so the only thing that really bothers me is what Mike mentioned above : that Taylor's confidence may take a bit of a knock from being overlooked (again) at a time when he appeared to be the front runner for a spot in the England 1st XI.

I'm gonna give a shout out to Tom Maynard. Big fan of his at Glamorgan and the form he's showing this season and some of the games last season surely hasn't gone un-noticed. Deserves a Lions game soon imo, although being welsh perhaps i'm being biased, but he scores big runs when he's in and scores them very quick indeed.

Bairstow has been sublime this season and obviously got that hundred in the Lions game. Wonder if Prior will be promoted to 6 or whether Bairstow will slot in at 6 right away.

alfie wrote:Must say I'm a little surprised that Bairstow was preferred to Taylor. I can only go on what you fellows are saying , as I have few opportunities to watch the fringe candidates bat , but I have gathered a sense that most think Taylor better suited to the long game while Bairstow - who has looked handy enough a couple of times when I have seen him bat - may be at this time better in ODIs. Is there some weakness in Taylor's technique that suggests he might be vulnerable at the top level ? One might have thought that a century against the same attack he would face in the Test match would be enough to dispel most doubts...
Must say I thought Bairstow looked pretty handy in the field , obviously doesn't need the gloves to be useful - is he considered a significantly better fielder than Taylor ?
Suppose it doesn't matter all that much as they are both young enough and will get their chances sooner or later, so the only thing that really bothers me is what Mike mentioned above : that Taylor's confidence may take a bit of a knock from being overlooked (again) at a time when he appeared to be the front runner for a spot in the England 1st XI.

Taylor is a very good fielder. He was Leics fielder of the year for at least two seasons in a row if I remember correctly.

I'm disappointed Taylor hasn't been picked, as scoring a ton against the same attack you will be facing in the Test series must have been a huge tick by his name. He hasn't been at his best for Notts yet this year, he has made lots of starts in the 20's and 30's but not kicked on yet, but Notts have only 1 batting point in the CC this year, or did before their game this week, so it's been easy for no-one there. Bairstow has been in good form for Yorkshire already this season but as people pointed out at Taylor's figures last year it is only in Division 2. I'm sure Bairstow will be a success and he is the next cab off the rank I suppose as he has been with England in the shorter formats all through the winter, but Taylor will be their soon and will hopefulyl make the selectors look foolish for ignoring him for so long.

Was surprised that they didn't opt for Taylor. I think there is every chance he can get an opportunity further down the line. Great opportunity for Bairstow. Good luck to him.

Just to add that the England Lions have completed a ten wicket spanking of the Windies. Root (115*) and Carberry (72*) knocked off the 197 required runs with no loss of wicket to complete an emphatic victory. It didn't look like the West Indians wanted to risk their big name bowlers in the second innings as Rampaul and Edwards only bowled 10 overs between, whilst Roach didn't bowl at all, and Samuels and Shillingford bowled 15 and 19 overs respectively.

It was a very strong showing by the Lions, with both bat and ball. The star with the cherry was Jack Brooks with 3 in both innings and was the most economical of the bowlers. Young all rounder Matt Coles got 4 in the second innnings to go with his 2 in the first. Unfortunately he got a duck in his only innings and didn't get a chance to show everyone what he can do with the bat second time up, but he is undoubtedly one to watch. With the bat, the Lions were in a bit of trouble at 98-5 after none of the top order converted their starts, but a big partnership between Bairstow (50) and Taylor (118) got them an big first innings lead which proved to be the difference, with the help of Dernbach too. Then Root and Carberry cashed in second innings.

All round a top performance.

Thanks for the update JD

Good to see we're giving someone new a go rather than going back to Morgan , although I would have preferred Taylor to Bairstow. We seem to have this obsession with having batsmen who can bowl a bit, Lord knows why. Let's hope Taylor gets a chance in the 2nd or 3rd Test.

I don't think Bairstow is one of those batsmen who can bowl a little Duty. He is a wicketkeeper by trade, so I doubt he'll be turning his arm over!

JDizzle wrote:I don't think Bairstow is one of those batsmen who can bowl a little Duty. He is a wicketkeeper by trade, so I doubt he'll be turning his arm over!

Oops, my bad! I merely assumed that was the reason why Taylor was overlooked

With Bopara's injury I can only see three genuine candidates for this position. And Taylor wasn't one of them - he's not a number 6 and this 100 was his first major contribution this season.

I think the selectors will have looked at Patel. But decided that he hasn't done enough with the bat, either in recent Championship cricket, or in Sri Lanka, to justify being chosen. The extra bowling option isn't really a factor in England - Trott/Pietersen will cover for the very small number of part-time overs needed.

Davies will probably also have come up, as he is a genuine batter and has been with the England squad. However, he too has lacked the weight of runs to demand selection.

Bairstow has been scoring runs - 2 100s this season and a very good 2011. Although I'd personally prefer another 6 months of heavy runscoring before being picked, it is hard to say that he is too young. At 22 he has played three to four years of FC cricket and is of similar age to Steve Finn.

I'm not as surprised as some by this. Clearly Bairstow was ahead of Taylor in the pecking order (Bairstow already having played a fair bit of limited overs stuff for England for instnce), and clearly the selectors decided Taylor hadn't done enough to overtake him on the basis of the Lions game. Let's not forget Bairstow made a fifty there. Could also be of course that England didn't feel comfortable picking outside the performance squad.

Taylor's chance will come, he just needs to be patient. Best of luck to Bairstow in the meantime...

Shelsey93 wrote:With Bopara's injury I can only see three genuine candidates for this position. And Taylor wasn't one of them - he's not a number 6 and this 100 was his first major contribution this season.

I think the selectors will have looked at Patel. But decided that he hasn't done enough with the bat, either in recent Championship cricket, or in Sri Lanka, to justify being chosen. The extra bowling option isn't really a factor in England - Trott/Pietersen will cover for the very small number of part-time overs needed.

Davies will probably also have come up, as he is a genuine batter and has been with the England squad. However, he too has lacked the weight of runs to demand selection.

Bairstow has been scoring runs - 2 100s this season and a very good 2011. Although I'd personally prefer another 6 months of heavy runscoring before being picked, it is hard to say that he is too young. At 22 he has played three to four years of FC cricket and is of similar age to Steve Finn.

But England already have a wicketkeeper in the test side in Matt Prior. They don't need another one.

gboycottnut wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:With Bopara's injury I can only see three genuine candidates for this position. And Taylor wasn't one of them - he's not a number 6 and this 100 was his first major contribution this season.

I think the selectors will have looked at Patel. But decided that he hasn't done enough with the bat, either in recent Championship cricket, or in Sri Lanka, to justify being chosen. The extra bowling option isn't really a factor in England - Trott/Pietersen will cover for the very small number of part-time overs needed.

Davies will probably also have come up, as he is a genuine batter and has been with the England squad. However, he too has lacked the weight of runs to demand selection.

Bairstow has been scoring runs - 2 100s this season and a very good 2011. Although I'd personally prefer another 6 months of heavy runscoring before being picked, it is hard to say that he is too young. At 22 he has played three to four years of FC cricket and is of similar age to Steve Finn.

But England already have a wicketkeeper in the test side in Matt Prior. They don't need another one.

Both Bairstow and Davies are easily good enough batsmen to play alongside Prior in the number six position.

gboycottnut

I'm struggling to see your point also. Bairstow has been called up as a batsman. Whilst being a wicketkeeper is a nice bonus, it's irrelevant in this discussion especially considering Shelsey never even mentioned Bairstow being a wicketkeeper in his post.

Taylor's preference for the leg side weighs against him early season. He would murder Edwards but could be tied down by Rampaul and Roach.

Bairstow has shown enough temperament to warrant a look.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Could also be of course that England didn't feel comfortable picking outside the performance squad.

Doesn't normally stop them. The Performance Squads are based on the previous 12 months - as in, they usually include everyone picked during that time (although the Ireland match, which Taylor played in, wasn't a bit of an anomaly - it was pretty much a 2nd XI match). They rarely include a non-capped player.

Bairstow, for example, wasn't in the Performance Squad last year but ended up with a handful of ODI appearances.

I think England missed a trick by not trying out a young opener to bat at number 6 in case something happens to one of the specialist openers during the South Africa test series. I would have been tempted to give the young Joe Root of Yorkshire his first test match V this current West Indies team at Lords.

gboycottnut wrote:I think England missed a trick by not trying out a young opener to bat at number 6 in case something happens to one of the specialist openers during the South Africa test series. I would have been tempted to give the young Joe Root of Yorkshire his first test match V this current West Indies team at Lords.

Root only has two FC hundreds (including the one against Shillingford and Darren Bravo in the Lions game). Somebody England are looking at for a few years down the line, rather than imminently then. Carberry would therefore be the reserve opener - has played Tests before, a good age, and a FC average in the mid-40s.

gboycottnut wrote:I think England missed a trick by not trying out a young opener to bat at number 6

Why on earth would you pick an opener at 6?

They aren't going to drop Strauss or Cook and openers can still bat at different positions?

I guess there are 2 trains of thought: you can pick your best 6 batsmen (regardless of where they bat usually), or you can pick your best player in each position.

The casual thinking is that your openers have to be specialists but the rest need not be. This is clearly nonsense: several supposed middle-order players have made a good career out of opening (Watson being the most recent example), and there is ample evidence that James Taylor wasn't picked because it was thought that he wasn't a number 6.

I have to admit that I'm not a fan of "easing" someone into test cricket by batting him down the order (which was Gb's suggestion): a player will be far more comfortable batting in his usual position and number 6 isn't easier (or harder) than opening in any case - it just brings different challenges (I would suggest your number 6 needs to be more versatile in any case).