England v West Indies, 2nd Test - Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England unchanged. Rampaul and Shillingford in for the Windies.

Windies win the toss and will bat. A great toss to win - runs galore today.

mogs wasnt writen off- he wrote himself off with his attitude and non willingness to not play IPL. From a guy that is supposedly only playing for england due to test cricket- it doesnt add up. I still believe mogs could have been awesome as a number 6 test bat

mystiroakey wrote:mogs wasnt writen off- he wrote himself off with his attitude and non willingness to not play IPL. From a guy that is supposedly only playing for england due to test cricket- it doesnt add up. I still believe mogs could have been awesome as a number 6 test bat

I am personally of the view he should have left IPL at the same time KP and co did. But what he needs is FC runs, which he hasn't scored consistently at any stage of his career. I still think he could be very good at six. Indeed, he did the job pretty well until his awful series in the UAE, even if the average wasn't quite as high as it should have been.

Honestly! Anyone who thinks Bresnan is a better bat than any of the 3 number 6s we've tried is... well words fail me.

People writing off Bairstow at this stage are idiots - even if subsequent events prove them to be right with hindsight.

lol mike. think about this simply at the moment who would you rather in the position to score the winning runs in a test match- bairstow and bres/broad or bres and broad- at the moment i would plump for the later two. its about how they perform at the time- offcourse bairstow is the better bat, but he isnt proving to be better, or the others arnt proving to be much better than our 7 and 8 bats in test cricket. England have never had bowlers that can bat, its a strange scenario.

Anyway i think its time to give taylor a shot as well- better FC average,list a and 20/20 ave than bairstow with a decent sr as well.

Well to answer your question I would always rather have the batsman there. Bairstow has had 2 innings for crying out loud, he isn't proving anything yet.

mike your taking things the wrong way pal- on the other hand though if you really wanna get serious about it- bres has an averaghe of 40, that will in fairness probally drop to a 32/35 in the long run, but at the same time- i wouldnt be to gutted with a no 6 having an average close to that at present.

You seem to be missing the point of playing the best possible team in the short term. I suppose it depends if you feel as though the test series v SA is of high importance or not. That is a team to respect, if we were playing WI again or NZ or banagladesh , i and the rest of us would probally be in a different mindset and be happy to keep using the no.6 spot as a breeding position

If you're suggesting batting Bresnan at 6 then there is not point getting serious about anything.

I respect South Africa, that's why I want to put out the best TEAM against them. That involves IMO picking 6 genuine batsmen. You clearly feel we should pick the 11 best cricketers regardless of how they shape up (I exaggerate slightly for the purpose of effect).

You do have a strange reading of what other people are saying though - many are suggesting we use the fact that West Indies are a poor team to "try" 5 bowlers, because they feel this is the best way in the long run.

Mike Selig wrote:If you're suggesting batting Bresnan at 6 then there is not point getting serious about anything.

I respect South Africa, that's why I want to put out the best TEAM against them. That involves IMO picking 6 genuine batsmen. You clearly feel we should pick the 11 best cricketers regardless of how they shape up (I exaggerate slightly for the purpose of effect).

You do have a strange reading of what other people are saying though - many are suggesting we use the fact that West Indies are a poor team to "try" 5 bowlers, because they feel this is the best way in the long run.

But how is 6 genuine batsmen England's best team, if one of those 6 players is still wet behind the ears and still learning about batting at a test level? For me there isn't a batsman who is ready to bat at 6, which is why England's best XI at present should be the 5 senior batsmen, Prior at 6, then 5 matchwinning bowlers. There after all isn't a rule in cricket which says a team has to have a 6 batsman-4 bowler combination.

how the heck is bairstow at 6 the best team we have. Are you really serious- you do understand that he is in the team as an apprentice not to have the best possible team at oresent. Its you that isnt reading what others say mike.

You seem to be on a completly different wave length to me and that isnt gonna change- but cut the personal stuff pal there is no need

These are the options we have-

Bairstow- 6
Bopara- 6
Taylor- 6
Morgan- 6
Bresnan- 7 and 5 bowlers

Do we risk bringing another player into the side in Taylor in a big pressure series or go for someone who has tried and failed, i.e Bopara and Morgan.

Shelsey93 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:do we think the problem finding a 6 is that our 7 and 8 are just better bats than any possible 6 so our standards are to high!

Morgan, Bopara and Bairstow all have the potential to be excellent number sixes. What they need is time, and not to be written off after one poor innings like Bairstow, or a poor series like Bopara and Morgan.

Agree Shelsey.

Liam_Main wrote:These are the options we have-

Bairstow- 6
Bopara- 6
Taylor- 6
Morgan- 6
Bresnan- 7 and 5 bowlers

Do we risk bringing another player into the side in Taylor in a big pressure series or go for someone who has tried and failed, i.e Bopara and Morgan.

Playing Bresnan at 7 with a 5 bowler strategy is the safest and best option particularly with South Africa's strong batting lineup.

Oh, forgot to add, are we really writing off Bairstow after playing 2 innings of test cricket? Absurd.

our strongest team would probally be recalling mogs in fairness. personally I think the best bet would be to try taylor

No one is writing of bairstow at all, but he hasnt proved to be the best option as of yet- its only potential at present

mystiroakey wrote:our strongest team would probally be recalling mogs in fairness. personally I think the best bet would be to try taylor

Neither Morgan is ready to play South Africa in a test series, and neither is Taylor.

I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

i agree with you, but mogs is slighlty proven and has experience, bairstow isnt at all, taylor hasnt been tried.

ollyrules wrote:I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

Because England selectors like to go for CC Division 1 players and probably won't select him till hes proven himself in the highest divison.

ollyrules wrote:I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

But looking and a great player and actually being one are totally different things. If you want a batsman at 6, give Paul Collingwood a recall for the SA test series, and even better yet also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

Taylor hasn't been great this season or last season. I firmly believe we should stick with Bairstow, at least till after the SA series. He needs a proper run in the side.

Liam_Main wrote:

ollyrules wrote:I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

Because England selectors like to go for CC Division 1 players and probably won't select him till hes proven himself in the highest divison.

he is lions captain- and he has signed for nottignhamshire so he will be getting the exposure to division 1, so he is probally very miuch on the england radar, i suppose your right - there are gonna wait and see how he gets on

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

But looking and a great player and actually being one are totally different things. If you want a batsman at 6, give Paul Collingwood a recall for the SA test series, and even better yet also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

I don't understand where you are coming from.

1) Our batting is our weakness, not our bowling.
2) We have consistently bowled sides out for 2 years now with 4 bowlers.
3) Therefore we need to have a sixth batsman, not a fifth bowler.
4) Playing Finn as a fifth bowler when we are bowling sides out with 4 is not the answer, as he (or another bowler) will bowl so few overs he will effectively be playing for his batting anyway so we are better of picking a batsman.
5) And how will we know Bairstow or Taylor aren't ready for SA if they don't play and find out. Was KP ready for Australia in 05? Was Cook ready for India in India? Was Trott ready for the Oval in 09? They all came in in high pressure situations and did brilliantly. Lets see if these kids are ready.

JDizzle wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

ollyrules wrote:I don't understand why Taylor hasn't had a chance yet! Everytime I see him play he looks like a great player

But looking and a great player and actually being one are totally different things. If you want a batsman at 6, give Paul Collingwood a recall for the SA test series, and even better yet also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

I don't understand where you are coming from.

1) Our batting is our weakness, not our bowling.
2) We have consistently bowled sides out for 2 years now with 4 bowlers.
3) Therefore we need to have a sixth batsman, not a fifth bowler.
4) Playing Finn as a fifth bowler when we are bowling sides out with 4 is not the answer, as he (or another bowler) will bowl so few overs he will effectively be playing for his batting anyway so we are better of picking a batsman.
5) And how will we know Bairstow or Taylor aren't ready for SA if they don't play and find out. Was KP ready for Australia in 05? Was Cook ready for India in India? Was Trott ready for the Oval in 09? They all came in in high pressure situations and did brilliantly. Lets see if these kids are ready.

Bowlinfg 2 x sets of top class seamers, in shorter bursts, keeping them fresh can only quicken the innings, and get them out quicker (on the correct wicket). Too often we've only hd roatation at one end, and over bowled Jimmy. When it's a good wicket for spin, then not a problem. So having 4 great seamers is way better than having an apprentice (JB or Taylor or whoever) or a 'not good enough' (Ravi, Morgan etc), particularly when facing the 'world cup final' series coming up v SA.

I dont get experimenting with possibily flawed batsmen (JB) when we have a very talented bowler who will compliment our attack, in the biggest series we've had for quite some time. Even bigger than the Ashes......

I fully understand people wanting to go the other way, but implying people are stupid because an opinion is different from theirs, well, belongs back in the play ground.

But we know Bairstow will get his chance in the next test, and we all know he'll probably get a ton!!

yes i agree on all your points dougs

sorry, but calling Bairstow an "apprentice" is doing him, the England set-up (who really don't do "apprenticeship" in test matches) and the WI team (suggesting we can play an "apprentice" against them) a great disservice.

If England have picked him for the test team, they believe he's good enough to play tests right now, not at some point in the future. It's a shame Roach is out for the rest of the tour though, as it means we won't get a chance to see if he can overcome the problems he faced last time around (and you can be sure SA will target him there if he's picked).

I get where people are coming from, but like Mike I just don't think England's best TEAM has Prior at 6, Bres at 7 and four more bowlers. The balance just looks wrong to me. Moreover, Doug says that we over-bowled Anderson at times (assume he's refering to his new-ball spells). I would argue that:

1 - In England the ball doesn't always start swinging from the start, so having Anderson bowl when it's 15 overs old is a good thing.

2 - In the first innings of each test, Anderson picked up a wicket in his (resp.) 7th and 8th overs (of the spell).

Suppose we do go with the five bowlers plan. SA bowl well first up, pick up four wickets before lunch. Do you really feel comfortable with Prior and the bowlers to come against an attack of SA's quality? I don't...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:sorry, but calling Bairstow an "apprentice" is doing him, the England set-up (who really don't do "apprenticeship" in test matches) and the WI team (suggesting we can play an "apprentice" against them) a great disservice.

If England have picked him for the test team, they believe he's good enough to play tests right now, not at some point in the future. It's a shame Roach is out for the rest of the tour though, as it means we won't get a chance to see if he can overcome the problems he faced last time around (and you can be sure SA will target him there if he's picked).

I get where people are coming from, but like Mike I just don't think England's best TEAM has Prior at 6, Bres at 7 and four more bowlers. The balance just looks wrong to me. Moreover, Doug says that we over-bowled Anderson at times (assume he's refering to his new-ball spells). I would argue that:

1 - In England the ball doesn't always start swinging from the start, so having Anderson bowl when it's 15 overs old is a good thing.

2 - In the first innings of each test, Anderson picked up a wicket in his (resp.) 7th and 8th overs (of the spell).

Suppose we do go with the five bowlers plan. SA bowl well first up, pick up four wickets before lunch. Do you really feel comfortable with Prior and the bowlers to come against an attack of SA's quality? I don't...

Good post

Mad for Chelsea wrote:sorry, but calling Bairstow an "apprentice" is doing him, the England set-up (who really don't do "apprenticeship" in test matches) and the WI team (suggesting we can play an "apprentice" against them) a great disservice.

If England have picked him for the test team, they believe he's good enough to play tests right now, not at some point in the future. It's a shame Roach is out for the rest of the tour though, as it means we won't get a chance to see if he can overcome the problems he faced last time around (and you can be sure SA will target him there if he's picked).

I get where people are coming from, but like Mike I just don't think England's best TEAM has Prior at 6, Bres at 7 and four more bowlers. The balance just looks wrong to me. Moreover, Doug says that we over-bowled Anderson at times (assume he's refering to his new-ball spells). I would argue that:

1 - In England the ball doesn't always start swinging from the start, so having Anderson bowl when it's 15 overs old is a good thing.

2 - In the first innings of each test, Anderson picked up a wicket in his (resp.) 7th and 8th overs (of the spell).

Suppose we do go with the five bowlers plan. SA bowl well first up, pick up four wickets before lunch. Do you really feel comfortable with Prior and the bowlers to come against an attack of SA's quality? I don't...

Are you saying keeping a bowler fresh (irrespective of how old the ball is) is not as prefereable than having a tired one? And if we continue to bowl with 3 seamers, burn-out is also a possibility....Broad is already a bit of a lightweight. You need to protect your assets.

An apprentice is someone who learns his trade. In test cricket, he is very much an apprentice. Time and place sir - sometimes circumstances dictate that you have to make a leap of faith (Cook?), but sometimes you need a plan to introduce a new face. If JB is suspect against the short ball, Steyn and co will be rubbing their hands in antici............pation.

Oh dear this five bowlers/ four bowlers thing will never die ...

A question for those who think five bowlers is the way to go : why is it that almost all Test teams , barring those fortunate enough to boast a top class all rounder , generally select six batsmen, one wicket keeper and four bowlers ?
Certainly the really strong teams (West Indies late last century , Australia at the dawn of this one) never bothered changing the formula.
Are all the selection boards around the worlds deluded ?

I don't deny there are occasions when the choice of an extra bowler is justified, but these are rarer than one might think : the current England team's success in dismissing opponents with just four bowlers , who include neither an express paceman nor a mystery spinner , in different conditions on several continents surely speaks to that...

And at the risk of repeating myself , what is the point of "trying out" a young pace bowler we already know to be well capable of stepping into the team when really needed , at the cost of an opportunity to expose a young batsman to a somewhat less demanding attack before possibly sending him in to do battle with the South African group currently contesting with England the right to be considered the world best ?

If the SA series stands at 1-1 , or 0-0 , coming to the last Test later this summer , and the pitch looks dead flat , then [i][just maybe/i] it will be time to call for bowling reinforcements.

But definitely not now.

alfie wrote:Oh dear this five bowlers/ four bowlers thing will never die ...

A question for those who think five bowlers is the way to go : why is it that almost all Test teams , barring those fortunate enough to boast a top class all rounder , generally select six batsmen, one wicket keeper and four bowlers ?
Certainly the really strong teams (West Indies late last century , Australia at the dawn of this one) never bothered changing the formula.
Are all the selection boards around the worlds deluded ?

I don't deny there are occasions when the choice of an extra bowler is justified, but these are rarer than one might think : the current England team's success in dismissing opponents with just four bowlers , who include neither an express paceman nor a mystery spinner , in different conditions on several continents surely speaks to that...

And at the risk of repeating myself , what is the point of "trying out" a young pace bowler we already know to be well capable of stepping into the team when really needed , at the cost of an opportunity to expose a young batsman to a somewhat less demanding attack before possibly sending him in to do battle with the South African group currently contesting with England the right to be considered the world best ?

If the SA series stands at 1-1 , or 0-0 , coming to the last Test later this summer , and the pitch looks dead flat , then [i][just maybe/i] it will be time to call for bowling reinforcements.

But definitely not now.

First off, things that happen in the past have no direct impact on what happens in the future. Zilch.

My stance is not really about 4 v 5 bowlers, it's about playing your best team available, at the right time. If anyone thinks JB is going to make a solid (or better) contribution to the test series v S.A., then I respect that and don't intend to debate it. If not (like me), we drop him and get our best player available in (Finn), and win the series against our nearest rivals for the top spot. It is not about 'trying out' any young pace bowlers at all. It's about winning....

PS - this 4 v 5 argument will not die if you keep posting in it!!

What if Englands best 11 players were bowlers?

Its not just a case of picking the best individuals but also getting a balanced side, both need to be considered. The fact is England see Bopara as the one giving that balance (not Bairstow or Finn)

If the past is irrelevant then why does it matter that Bairstow is inexperienced and hasnt produced the goods yet?

Im not totally dismissive of Finns inclusion by any means, theres certainly arguments for it and I think most people were favouring him over Breadvan until the second test.

We just seem to be stuck in the same circular logic trying to apply it to a square situation. The complete insistence in 5 bowlers despite the continued success of the 4 6 split gets baffling

OK Douglas ...

I could agree to stop posting if you do the same But I don't that would stop it anyway ...

Anyway I do see your argument that playing Finn would enhance our chances : I don't agree with it , but fair enough people hold different views...but my post wasn't "aimed" at you .
More just trying to counter the suggestion that playing five bowlers is an intrinsically better system than the one we currently adopt. I would respectfully suggest that the historical data does help to support my argument that the suggestion is nonsense.

But of course you're free to disagree

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
.... My stance is not really about 4 v 5 bowlers, it's about playing your best team available, at the right time. If anyone thinks JB is going to make a solid (or better) contribution to the test series v S.A., then I respect that and don't intend to debate it. If not (like me), we drop him and get our best player available in (Finn) ....

Dougie - on that basis, you would call up Finn to keep wicket if Prior was having a bad time behind the stumps.

guildfordbat wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
.... My stance is not really about 4 v 5 bowlers, it's about playing your best team available, at the right time. If anyone thinks JB is going to make a solid (or better) contribution to the test series v S.A., then I respect that and don't intend to debate it. If not (like me), we drop him and get our best player available in (Finn) ....

Dougie - on that basis, you would call up Finn to keep wicket if Prior was having a bad time behind the stumps.

Wot you talkin' about....are you mad? Bairstow is an excellent keeper........

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:What if Englands best 11 players were bowlers?

Its not just a case of picking the best individuals but also getting a balanced side, both need to be considered. The fact is England see Bopara as the one giving that balance (not Bairstow or Finn)

If the past is irrelevant then why does it matter that Bairstow is inexperienced and hasnt produced the goods yet?

Im not totally dismissive of Finns inclusion by any means, theres certainly arguments for it and I think most people were favouring him over Breadvan until the second test.

We just seem to be stuck in the same circular logic trying to apply it to a square situation. The complete insistence in 5 bowlers despite the continued success of the 4 6 split gets baffling

Playing the BEST TEAM available, which includes a pragmatic review of avaialble players at every position. Although I wouldn't be surprised that we could field 11 bowlers and still beat the Windies....and if you read back (or mabye the Finn v Breadvan one) it not 5 bowlers every time. Horses for courses young man.

Re Bairstow, it's what he's NOT done rather than what he HAS done. I know, clutching at straws there.....!

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
.... My stance is not really about 4 v 5 bowlers, it's about playing your best team available, at the right time. If anyone thinks JB is going to make a solid (or better) contribution to the test series v S.A., then I respect that and don't intend to debate it. If not (like me), we drop him and get our best player available in (Finn) ....

Dougie - on that basis, you would call up Finn to keep wicket if Prior was having a bad time behind the stumps.

Wot you talkin' about....are you mad? Bairstow is an excellent keeper........

Dougie - I was trying to point out that Finn isn't better or worse than Bairstow. Merely a completely different type of cricketer and so an unsuitable replacement in a 6 - 4 lineup proven to be usually successful.

Yeah fair enough, I guess England just dont see any need to have anothe right arm seam bowler in the mix, but do see the need to have real depth in specialist batting.
they wouldnt have slected Bairstow if they didngt believe he was a genuinely capable player, ditto Bopara (who Gooch has been in love with for years) and Morgan. If flintoff/;chuck norris were still in their prime no doubt they would be hitting the middle ground and going with him.
Its the absence of a genuine all rounder thats made them go with the 4 bowlers. They simply wont pick 5 out and out bowlers because they believe they get more value from a 6th batsmen than they do a 5th bowler.
No you may believe that Bairstow is a massive pile of dogdo ( and his figures so far back you up) but he wasnt selected merely because hes a batsman...but because they selectors believe he has potential to be a genuinely good one. Theyve even overlooked that hes a ginger.
They are selecting players with a plan in mind and on quality, I guess they and you just disagree what that plan should be and the relative level of quality possessed by Finn and Bairstow.
S Looking at the 2008 tour it was a mixed bag with pretty random selections. The first test England dominated the first innings but couldnt bowl SA in a rain shortened game...would they have got them out in the second innings with a 5th bolwer ? would they have ever got enough runs to force the follow on? Second test they went with 5 bowlers (and colli) and got hammered with SA batting for the best part of two days. 3rd test they went back to 4 bowlers again and got SA reasonably cheaply but still lost. 4th test they went back to 5 and won despite not posting many runs themselves.
Not sure what that proves really other than whatever balance you pick if youre facing a side with steyn, morkel, kallis, smith and ABD at their prime then youll probably lose the games that matter.

Gonna switch my finn for bairstow and just go straight for taylor in at 6.

lad has amazing avergaes and just scored a 115 NOTOUT of 77 balls in the cyldesdale 40.

We got ta get him in the england team for the next test and see how he plays, he is the answer- no doubts in my mind

First off, I am not suggesting the England selectors or anybody on this forum are wrong suggesting 4 bowlers is the way to go. Nor am I particularly.

All I'm suggesting is we need our best team v the Saffers, and IMHO Finn increases or chances to win that series, rather than having a scared rabbit apprentice who has flaws against the short ball. I'll predict, if JB does play in the first test v SA, he won't play in the 3rd or 4th.

But that's why i'm sitting on the sofa and not sitting in the Long Room! Good debate chaps. Glad I joined up....

mystiroakey wrote:Gonna switch my finn for bairstow and just go straight for taylor in at 6.

lad has amazing avergaes and just scored a 115 NOTOUT of 77 balls in the cyldesdale 40.

We got ta get him in the england team for the next test and see how he plays, he is the answer- no doubts in my mind

Not sure about that. There is a huge difference between playing the crash bang wallop style of cricket seen often in the limited overs format, compared to the proper technique and disciplines which are needed for the test match format.

Yeah if there was no all rounder and no batsman worth a place and yiou have 5 world class bowlers that would be a strong argument in goign that way. I guess the point is that England believe Bairstow/Bopara are class players. As they did Morgan. But apparently not Taylor.
Hmmm.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yeah if there was no all rounder and no batsman worth a place and yiou have 5 world class bowlers that would be a strong argument in goign that way. I guess the point is that England believe Bairstow/Bopara are class players. As they did Morgan. But apparently not Taylor.
Hmmm.

Fair assumption Peter. Our record with #6 batters ain't great though, so maybe one day they'll rethink their strategy! I've never been a Bopara or Morgan fan. Never.

What about Nick Compton for the number 6 spot? Compton is just the type of batsman I believe that England need at number 6, i.e. a solid rather than a flashy type of player who complements the other strokemakers like Pietersen ,Bell and Prior in the middle order.

Talyors average are amazing in all formats- he really looks the real deal. I allways look towards england players that can play all formats, All great teams need core players that play in all formats. Taylor will be one of them

Some context...

Bairstow has played 3 test match innings. He looked very good scoring 16 runs including 3 exquisite boundaries and a few other good strokes straight to fielders, before getting a good ball. He was then not out for no runs as England crossed the finishing line. After that match he was generally praised. He then had one shakey looking innings against a very good fast bowler who had his tail up and a newish ball to play with.

One bad innings in a challenging situation. That is no evidence to write off a batsmen with undoubted potential. He will clearly be getting some coaching from Graham Gooch on how to better cope with short, fast bowling. If he has a fundamental flaw in his game and continues to fail over the course of a year then so be it and we move on to the next option, but given his first class record there is no reason to expect this.

Another consideration with Bairstow is his fielding, which has been very strong in these 2 tests. There is no doubt that this is something the selectors look at.

It is my personal opinion that selection should be much more flexible and the team should be comfortable playing with either 4 or 5 bowlers, but at the moment I don't think there is any inclination to look at the 5 bowler option as long as we are still successful with 4. Anyway the time to experiment with 5 bowlers would have been this WI series, not the one against SA.

I am not speaking for others. But I am not writting off bairtow at all. In a way i would rather give him the experience over taylor. Because i see taylor as a sure thing.

The problem is most of us have SA on our mind, and is it really the time to breed new players in or experiment with long term options.

Either way i am a happy england fan at present, and discussing the option of one position rather than 5 plus is a massive plus in my eyes

A lot of the praise for Bairstow is coming from a certain G Boycott who is more than slightly biased. Was that innings of 16 that good? I really don't think so.

Anyway, he will probably play the third test and its a chance he has now got to take. Another failure will most likely see Bopara back in vs SA, which seemingly will not inspire a lot of confidence, but he has at least played some decent innings for England across all formats.

As an individual innings the 16 wasn't anything special but it offered enough encouragement to suggest he does have the talent and substance to do well. I agree that repeated failures from here and his place will be under threat but one failure is not justification for dropping a player.

I agree entirely with Jeff about Bairstow. If people thought he wasn't good enough BEFORE he played a test that's fine, they're entitled to that. People who have changed their mind based on one innings against a bowler who when he bowled fast short and straight troubled Ricky Ponting earlier in his career should remember how knee-jerking selections in the 90s didn't particularly do any good.

On Taylor: I rate him highly, but England clearly feel he's more a top-order batsman than middle-order, and based on his one weakness which is his nudging skills against spin (he nudges very well against medium pace) I think they are right. I am worried he is a bit too limited for international T20s (his scoring areas are perhaps a bit limitted), but he surely has a role to play in the other 2 forms: it will be interesting to see if England pick him as an opener to replace KP.