I have to say, I seem to almost be on my own here (not for the first time) in not being remotely bothered by the positions of the England batting line-up, it's the personnel that is clearly the problem. It seems to me to be emminently simple and people are utterly confusing things.
First Test, as it seems to have been nearly forgotten, almost everyone apart from Jennings and maybe Bairstow (but he was decent behind the stumps) gave some kind of good performances or vital cameo with bat or ball, with two outstanding performances from Root and Moeen helping us win comfortably.
Second Test One good performance from Jimmeh, bit of a cameo from Root, rest of them pretty much dross. Same positions different results, because the players didn't perform, which is what happens when you lose mainly.
You can say, and plenty are that you are not utilising people in their best positions, but it doesn't matter if your top order is 41-3 most of the time. Bairstow likes to keep, it's where his best runs come from, his 'keeping has improved immeasurably (I was a doubter but he's proven me wrong), so you want to switch him into the top 4, weaken our lower middle-order to put in a Wicketkeeper that maybe worse at both jobs, to put him in a position he doesn't want to bat.
In the end the selectors are just doing the only thing they can, chop and change and hope someone can do a job in the top 3 along with Cook.
I'm sure Northeast will get a go one day, and I'm sure Stoneman will, people need to be patient as practically everyone that people have screamed for selection has got a go. None are good enough though, which is the fundamental and basic problem, and pissing around with batting line-ups won't change players being rubbish. Yet hey maybe Westley and Malan will be the ones
Oh and Dawsons got to go of course, we talk about multi-faceted cricketers and I've yet to see his one facet. Pick another spinner, seamer, batsman (even if Moeen or Stokes have to bat at 8
), strengthens the side.