- Jun 4, 2012
Fair enough, to me though...there's nothing about Buttler or Stokes that says they should not be good at test batting. But I am no expert...I just feel that the talent is there for them to be batting better as a team. If Bairstow is that poor...we may as well drop him. It's not like we don't have lots of wicket keeper options.Well Burns wasn't poor.
The point i'm trying to make is that yeah, Australia did outbat England but only because a) Smith got 290 (he doesn't do that, Oz lose) and b) because they also outbowled England. This always gets overlooked. England losing their best player who was also a bowler had an important part to play in this.
Australia only outbatted England because of Smith and only outbowled England because of Anderson.
The media's reaction has been very much results based.
Someone like Bairstow is a good example. Bairstow's average in Test Cricket since January 2018 is, I think, 22. I'm not 100% on that, but I think it's the case. So that's completely pathetic and nothing to build a series on. Anyone expecting him to make runs against this attack, no, probably wasn't going to happen, probably won't happen. He's not that good at Test Cricket. I can say that because even if he makes a double ton next match, his average for the form period isn't going to get over 32.
Buttler, special, special player. At one-day. At 20-20. His average in Tests is 35ish. He's not that good at Test Cricket.
Stokes's average is lower than Buttler's. His last century in a test match was 2017 or early 2018, whenever the Windies were over. He's not that good at test-batting.
Ali's form with the bat in the last 18 months has been disastrous.
This test series is a battle of the bowlers and it will remain one. England go from marginal favourites to marginal underdogs without their greatest bowler of all time. The wildcard becomes Archer; if he can replace Anderson's wickets, England will become slight favourites on a game by game basis once more.