Possibly preempting the fact that Jennings will open alongside Cook? Gives him the chance to prove he can bat three. Not sure why else they would do it.Really don't understand the Hameed at 3 malarkey.
That's what we keep getting told. Honestly how bad could it go having Foakes in there? Just means one less schmuck in that middle order with Bairstow no longer connected to the ball and chain.Does anyone know whether his keeping is a big step-up on the JB's?
.
That's a very English way of looking at it, so probably a lot of people still think that way. If it was Australia they'd look at Bairstow as a guy who can potentially average 50+ at a destructive rate who's never going to more than a serviceable keeper. So focus on being a great bat and not an above average one 'who does a job' at keeping wicket. But I've been saying this for 12 months.Depends on whether people still believe JB is a better batsman when he keeps because it relieves the pressure and takes some of the focus off his batting.
I agree with you here scaly, still think one of the great stupidities of English cricket was Alec Stewart keeping and being an above average middle-order batsmen, when he could have been a borderline great Opener. I actually rated Stewart's 'keeping above both JB's too, and as I've said didn't hugely rate Jack Russell. Yet it just meant we played average middle-order players, like Hick, Ramps, Crawley and worse than them, when Russell could have done a partnership building job down the order (which he was proficient at) and Stewart could have averaged much more with Gooch/AthertonThat's a very English way of looking at it, so probably a lot of people still think that way. If it was Australia they'd look at Bairstow as a guy who can potentially average 50+ at a destructive rate who's never going to more than a serviceable keeper. So focus on being a great bat and not an above average one 'who does a job' at keeping wicket. But I've been saying this for 12 months.