England's Indian Summer - T20s, ODIs & Tests

First topic message reminder :

guildfordbat wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:The toss has proven to be most significant factor in the entire series. Root was fortunate he won the toss in every match - despite he moronic decision to bowl in Nottingham. Had the tosses been the opposite way around we could easily be 0-4 down as Kohli would've batted in Nottingham anyway.

The side is clearly in decline once Anderson and Broad leave the scene we may well struggle to even win at home.

Curran has been a decent find more for his batting, bowling isn't anything to write home about yet.

Moeen a decent comeback but his issues are he's hopeless away from England.

Cook and Jennings need scores at the Oval or i would hope both are dropped for Sri Lanka.

Root has shown in this series he's not of the class of a Smith, Kohli or Williamson. His stock has fallen big time.

Dropping is easy. Replacing is less so.

Burns and Vince. Need someone to get after the bowling on the Sri Lankan sandpits and Vince is a decent player of spin. Burns the guy the try and hold up an end.

England's loss is Essex's gain. Cook made a lot of runs for his county when they won the Championship last year and he could well make a lot more next year. Could he do a Trescothick and carry on for some years?
On Hameed: Lancs have clearly given him every chance this year and it's sad that he's had such a lean time. Being out of form in the red-ball game is tough. You bat in bowler-friendly conditions in April and May and then when the weather is blistering and the outfields like lightning in June and July there are no first-class matches. Hopefully Hameed can come again.

Anyone know when Hameed's contract is up at Lancs? I'm sure Lancs will continue to give him a very fair chance to turn things round whilst it's in force but I can't see them wanting to give him a new one atm. For all the sympathy due to the young man, Lancs have a limited playing budget and you can't blame them for being guided by that.

KP has a weird mythology around him, almost like Ronaldo for Man United fans and CM Punk for wrestling fans. The name can’t go without being mentioned when there’s a big story with England

guildfordbat wrote:Anyone know when Hameed's contract is up at Lancs? I'm sure Lancs will continue to give him a very fair chance to turn things round whilst it's in force but I can't see them wanting to give him a new one atm. For all the sympathy due to the young man, Lancs have a limited playing budget and you can't blame them for being guided by that.

He signed a four year deal in 2016, so should be contracted until 2020. But as things stand, Lancs must seriously be considering terminating it early, or potentially sending him out on loan to a division two side next season - the current situation is not helping Hameed or Lancs

Thanks, Olly. Yeah, that's a long time up until 2020 for Lancs and Hameed. Too long to tread water and hope his luck changes. If it doesn't, maybe a loan move to a Div Two side during next season.

Possibly worth remembering that Lancs moved Kerrigan onto their coaching staff by mutual agreement earlier this year.

Couldn't come here for a couple of days.
So in the end, India were not good enough to cross the line. England's batting depth, often maligned as a poor substitute for quality that let them prevail in the end.
Virat Kohli has been clearly the batsman of the series. Bowlers from both sides have had their moments throughout. But even with 1 last test yet to go, I would say the man of the series has to be young Sam Curran. Made the difference in the first test, did the same again here.

India can think about the what ifs. What if they selected Cheteshwar Pujara for the first test? What if they played their champion spin twins Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja together in the last game? and perhaps even what if they went in with Umesh instead of Kuldeep in the 2nd test?
But beyond all that, it is the general lack of batting quality that did them in. And eventually, since England also didin't have a lot of quality throughout their lineup, it has to be the depth. England had Sam Curran at 8, Adil Rashid at 9 and Stuart Broad at 10. I know Broad is a long way away from that batsman who excited Boycott once and has a test best of 169. But he did his bit in the first innings here, and even in the first test for that matter. India had Kohli. Pujara arrived but rather late, and Rahane was there but not quite there. And then there was no one.
Hardik Pandya anyday is a better test cricketer than Rohit Sharma. But is he good enough at number 6 as a batsman? Not really. He's not a number 7 in my book.
Is young Rishabh Pant a better bet with bat and gloves than Dinesh Karthik? Clearly yes, but can he be the number 6 batsman for india in tests? Not quite, not yet at least. India's struggles starts from there. They need a viable option at number 6. They at the same time need the 5 bowlers to bowl out sides. One of the intangibles from the series has been that. Pandya had that one spell, but apart from that, his presence ensured Ishant, Shami and Bumrah had more in the tank when they came on for the 3rd spell of the day.
When playing at home, they would have Ashwin, Saha, Pandya and Jadeja from 6 to 9. Bhuvneshwar at 10 is a pretty good bet with the bat. Even for that matter Shami is a pretty decent number 10. That depth was missing in this series, who ever batted from 6 to 9, they were at least a position too high in the batting order.

If one more batsmen had a series like what Vijay or Rahane or MS Dhoni had in 2014 to support Kohli, then things could have been different for India. But nobody turned up...
Where do we go from here? Now that the series is gone and since Rahane has been inconsistent for quite some time now, think young Hanuma Vihari should be given an opportunity in the next test. Like Kohli, I am pretty sure KL Rahul's time will come, sooner rather than later. He is a concern, but leave him alone.
R Ashwin indeed is India's led test spinner. But he should have been better here. Much, much better than what he turned out to be in the England 2nd innings. Let Jadeja play the last test, it will add to his overseas experience.

And If they continue with Ashwin, he has to be batting at 6. In fact, in all conditions, if it is Pant, Pandya and Ashwin who form the 6 7 and 8, it has to be Ashwin who should bat 6. Pant and Pandya can interchange depending on the match situation.

And so, Alastair Cook is retiring. This summer has been a real struggle for Cook. The last season, despite a couple of big knocks, wasn't great either. He hasn't been the player that he once was. So, think he has made the right call.
England need to rebuild at the top. They need 2 decent openers and a number 3. That number 3 is not Joe Root, he's England's best batsman, he is England's best bet for number 4, and he likes batting at 4. They messed him up early in his career when they send him to open. Then he took one for the team as skipper by moving up to 3. The move clearly hasn't worked, Root simply has to stay at 4... Jonny Bairstow isn't a number 4 even. Unless they really want to invest in him as a non-typical test opener, (wouldn't call him Sehwag like as he's not really of that mold), then they should find 3 new players. Jennings isn't one of them, the guy isn't really good enough.
I hear Haseeb Hameed is in such atrocious form that even finding a county contract next season can't be easy. But the lad had temperament, perhaps England should just take a chance on him, possibly that might be the spark needed to get him going again.
What are the other possible options?

sirfredperry wrote:England's loss is Essex's gain. Cook made a lot of runs for his county when they won the Championship last year and he could well make a lot more next year. Could he do a Trescothick and carry on for some years?
  On Hameed: Lancs have clearly given him every chance this year and it's sad that he's had such a lean time. Being out of form in the red-ball game is tough. You bat in bowler-friendly conditions in April and May and then when the weather is blistering and the outfields like lightning in June and July there are no first-class matches. Hopefully Hameed can come again.

The one who I would compare Cook to is Collingwood - going out on a series high, after some poor performance for a period of time - could keep going at the international level for a while if they really wanted too, but ultimately probably making the right call. Lets hope Cook can bow out in a similar way to Collingwood (taking a wicket with his final ball in test cricket ) and then going onto play and improve the county game for a period of time

Farewell to Alastair Cook. I haven't really forgiven him for his ignominious role in the saga that deprived international cricket of Kevin Pietersen prematurely. But Cook has a record that deserves, demands respect. He was brilliant in India, and generally against Indian attack anywhere. With a limited set of strokes, to score so many test runs is not silly. His determination has to be terrific. Hope he would stay involved with the game in the future too, and good that he is giving at least a year to county cricket, it would be a great learning experience for the youngsters playing alongside him.

Not much to add on Cook, other than two of the absolute highlights in 25 years of following England were the crazy 517-1 and England's "perfect day" in the Boxing Day Test. Both of course in an away Ashes victory that I'd never thought I'd see, with Cook at the centre of both of those matches and massive in the series in general. What a team that was, quality batting from 1-7 and a squad of bowlers who were all on their game

Did he indicate he intends to keep playing in the CC?
It doesnt strike me as something hed be massively interested in but its hard to onow.

Id love to see him get a role on the England staff as an openers specialist coach. ive lost all faith in Gooch frankly.
Cooks the last proper opener to come out of the system and prosper.
They sure are going to need one.

Talk of Stoneman is more depressing than Denly. Hes not even having a good county season, and would be a short term pick. Some small thing that hes used to playing with Burns and they might somehow help each other settle...but thats not realy a thing is it. Moeen at least earnt his , and Vince too has been doing the right things to get yet another chance.



VTR...the sort of games and perofmrances you mention there are maybe why some rate him as the greatest England test opener.
He was part of a team and an individual who performed well and won series across the world ...arguably achieving more famous victories through a long career than anyone else.

VTR wrote:Not much to add on Cook, other than two of the absolute highlights in 25 years of following England were the crazy 517-1 and England's "perfect day" in the Boxing Day Test. Both of course in an away Ashes victory that I'd never thought I'd see, with Cook at the centre of both of those matches and massive in the series in general. What a team that was, quality batting from 1-7 and a squad of bowlers who were all on their game

That and the series win in India in 2012 will be the highlights of his career, and apart from the Ashes in 2005, are the best I’ve ever seen an England test side play.

Still remember that run out when he was on 190 in India - the most bizarre dismissal I’ve seen to this day. Convinced he’d have made 300+ that day but for that

The only decent openers in the CC Division 1 this year have been:
Burns , Jennings, Cook and Mitchell (who's a year older than Cook) . No one else whos played a meaningful number of innings is averaging better than the low 30s.

Gubbins, who like Burns was on the edge of the squad for this series is doing OK in D2. Ben Slaters just gone from Derbyshire to Notts in D1 after a decent season, so maybe a name that could come into the frame if he makes much of that move.

Really though Burns is the only opener kicking the door down and genuinely asking to be selected. The likes of Trott and Bell are out scoring most of the kids.

England will struggle to find a viable alternative to persisting with Jennings

In the absence of standout options you'd presume the selectors will go horses for courses in Sri Lanka and select good players of spin. Jennings and Denly might profit from that but neither fill me with confidence.

Similarly the Moeen at 3 experiment will probably continue in Sri Lanka where his weakness to the short ball shouldn't be exposed. I'm a fan of Mo but a batsman who flirts outside his off stump and struggles against pace will never have regular success that high up the order against quality bowlers. He's earned his recall and backed it up but pushing Mo to 3 is yet another stop-gap for the side and long term will see Moeen bumped around the order once more.

1.Burns
2.Jennings/Denly
3.Moeen
4.Root (c)
5.Bairstow
6.Stokes
7.Buttler (wk)
8.Woakes/Curran
9.Rashid
10.Broad
11.Anderson

Perhaps looking at that for the Sri Lanka series. It still leaves room on the plane for:

A middle order batsman - Vince seems to be the front runner but if Bairstow plays as a batsman could it offer a squad place for Foakes?

A third spinner - Leach or Bess?

Back up seamers - Pace is realistially needed to offer variety to those above....

I often think Nick Browne seems unfortunate to rarely get a mention in discussions of openers.

I would imagine Leach plays ahead of one of Woakes (or Curran)/Broad/Anderson. I doubt we will need 4 seamers with Stokes, and I like the ideas of three spinners all with slightly different angles - off spin, leg spin and left arm.

Agree JD,

It was also reported a few weeks back that since they havent felt able to rotate Jimmy and Broad out this summer that they might give both a break. Not just to rest them but also to give others the chance to show what the can do with the new ball.

They may well want to try a fast bowler. Does that mean Wood, who's almost one and consistently been mediocre? Theres not really anyone sticking their hand up.

Currans been endlessly discussed above. Deserves a place on his batting, but likely to struggle with he ball. It really would put pressure on the spinners from the off.

Moeen seems more realistic as a top 3 bat if hes in as one of 3 spinners rather than someone expected to lead the attack. His record over seas is pretty woeful, the key is keeping his confidence up.

Brownes averaging 33 with the bat in the CC this season and has only played 6 games. Its hard for him to be making a case even again if hes been vaguely mentioned as one for the future in the past by Bayliss. Hes been playing second XI cricket for half the summer.

JDizzle wrote:I would imagine Leach plays ahead of one of Woakes (or Curran)/Broad/Anderson. I doubt we will need 4 seamers with Stokes, and I like the ideas of three spinners all with slightly different angles - off spin, leg spin and left arm.

Yeah you’re gonna need at least three spinners in Sri Lanka - and definitely not four seamers (id argue three might even be one too many).

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:I would imagine Leach plays ahead of one of Woakes (or Curran)/Broad/Anderson. I doubt we will need 4 seamers with Stokes, and I like the ideas of three spinners all with slightly different angles - off spin, leg spin and left arm.

Yeah you’re gonna need at least three spinners in Sri Lanka - and definitely not four seamers (id argue three might even be one too many).

6 bowlers would ordinarily be excessive but with Stokes Moeen Woakes and Curran in the mix (and guys like Bess too) ...but no batsmen really worth a place...England have a luxury of choice to give themselves options. I just dont see Stokes playing as one of two seamers any pitch anywhere.

Root of course gives them a fourth option, and Jennings a fifth. So 4 out and out spinners would be overkill.

The Leach, Rashid, Moeen combination really does give England a balanced attack, but they still do lack that out and out fast bowler who can make something happen. I think they will play Wood if hes full fit, Gibson rates him anyway.


Had a check on the Lions fixtures. They are off to "Pakistan" (UAE) in November. Unsurprisingly, and annoyingly, the focus is on limited overs ...just one 4 day game to kick it off. Its also taking place during the test series, so no opportunity to try out guys ahead of that or give the likes of Burns the iopportunity to get some cricket in on slow low pitches.
I do hope though that along with the fringe world cup squad candidates they take a couple of potential test openers with an eye to the future, even if theres not many kicking the door down right now the whole point of the Lions is to help them step up to do that.

I would play cook at number 3 at the oval, giving the selectors an opportunity already to try the new opening partnership in a slightly less high pressure context. My team torn the oval would be as follows:

Burns
Jennings ( can't think of anybody else)
Cook
Root
Stokes ( seems more adaptable to the match situation than Bairstow)
Bairstow
Buttler (wk)
Ali
Curran
Broad
Anderson

It is an interesting situation with finding openers for England. I would say Keaton Jennings is in the box seat for the Sri Lanka tour as it is widely accepted that he plays spin well. However, his average score is a decent amount less than Mark Stoneman, James Vince and Alex Hales - all of whom seem to be the forgotten men (Vince aside). Waiting in the wings are Burns, Gubbins, Denily and Clarke all of whom are untried as yet at Test level. A real puzzle that the selectors need to solve straight away.

Vince isnt an opener, Hales (as with Roy) hasnt played red ball cricket in over a year.
Stonemans having a quiet season in the CC in a team thats scoring runs for fun. Hes also getting on a bit and would be a very short term stop gap option. As an alternative to Jennings for the winter tours to help bed in Burns and avoid having 2 brand new openers I can see a logic .... but its a pretty poor option to be left with.

Gooseberry wrote:Hales (as with Roy) hasnt played red ball cricket in over a year.

Not necessarily a deal-breaker as far as the English selectors are concerned.

I think Jennings place is sealed for Sri Lanka and he will be one of the openers owing to how well it is believed he plays spins. It will probably be an uncapped option alongside him such as Burns/Gubbins/Clarke.

Duty281 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Hales (as with Roy) hasnt played red ball cricket in over a year.

Not necessarily a deal-breaker as far as the English selectors are concerned.

Yes I was thinking the same considering Buttler and Rashid were seemingly finished with red ball cricket but are now back in the test side.

Gooseberry wrote:Did he indicate he intends to keep playing in the CC?
It doesnt strike me as something hed be massively interested in but its hard to onow.

Id love to see him get a role on the England staff as an openers specialist coach. ive lost all faith in Gooch frankly.
Cooks the last proper opener to come out of the system and prosper.
They sure are going to need one.  

Talk of Stoneman is more depressing than Denly. Hes not even having a good county season, and would be a short term pick. Some small thing that hes used to playing with Burns and they might somehow help each other settle...but thats not realy a thing is it. Moeen at least earnt his , and Vince too has been doing the right things to get yet another chance.



VTR...the sort of games and perofmrances you mention there are maybe why some rate him as the greatest England test opener.
He was part of a team and an individual who performed well and won series across the world ...arguably achieving more famous victories  through a long career than anyone else.

Reported on comms by the Radio Essex guy in their match against Surrey that Cook is set to sign a 3 year playing contract with Essex. Slightly surprised by the length but I guess Essex want him for as long as possible and they won't kick up a fuss if he decides to call it a day earlier.

Good newsfor Essex then.
The biggest dissapointment with him this summer in tests is that he had a really goof nuild up to the India series, making bigbscores in the CC and in the "lions" game that had half the test team playing.
Hes clearly still got it at that level, just mentally doesnt seem to have it in him to rise to the bigger challenges anymore and put up with all the noise and scrutiny that goes with tests.

It’s an absolute shame they couldn’t convince him to have a spell at 3.

At the start of play in today's latest round of Championship matches, Burns needed 39 more runs to become the first to a 1,000 this season. Not regarded as highly as in the past but still a meaningful achievement. He's currently undefeated on 28 against Essex at Chelmsford.

I'm not actually the strongest advocate of Burns' elevation to the Test side - I tend to regard him as a good to very good County player - but he's worked hard to earn a chance and there is little else in the cupboard.

Squad of 13 named for the final Test at the Oval. No Burns or Porter. Same 11 as last time out plus the recalled Pope and Woakes.

If England are serious about Porter, thought this would have been an opportune time to play him with the series won.

With Woakes carrying a knock and with all the rumours of resting Anderson/Broad at some point, I would have expected to see Porter. Seems an odd one.

Not sure they actually are all that keen on Porter. The way he's been handled suggests they had him on hand as the next best injury reserve , basically on current form
I doubt they see him as a major overseas prospect ahead of the ones they have in the squad so playing him at The Oval might not be seen as too useful ?
If he keeps turning out the wickets maybe he will get a look in next home summer...people do keep getting injured.

Cook Jennings Moeen Root Stokes Bairstow/Pope Buttler Curran Woakes /Rashid Broad Anderson

Fitness issues to settle the XI. . That seem reasonable ?

i am very curious to see if Moeen will continue at 3, or if it was a tactic for the specific game situation of the third innings of the last test. I agree Root, stokes and the two jb's do seem better suited at 4-7, but I can't see how putting Moeen at 3 will help him re-cement his place in the team.

Chaminda Vaas did pretty well in Asian conditions. Not saying Curran has that level of skill just yet, but worth investing in as a bowler.

No capping Burns just seems bonkers and short sighted.

Porter was very much just a cover pick for home conditions, they were pretty explicit about that. There were a lot of injured players who remain ahead of him in the pecking order.

Moeen at 3 is a bit daft if they want him to be the lead spinner again, and would rob them of the opportunity to drop Rashid to recall Pope ...or risk massively overloading him and breaking his confidence again.

This really was an ideal chance to stick Burns in at 3 and help ease him in in a relatively low pressure test. I'm inclined to agree with Guilford that there is an element of " next lamb to the slaughter " with him, and my reservations regarding how much a few county runs really means are well known....but he's absolutely the stand out candidate as an opener for Sri Lanka. If he's not ready now then its not like he's suddenly going to be ready in a few weeks time.

Is this going to be another case of picking someone based on the form they showed months earlier, right at the time when they lose it.

Root talks about having a vision and clear road map for England, ye their selections continue to focus on the immediate need to win the next test ...which they dont really need to win.

Agree with the above - Burns should have been allowed to get his debut nerves out of the way in familiar conditions, rather than taking his bow in a scorching dust bowl in the subcontinent.

I would have also let Anderson and Broad put their feet up for a test. I hope Pope gets the nod over Rashid, but this would be a forlorn wish.

For those of you who care about the rankings - there must be someone - England will go up to fourth (ahead of New Zealand) whether it's win, lose or draw. Mind you, if England win this series 4-1, and beat Sri Lanka 3-0 this winter, with the West Indies defeating India 2-0 next month, then England will be number one again!

Echo comments above about Burns - it's madness not to give him a go in this game. He's now going to be making his debut in completely alien conditions, likely against a platter of spinners who he wouldn't have faced before...why not play him at his home ground to get that first game out of the way? Doesn't make sense to me!

Ultimately though the game doesn't mean anything bar just being Cook's final bow...lets hope the cricketing gods are kind and allow him to go out on a high...!

I really don't think it matters that much , Burns missing this one. Might have been nice to see him ; but on the other hand if conditions are again in the bowling side's favour it might have been a rough introduction. I certainly don't think a chastened India under Kohli would allow it to be a "low pressure" environment !
Presuming they have got him pencilled in for Sri Lanka (can we be sure ? Or do they share guildford's doubts ?) then a debut over there , where opening the batting may be the best time to bat , might not be such a bad thing ...

Will Pope play ? You'd think not , unless YJB doesn't report fit ; but I guess they could slot him in instead of Rashid ...would depend on how fit Stokes is to bowl. But clearly they want to keep him around the squad - suggests he 's likely to go on the tour too.

I don't care all that much for the rankings ; though it would be nice to rise up them a bit with this Test Championship on the way. But the odds on West Indies 2-0 over India (never mind England 3-0 winners on tour) are about the same as a satisfactory resolution to Brexit - so the quest for number 1 might have to wait a while...

Saw an interview with Bayliss where he seemed to indicate that Moeen was going to play 3 over the winter ( presumably the next test too) but he had doubts about him there long term on faster pitches.
lso seemed to indicate he preferred Buttler with the gloves down the order and Bairstow concentrating on batting.

Gooseberry wrote: he preferred Buttler with the gloves down the order and Bairstow concentrating on batting.

I would stick with Bairstow with the gloves as (prior to his injury) his batting was solid. Would removing the gloves from him upset his equilibrium and confidence and impact on his scoring? Whereas Jos Buttler came back into the side as a batsman and his form was good anyway without the gloves. I suppose there is a feeling that Buttler is slightly better as wicket-keeper on review calls whereas Bairstow lets emotion cloud his judgement.

I think this tweet and this article show for me why Bairstow would be much better playing as a specialist bat, and Buttler with the gloves - as noted in the article, even the great Kumar Sangakkara only averaged 40 with the bat when keeping wicket in tests...

Bairstow's five test hundreds have all come before he has kept wicket in the match.

Basically am repeating the article, but as said in it, England need Bairstow's potential batting at 5, much more than they need his glovework at 7. We have Buttler at 7 who can pretty much replicate what Bairstow did there with the bat and gloves. We have nobody at 5 who can do what Bairstow can potentially do with the bat alone

https://twitter.com/ohlookitswill_/status/1034719314677559296

https://www.cricket365.com/england-v-india-2018-tour/the-gloves-are-off-bairstow-injury-can-help-england/

Within all that, I do think you can also argue that his mentality in the first innings may be helped. It’s bad to use evidence then entirely dismiss evidence, so England and Bairstow can be forgiven for thinking he can be better with gloves.

The reality is that he possibly will be better without gloves, rather than any damning confidence either way.

He may also argue that he’s better lower down with the gloves than Buttler and someone else should play lower, but I don’t think that would stick now.

Craig ...Theres some merit in the notion that he was upset by the change ( its pretty well document hes wanted the security of being the keeper, espeically after how hes been treated as an ODI bat).
Its hard to judge just how much it affected his batting in that one game though .... he was playing with a borken finger in diffciult circumstances after being bumped up the order, and every other batsman around him failed equally.

The stat Olly quotes above is probably more relevant. Bairstow is now without argument Englands second best batsman, and in reality has been for some time. They need him batting up the order, absolute lowest is 5. If he has to adapt his game a bit (and Bayliss noted hes working on specific things to stop him getting soft dismisals chasing balls he could leave) to become a real test force then thats easier done as a specialist bat than a keeper bat.
The reality of the mess this teams in is that senior players are having to take on more than they are maybe comfortable with. Roots "took one for the team" by taking on the defence against the dark arts number 3 role. Stokes has batted two places too high. Moeen was apparently ensthusiastic about playing 3.

The other reasoning Bayliss gave was that keeper is a great place for a vice captain to field and get a good view of the game. Now you could argue " why not Bairstow vice capatin" or " why not have the input of the keeper as well as the vice capatin", but there is at least more than just " I love Jos" going into this thinking.

I was a huge Buttler sceptic when he was recalled. But hes shown himslef to be a stand up guy and led from the front. Hes never going to be a 40+ avergaing bat like Bairstow, but is good enough to be a valuable lower middle order player and on a par with the gloves. Hes doing a fine job as is, whether it upsets Bairstow or not.

I feel for Foakes in all this, and he did get a vague mention by Bayliss ( seemed like more of an apology to him than anything) but when they already have 2 keepers (plus Pope who used to be one) in the side its hard to see how the best keeper can get a spot

If Bairstow's keeping is/was an issue why did the selectors rather take the coward's way out. I mean Buttler came back into the side at the start of the summer so why wait until Bairstow's finger injury before replacing him with Buttler?

The quality of Bairstow's keeping has improved out of sight, and should not be under discussion.

It is however reasonable to discuss his batting though. It has been referred to above but all the stats are below. His average is much higher in the first innings of a game, irrespective of whether England won the toss or not. It declines rapidly the more he keeps wicket, both in a game and through a series.

Now obviously hist batting has improved while he has been keeping but the question for the English management is whether they can be a better team with Bairstow playing as a specialist batsman. There seems to be a confidence issue with him that has been helped by feeling secure in the team as the keeper. However if we are to get the very best from him as a batter the fact he averages nearly 60 when batting before keeping and barely half that in innings after keeping wicket does suggest that the team would benefit from him concentrating as a batsman.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/297433.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=1;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

I think this is another example of Bayliss getting a (wrong) idea in his head and pushing it until proved foolish...and often beyond.
Like Root at three.

The theory that Bairstow would bat better without the gloves remains just that. Not shown by any meaningful statistic - in fact quite the reverse. Though I accept you can't read much into this latest , injury affected , failure.
Boycott for all his faults knows a bit about batting. He was definite that Bairstow will never succeed as a top order player in Tests ; while  he is perfectly suited to seven. I would back Boycotts judgement over Goose's ridiculous assertion that he has to bat five at the lowest. This is a long time theory of the esteemed Goose (claiming YJB was "wasted" at seven)  but all the evidence shows that pushing him up the order has done nothing for England's batting. What we do know is that he regularly did a fine job at seven  : no doubt Buttler might do as well over an extended period ; but again , we don't yet know.
Bairstow is , these days , the better keeper - certainly standing up , as they'll need to do in Sri Lanka. And it is clear he passionately wants to keep...heaven knows he worked his socks off to justify his occupying the position. Wouldn't surprise me at all if being forced out of the keeping spot has a serious negative impact on his batting rather than the reverse.
Buttler has played some good innings down the order this season , and has clearly improved his batting (although he has had a lot of luck early in several innings ) : why is it assumed he can't bat at six or even five ?

Looks to me as if the principal reason for (a) getting Buttler in the team in the first place. And (b) pushing this notion of getting him back behind the stumps is Bayliss doesn't think Root can handle the team in the field and Jos is there to baby sit him.  Not a good reason to turn the order around (at a time when we desperately need all the batsmen playing in their most suitable spots)

As it happens , Buttler has done well enough to suggest he might hold down a batting spot without being artificially protected. Why not let him try ?

Fortunately Bayliss is getting towards the end of his disastrous tenure of the Test side. Hopefully he won't completely wreck the team before departing (I do acknowledge his good work with the white ball squad - but if the Ashes are lost at home next year I don't think that will endear him to the majority of fans). But I seriously fear this messing a successful player like Bairstow around in pursuit of an unrealistic goal has the potential to undermine him in the same way Moeen's career was almost trashed before his almost reluctant recall last week surprisingly paid off.

If this ends with Buttler keeping at seven and Bairstow another casualty of batting in the wrong place and out of the side , England will undoubtedly be a weaker team. I hope I'm being unnecessarily alarmist ; but after watching the selection mess that has characterized this management team I won't rule any (bad) consequence out...

The above is not to suggest that Bairstow could not be an adequate number five - with or without gloves. But I'm not sure merely adequate is what they ought be aiming at...
And my fear is that this notion of changing keepers suggests a desire to push him even higher ...which can only end in tears. And also implies an intention to continue the (failed) plan of batting Root at three.