India in England Aug-Sep 2021 (& July 2022)

[sussexpob]

Sorry for the rant, but the last thing I will say is... during the 2nd test one of England's batting coaches who worked with the team last in the winter, Ramps, was on the BBC highlights talking about a few dismissals. He came to that Hameed one where Hameed was cemented in the crease and played round a rank half volley..... Ramps concluded this wasnt a technincal issue and Hameed had setup well, concluding it was just nerves. Ramps also said Burns technique at some point was great.

Considering Ramps has worked with both players for the international team, I am left in no wonder why none of our batters improve; I mean, if your batting coach sees no problem with you missing a half volley while playing almost off the back foot to it, then you dont need to look far as to why not a single player improved under his guidance.

How have England got to the point of having clowns like this get near the setup? I dont need 50 tests for England and 100 x 100 in the CC to know missing a half volley by a foot while static in the crease is the most basic failures of technique. If he doesnt see that, then he should be nowhere near the England setup.

[alfie]

That's a very cheerful assessment , Sussex

Much of what you say is true but I'm not sure "fixing" it is as easy as you seem to imply. Not as if England have not tried plenty of batsmen over the last few years : in many cases with quite extensive runs. None since Root have performed with any consistency or reached any great level - which is why the current group all average low thirties at best but hold their places (for now) and why the likes of Malan are recycled...

You make a good case for throwing most of the team out but unless you have a magic wand that will (a) identify the next Root and (b) make sure he actually lives up to the hype instead of flattering to deceive like Vince Pope Crawley Sibley Lawrence : (need I go on ? ) I suspect the selectors aren't about to conduct a mass extermination ...

If they continue to pick the Bairstows and Moeens it is because they have in the past shown the ability to turn Test Matches ; and because those who have been tried in their place have thus far failed to do any better or even as well. And even now they are probably more likely to make a modest contribution than some of the other candidates currently available. (I do by the way agree Pope is a player worth investing some time in. Not certain he will succeed as he has a few technical deficiencies and so far has emulated a lot of his peers in regularly getting out when seemingly set ; but hopeful)

Covid and the messed up first class season aren't helping either. The Ashes tour looms as a possible extinction event even though Australia are not really a vintage selection at present ; so it may actually be in England's best interests to persist with most of the current crop until after that - and commence with a spring clean next year with some unscarred new faces...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Can't even stick a pin in the top end of the averages anymore as the CC has been shot to pieces. Not much meaningful cricket for those out of form to get some batting. No A cricket. I don't remember that they did any good, but England used to invest a lot of time on specialist camps in certain conditions but that seems to have been discarded. As Alfie says it feels like everything has tried. New players have failed. Recalled players have failed. The profile of the game gets ever lower, young players coming into the game get fewer and from less various backgrounds. These problems have been accumulating even in years when the side was doing ok.

England have great limited overs sides. If the ECB planned to promote the white ball side over the red then they can claim a big success. At a domestic level they clearly see the future as the fewer balls the better. Now even 50 over cricket has been cut off.

[sussexpob]

Much of what you say is true but I'm not sure "fixing" it is as easy as you seem to imply.

Oh dont get me wrong, I think that many of the problems with the side run very deep into the games administration and will require radical changes to correct. In many ways, the team is representative of a decade plus long bad policy from the ECB, and until that is addressed its unlikely that England will suddenly transform into a world class side overnight. But even with those problems, you cant simply sit by and accept the reality of being uncompetitive. You have to try something new with the ingredients you have at your disposal.

I accept that it might sound counter-productive to many people, but its just the way I have always looked at these sorts of situations; if something is broken and you dont know how to fix it, then it will remain broken unless you do something; so whats the harm in trying anything? Unless of course you just accept that the current scenario is acceptable and represents the peak of your potential, which in this case, I am loathe to accept. So any player who is not up to an objective mark of being good enough is replaceable, and should not return in my eyes.

You make a good case for throwing most of the team out but unless you have a magic wand that will (a) identify the next Root and (b) make sure he actually lives up to the hype

The next Root? At this current stage I would snap your hands off for the next Nathan Astle

I mean you joke I am cheery about my assessments, but I look at the current team and refuse to believe that there is no one capable of averaging over 30 in international cricket from the county game, because sadly having everyone score 30 runs an innings at the moment as a minimum would represent an improvement of sorts. Its a mark pretty much all of England's recent new caps an havent made. I mean, if you think thats not possible then that really is a huge negative assessment. I've lost some faith, but believing thats not possible is to give up on everything. A set of players averaging 35 would be a marked improvement - and even in the dark days of the 1990s, we had a core of players able to do that. I dont feel we are demanding much to emulate one of our worst batting line ups in history.

Fletcher managed to do exactly that, and he did it by picking certain characteristics in players; players like Michael Vaughan for instance, who had bad averages but who could at least defend their wickets well. How many of Englands current players have the technique just to survive? Go out and find the person with the best forward defensive out there, and just ask him to bat for 300 runs and see if he can nurdle some decent scores. England have done the opposite, its always been about how people attack, but very little of these players have shown ability to defend. Test cricket is more about the later.

Making changes also changes a negative culture. England wont tolerate failure, while at the same time telling county players nows the time to make runs - show something, you get a chance. One of the major problems with the team is that I get the feeling most county bats probably dont have any belief they have a chance, and sort of become mediocre without trying. Again Fletcher was a genius at giving the game a shot in the arm just by being willing and able to pick players who showed him something other than a page of stats.

How disheartening must it be to the average bat in CC making say 35 odd runs an inninngs to see Hameed, who at one point averaged 8 runs in a season two years ago, get a chance over you? Or to see Crawley average under 30 and get a test cap? Or Jennings and Stoneman with averages just above 30 in long careers?

This sort of selection destroys the will to stand out and plays into the problems with CC. Someone like Foakes for instance must wonder what he has done - he averages just under 40 with the bat and should walk into the team for 20 tests on his batting alone - and thats before you take into account he's England's best keeper. Yet he scored a 100, got dropped 2 tests later averaging 40, and was replaced by someone who has been terrible since.

And yet, when he comes back for another 1 off test and fails, he is the problem? When his CC form dives after, he is the problem? Is he the problem, or has he worked out its probably not worth working hard to be constantly overlooked for long term failures who are arguably much inferior to you?

I mean, Foakes got dropped for a player who couldnt even be bothered to play FC cricket in a few years .... so why should he be bothered? Its not like it matters.

[Durhamfootman]

Oh crumbs... just caught up

so Headingley was just a blip after all. Can't say I'm surprised

[Durhamfootman]

if England want to win matches then they are going to have to stop playing in London

[bigfluffylemon]

Agree with nearly everything sussex has said. The only quibble is an apparent contradiction with how you pick players. On the one hand you praise Fletcher for going on 'gut' and picking players who didn't have a good average in the CC, then criticise the selections of players who had a poor CC average on the basis there are others out there with better numbers.

I'm deliberately being provocative, heaven knows I agree with you about Foakes and have always thought he should be in the team. But I'm guessing that whatever was behind the Crawley selection, it was probably a selector or two trying to do what Fletcher did, seeing things they liked despite a poor average and reckoning they were picking on potential to shine at international level rather than current form. Obviously that didn't work, but neither did all Fletcher's picks (Rob Key, anybody?). And having picked on apparent 'potential', you do need to give players a run in the side to give them a chance to live up to that potential. Not many players enter the international scene fully formed - in the later 2000s England managed to get Strauss, Cook, KP, Trott and Prior, all of whom shined from debut, but that's generally not the case. Flintoff, Bell, Stokes, Broad, Anderson, all took some time to develop and had pretty bad records in the early days. But you'd bite the hand off anyone who offered you an Ian Bell now. And what they did have was a core of performing players around them who could shield them somewhat when they were inconsistent. Now there is really only Root, Stokes, Anderson and Broad, and they are not all available.

What is beyond baffling though is continually going back to players who have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't have what it takes, with no evidence they've improved their game. The constant selection of Bairstow does my head in. He's repeatedly failed to score consistent runs, with the odd decent score here and there, and there is a more consistent bat and better keeper in Foakes who can't get a game. Moeen v Leach - apparently Moeen gets the nod because he can bat, but he has done naff all with the bat at test level in the last few years, while Leach is a better spinner and has probably batted better than Moeen recently too (1* anyone?). Crawley was given his run, failed and now should come nowhere near the side again until weight of runs in the CC shows he's overcome his flaws. But I'll bet the mortgage he's on the plane to Australia.

Unless England win at Old Trafford (unlikely, but if they get a greentop and cloudy conditions, they might), we're looking at four consecutive series defeats, assuming we lose the Ashes too. That hasn't happened since 1986, I believe. England haven't lost two home series in a summer for goodness knows how long, at least the 90s. Since 2001 we have lost four home series before this year, three of them by a one test margin and two (India 2007 and Sri Lanka 2014) by razor-thin margins (I still haven't forgiven Bucknor for incorrectly giving Sreesanth not out lbw v Panesar at Lord's in 2007. The rain arrived 5 minutes later and India got a draw 9 down). Now we're going to lose two series in one summer. This and another inevitable Ashes thumping should prompt a major reckoning. I hope it does, and something changes, because obviously something drastic has to. After losing heavily to South Africa in 2016 Australia had a major cleanout, dropping five players. Four never played another test, and Joe Burns took 4 years to come back after earning it in the Shield). But I daresay the result will be that the England management get a report, shrug, and continue promoting the 100.

(Aside - And I have never been more pessimistic about our chances in the Ashes since 2002 - sure in 05/06 and 13/14 the result was horrendous, but before hand England had a competitive squad on paper, home success in the previous Ashes and the preceeding summer, so there was reason to think we'd at least be competitive. The reality was different, of course, but I don't think anyone prior to the 13/14 series predicted an inconsistent bowler who'd gone for 5 an over the previous time around would produce the greatest series of fast bowling since the West Indies terrorised batsmen in the 80s. There is nothing in the current England test setup that suggests we are going to manage anything other than abject defeat in Australia, against a decent but vulnerable Australian side. But I digress).

[alfie]

Bit pointless going on about Foakes , chaps...he's been out of action with an injury for months.

I think he will probably get another shot at some stage : but the assumption that he will do better with the bat than Bairstow or Buttler over a significant period of time is just that.
Incidentally both those fellows average around 33 - 34 : which is quite acceptable in a keeper provided the specialist bats are up to scratch. The real problem has always been the fragility of the top three - something which has not been solved despite a number of players showing glimpses of promise - since the departures of Strauss , Trott and finally Cook.
One might say we were spoiled to have the three of them around together : but I agree one might have expected someone to claim at least one of those spots by now.

I can see why pessimism is in vogue today (I also have grave fears for the Ashes touring team) but should point out that the team is currently missing their most charismatic game changer and key allrounder , as well as a couple of first choice pace bowlers - and are being beaten by an outstanding Indian outfit who are perhaps being given too little credit. And if it comes to that they are only down 2-1 at present and were arguably in a position to have won both those lost matches until they were outdone in key passages of play. "IF" a couple of catches had been taken we might well be looking at a completely different scoreline ; which wouldn't really change much in terms of the general "class" of the current playing group - but I fancy would cause the discussions around the state of the national team to be a little less frenzied.

There are surely issues around the CC schedule , pitch preparation , whiteball priorities etc which are not helping the development of Test batsmen in England. Many of these factors are not new. But great players have emerged - and will do again. Unfortunately these things cannot be guaranteed in the time frames we might wish. Until some new stars do find their way onto the stage England will have to make the best they can with the imperfect list available : hopefully the Burns/Hameed pairing at the top of the order (which has , need I point out , recorded two century stands in three innings so far) will develop further - this would certainly be a good start !

As I said , no guarantees. But it was only a couple of years ago everyone was moaning about the dreadful lack of pace bowling options ; and now there are quite a number from whom to choose...just unfortunate that most of them are injured right now

Jokes aside I am not suggesting there aren't big problems for the England test team at present. But I think we just might be be overdoing the doom and gloom in the face of a poor run against the two top teams in the world. This isn't "officially bottom of the Test rankings" time revisited. And it didn't actually take that long to start the rise back from that particular nadir either ; though it was a fair old haul to top of the world...

My glass remains less than half full. But it isn't empty.

[sussexpob]

Agree with nearly everything sussex has said. The only quibble is an apparent contradiction with how you pick players. On the one hand you praise Fletcher for going on 'gut' and picking players who didn't have a good average in the CC, then criticise the selections of players who had a poor CC average on the basis there are others out there with better numbers...... But I'm guessing that whatever was behind the Crawley selection, it was probably a selector or two trying to do what Fletcher did, seeing things they liked despite a poor average and reckoning they were picking on potential to shine at international level rather than current form.

You have to remember that any "gut" feeling is subjected to whatever bias is inherent in those making the judgement. David Court and Mo Bobat, England's player Identification leads, have explained in regards to Crawley that his county form was secondary to what they referred to their own "holistic" assessment; that being a sort of ill defined collection of subjective views about a players capacity to improve, using such things as his perceived character and personality. Court went as far as to say that these assessments are made in reference to the established player pathway in place; a document which Flower and Downton created, and where by memory of viewing it, the most important defining characteristic to rate potential of a youngsters capacity to improve came from their academic education background. To be part of Flower's system, one has to achieve academic excellence to stay in.

Here is where it gets tricky, because it is pretty obvious that assessments made at an early age in a players development really do matter. I think the stat is that about 80 percent of people capped since Flower's pathway was written progressed through the complete pathway - that being Lions, Development camps, England U-19. Such a stat indicates that players who were not identified at an early age as "the right stuff" are ignored completely afterwards to a large extent.

Crawley does not satisfy such a test because he did not complete the International Pathway (didnt represent the U-19s, not sure about the Lions) but subsequent assessment in the scouting system deemed he had satisfied the criteria to have done so with future conduct. Bobat and Court felt he was the right stuff, as did their scouting team assessments. And while he is one of the few players not to complete it, he is still a product of it. He still went through it even if he didnt graduate the full programme. He is still a Flower product..

What is this right stuff though? As we said before, the pathway itself makes exhaustive references to academic achievement. The funny thing? The Sunday Times when Crawley printed that he did so in an England team that beat a record - 9 of the team in that NZ test came from private school backgrounds. Only Jofra Archer, who didnt grow up in England nor came through their youth development scheme, didn't along with Jack Leach. Think back to 2019. How much press was around saying Jofra Archer should not be capped for England. Think back a little further and how many people said Jack Leach wasnt the "right stuff"??? Flower certainly didnt think Leach was the right stuff. He called him immature and not ready for test cricket. Leach was subjected to a bit of a character assassination. He averages under 30 in tests and cant get in this team. He is deemed not mentally strong enough, but then saved a test v Ireland by scoring nearly a 100, saved an Ashes series with Ben Stokes, and has an identical bowling average to England's best spinner in 50 years.

At what stage do we acknowledge that "being the right stuff" means being a white guy who is privately educated?

Another example that supports this is the case of Liam Livingstone, another comprehensively educated school player. In 2016 he and Hameed debuted for their first full season for Lancashire - Livingstone averaged 50 in the year, Hameed I think slightly under him. Hameed got the international call, Livingstone was sent to the Lions. In the Lions, Livingstone is acknowledged to have possibly the best Lions game ever - he scored two x 100s in a game on a bunsen vs a strong spin attack from Sri Lanka, in 50 degree heat. In doing so everyone who witnessed it said his footwork was something no one had ever seen from an English bat in spinning conditions. Whitaker said he was by far the Lions best prospect and tipped him for the top. Flower I think said he was the cleanest hitter he'd ever seen.

But then came the usual nonsense. When England started to pass on him, what had first been reported in the summer as Livingstone being a strong character and combative, started to turn into Livingstone being a problematic presence on the field by getting into spats. Just like Leach, the character assassination started as soon as the England setup were looking for a reason to justify not picking him. Just another commoner who doesnt know how to behave.

I might get my years wrong at this stage, but I believe Jennings ended up at Lancashire after a whole series being outclassed vs South Africa, and set about scoring runs. Livingstone and him averaged high 40s. Jennings got the nod despite already failing miserably in about 10 back to back innings without a 50 and widely acknowledged as having massive issues with static feet. The ECB propaganda machine cranked up - Jennings WAS the right stuff. Future England Captain material was banned about a lot, all round great guy - also educated at an elite school who's former students included Gary Player, Graeme Smith and about 20 SA high profile test players.

In the end, Livingstone had out performed Hameed, and performed similar to Jennings with the additional factor that he also took wickets at an average of 35 with part time spin - considering England had picked Ansari with a very average record for his secondary spin, it makes favouring Hameed over Livingstone even more puzzling. But Hameed was the darling of the press and so was Jennings, while Livingstone painted as the problem child - its just no one could ever come up with much of a specific example.

The other form of bias is which county you play for. Stoneman had done very little to justify selection at Durham, then went to Surrey and got a cap instantly. 7 batters in that Surrey team have played for England since, or at that time. While you can say Stoneman did well, it was in a side that was doing well and playing probably on roads. Surrey also had 8 international capped bowlers play for them at some point that year, only one of them averaged under 34.... T.Curran averaged about 35 and got capped in that winter. Sam Curran averaged 48 per wicket and got capped before his next CC game. Playing for Surrey seems to be a great way to the international team. Stoneman scored 1200 runs that year and got capped. Nick Gubbins scored nearly 1500 and didnt at Middlesex. He'd have been straight into the side if he'd been at Surrey.

That was another thing about Crawley too actually; Bobat stated that his analysis confirmed that Crawley made runs playing half his matches in Kent, a pitch that gave up little runs that year - Kent had the most batting points in the CC that year. Get your head around that. Crawley was about Kent's 4th best batter.

[sussexpob]

There is therefore a clear difference between picking objectively on gut instincts, and creating a system that simply justifies being exclusive. Fletcher picked players on the basis of what he thought they offered as cricketers, things of a technical level he could work on. Since Flower came to England, England pick players on the invisible capacity of academic intelligence or personality.

[sussexpob]

Bit pointless going on about Foakes , chaps...he's been out of action with an injury for months.

The reference is about historical injustice towards him, Alfie

I guess in answer to your post (no one want to read another of my Essay's) its just a continued trend that is worrysome. Its hard to be positive about a system that is created to replicate failure. England havent selected a decent test bat in an age, yet the people responsible like Bobat for deciding the worth of players get promoted. The coaches who cant get any players ready get promoted and more autonomous. There is no accountability. Players consistently fail and get picked again and again.

At some stage we need to rip this up and sack everyone, and get rid of 3-4 players permanently. Far from improve, people like Bairstow just sink to the bottom endlessly.

[alfie]

Bit pointless going on about Foakes , chaps...he's been out of action with an injury for months.

The reference is about historical injustice towards him, Alfie

I guess in answer to your post (no one want to read another of my Essay's) its just a continued trend that is worrysome. Its hard to be positive about a system that is created to replicate failure. England havent selected a decent test bat in an age, yet the people responsible like Bobat for deciding the worth of players get promoted. The coaches who cant get any players ready get promoted and more autonomous. There is no accountability. Players consistently fail and get picked again and again.

At some stage we need to rip this up and sack everyone, and get rid of 3-4 players permanently. Far from improve, people like Bairstow just sink to the bottom endlessly.

Oh I do get the point that Foakes has been a bit unlucky to have not had many chances (though some of that is down to bad luck with injury at the wrong time and the effects of covid bubbles rather than victimization. But I also think he might be growing in stature a little by not playing at a time the team is struggling. He did very well in Sri Lanka on debut : not so much in subsequent appearances in West Indies and India , though he wasn't awful either. At this point I'd suggest he remains untested against strong pace attacks (what a pity he missed the NZ Tests early this summer !) so is no guarantee to be a marked improvement on the status quo.
As for Bairstow - who seems to attract a somewhat overdone amount of vitriol on here - I would point out that his "highs" have been better than most of the current crop of bats ; and even though he has had a very poor run over the last couple of years he has in this series looked sounder than most apart from Joe Root. He has arguably been messed around by management more than anyone (apart perhaps from Moeen Ali ) in terms of being shuffled around the order to plug holes : in fact we might almost call some of his treatment "historical injustice "

But hey we all have our subjective judgements re individual players and will likely never agree on them . Your broader point about the basis for England selection being , essentially , something other than cricketing skills is something on which I simply don't feel qualified to comment. I have not sat in on selection meetings or discussed the merits of players with the coaching and talent identification staff so cannot say what weight this or that factor has had on selection decisions.
Have to say that your record of dissing pretty well everything Flower did with England might suggest just a tiny touch of bias in your assessment ? Once again , this doesn't make you wrong but I'm not sure I'm prepared to swallow some of your more extreme assertions...

Where I think we can agree is that some of the selections made over the last several years have been a bit muddled. Some players have been discarded quite quickly ; others given prolonged runs in the side , or recycled seemingly endlessly. Looking at the current state of the batting , none of this has done a lot of good. The trouble is that selection is perhaps as much an art as a science - or sometimes more of a lucky dip. Pick a player on a hunch - or a brilliant piece of talent identification - take your pick : if he turns out to be a Vaughan or a Trescothick you win big ... if he's the next Keaton Jennings , not so much.

I just don't think there is any "easy" answer. Permanently binning three or four players might satisfy the urge to punish somebody for the disappointment felt by the fans ; but unless the replacements do better - or even as well - it does little for either immediate success or future player development. It's often a slow process but I reckon the only logical way to improve the team is to offer opportunities to players who demonstrate ability , and give them a reasonable chance to show whether or not they can succeed . They probably have a better chance of doing so if they are surrounded by a group who are neither total duds nor fellow rookies. In truth most of the really good players show out quite quickly : Cook , Strauss , Root , Pietersen ( though others like Bell - or Gooch ! ) took a little time.
Eventually , someone sticks. You rebuild the wall one brick at a time.

I'm rambling. Sorry. Enough for now. But in passing , I quite like the look of Livingstone but don't see him as a top three candidate for Test Cricket.

[sussexpob]

Oh I do get the point that Foakes has been a bit unlucky to have not had many chances (though some of that is down to bad luck with injury at the wrong time and the effects of covid bubbles rather than victimization. But I also think he might be growing in stature a little by not playing at a time the team is struggling. He did very well in Sri Lanka on debut : not so much in subsequent appearances in West Indies and India , though he wasn't awful either. At this point I'd suggest he remains untested against strong pace attacks (what a pity he missed the NZ Tests early this summer !) so is no guarantee to be a marked improvement on the status quo

A teams selection policy is as much about optics as it is the success of the individual choices you make. The way you select the national team sets out the demands and expectations for everyone in the domestic game, and that should be as transparent and objective as possible. Such a system becomes encouraging as players know their pathway to the team and know if they play well, they will be considered. I look at Ben Foakes case and think what did he not do to deserve a run in the team?

He's had to deal with the fact that England said they couldnt pick Bairstow and another keeper, then watch as Buttler came into the team with Bairstow. His form then dipped slightly (still average of 37) and was told it wasnt good enough and he had to score runs, when Bairstow wasnt scoring and Buttler was picked having essentially retired from FC cricket. He had two failures in the West Indies and that seen him dropped for poor form after a wonder debut, while Bairstow averaged 18 in 10 tests that year and kept him out. When Bairstow was finally dropped and Buttler got injured, England picked Ollie Pope to keep in NZ.

Unsuprisingly Foakes says he nearly retired in 2019/20 and walked away from the game for the winter to take a break. Thats what you do to players in the game when you treat them like that. In a year he went from batting brillliantly and being celebrated as the worlds best keeper, to being dropped with a 40 plus average and being relegated to England's 4th choice keeper.

England are a poor side, how a standout keeper of his generation with a bat average better than most people in the team is considered England's 4 or even 5th choice (as Bracey also came in this year) is criminal treatment of players.

It spells out to everyone in county cricket that you can be excellent over long periods, even be excellent in the team, but if the face dont fit you may as well not bother. If you are a young keeper, what encouragement is that.

[sussexpob]

As for Bairstow - who seems to attract a somewhat overdone amount of vitriol on here - I would point out that his "highs" have been better than most of the current crop of bats

He averages 27 since Root became captain, you cant really do any worse than that. And he has played an average of 10 tests per year, so its not like he hasnt been given a chance or victimised. Even in the days of specialist proper keepers, youd expect a basic bog-standard keeper to average that. But Bairstow is not up to the level with the gloves. And in that 4 year period his form has declined, not got better. At what stage do you have to say enough is enough? his last 20 tests he averages 20, there are number 9's who can do that.

If we are at the point where we seriously cant get a keeper bat to average over 20, then god we are in trouble. Foakes had a disaster along with everyone else in India and managed 18 an innings, so if 18 is disaster and 20 acceptable, the margins between a test career being considered over and one that requires constant picking is very fine indeed.

[alfie]

All right , Sussex : I don't intend to prolong this as you clearly have very different views to mine re some players.

I will point out though that averages are just that : averages. They are designed to take into account a player's high and low points ; good years and bad. Once you start with the "in his last so many games " or "So and so averages abc ; but if you take out his best year (or his worst) it becomes xyz " you are talking selective stats , not averages.

Not that this matters. Averages don't tell the whole story. Recent form , how a fellow is actually playing , etc. We can use our eyes rather than just read figures.

For the record I would have preferred England to persist with Foakes after the second Test in West Indies. Probably said so at the time , maybe even on here. But they didn't. Which meant among other things that we didn't get to see how he handled the Aussie attack. And right now they are apparently wedded to Buttler as keeper so he is probably fortunate to have had the three Tests in India.
I do think he's been a bit unlucky but a lot of keepers could say that over the years : with one spot in a team it is often a matter of timing - form and injuries.

Anyway each to his own opinion. Looks as if selection arguments might be irrelevant for now with the news coming out of the Indian camp...