• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bairstow or Brook?

Bairstow or Brook?

  • Total voters


Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can't see why it would be an option between the 2 of them. Both should play ahead of the current top 3 and while Foakes' keeping is important even he can be replaced. Better off rearranging the batting order than leave out a better player


State Vice-Captain
Both Brook and Bairstow will play in the Ashes if they're fit.

Brook is an exceptional young player in all formats and will be the mainstay of our batting over the next decade.

Bairstow is in the form of his life and was brilliant in the summer.

I think it'll depend on the particular circumstances of the game as to who drops out.

Sometimes it may be Foakes but if it's a pitch in England that doesn't look like it'll spin at all, then we may go in with 3 seamers, Stokes and Root as our bowlers and play YJB, Brook and Foakes.

The other option is moving either Root or Pope to open instead of Crawley but I don't expect us to go down that route.


U19 Cricketer
I have only watched a bit of highlights of this guy Brook and to me he looks like a batsman with a better technique and temperament than Bairstow. England should play Bairstow as a specialist batsman...but then whom will they drop? Good headache for English selectors.

Better to get rid of Crawley!


International Debutant
IMO to truly understand “Bazball” you have to understand that it stands or falls on ability to take 20 wickets. It’s not actually about the batting which is what many (/most) people focus on. England’s success in limited overs cricket has been built on “whatever you score (within the allocated overs), we’ll score more”. But in test cricket that’s not enough. Absent assistance from oppo declarations, you can only win by taking 20 wickets. In fact, without taking 20 wickets, England will likely (usually) lose. That’s what the batting approach does.

Once you factor this in, talk of Foakes (as the best keeper) making way or dropping bowlers to accommodate batsmen starts to look very problematic. It may be a rational decision. It may even be the correct decision. But it would, I think, conflict with Stokes’ instincts.

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Pope's averaging 43 at #3. Given how much of a problem the top three have been for England over an extended period I think it'd be insane to drop him. If they want to mess with the batting order to get both Bairstow and Brook in they probably need to drop an opener.


Cricketer Of The Year
What might be a #BazBall idea (and a good one IMO) is to have Pope and Bairstow rotate keeping, each an hour on an hour off.


Hall of Fame Member
Pope to open instead of Crawley, done.
Just no. Pope's doing fine at 3, Root prefers 4 and Brook's doing absolutely fine at 5. Fixing three things that aren't actually broken isn't the way that I'd go. If we are going to change the batting order, I'm with whoever suggested that Stokes opens.


Audio File
Probably worth seeing where we're at when next summer rolls around first tbh. Pretty rare that everyone's fit with our schedule being what it is, and there'll be a fair whack of early season county cricket to look at by then as well.