Does Ben Foakes have a legitimate case for Test selection?

[Brook's side]

Yep, I've seen that one. And plenty of others. He's stocky, not wiry. Profiles of Evans even describe him as such.

OK then, so there's no distinction between on the one hand the type of player who's a batsman and trains to keep to improve his utility value, and on the other hand a great natural keeper, because you have seen descriptions of godfrey evans as being "stocky" rather than "wiry". Glad we've got that settled.

 

[trundler]

OK then, so there's no distinction between on the one hand the type of player who's a batsman and trains to keep to improve his utility value, and on the other hand a great natural keeper, because you have seen descriptions of godfrey evans as being "stocky" rather than "wiry". Glad we've got that settled.

If you're going to be so precious about being challenged you shouldn't be making so many dubious assertions.

 

[Brook's side]

If you're going to be so precious about being challenged you shouldn't be making so many dubious assertions.

How would you like me to respond to the contention that Godfrey Evans was stocky rather than wiry?

 

[trundler]

How would you like me to respond to the contention that Godfrey Evans was stocky rather than wiry?

"Interesting. I thought otherwise and here's why..."

 

[Starfighter]

Godfrey Evans was most definitely stocky. Like, you'd have be ignorant and maybe even blind to not know.

 

[Brook's side]

"Interesting. I thought otherwise and here's why..."

Godfrey Evans was most definitely stocky. Like, you'd have be ignorant and maybe even blind to not know.

What if I don't find it interesting (which I don't) that someone else thinks that Godfrey Evans was stocky?

I mean the essence of the point that I've made isn't that Godfrey Evans is wiry.

The point that I've made (already as a sub-point to my essential premise) is that top class wicketkeepers tend to have a particular physicality.

The fact that someone's seen Godfrey Evans described as stocky, or thinks that the picture of him doesn't look wiry, is neither here nor there.

My original point stands which is (essentially) that there are some wicketkeepers who are picked primarily because they are brilliant wicketkeepers, and there are some (in the modern day) who are picked primarily for their batting and who have in most cases converted to the wicker keeper role to enhance their usefulness to a side (and therefore increased their chances of being picked).

For the record, I do not agree that someone would have to be ignorant and blind to think that Godfrey Evans in his youth was not wiry (or more generally did not fit the general physicality of a wicket keeper).

 

[Brook's side]

@Starfighter
If you are prepared to assert than someone is blind and ignorant for opining that the man in the cap is more "wiry" than "stocky", then that says considerably more about you than it does about me.

 

[trundler]

What if I don't find it interesting (which I don't) that someone else thinks that Godfrey Evans was stocky?

I mean the essence of the point that I've made isn't that Godfrey Evans is wiry.

The point that I've made (already as a sub-point to my essential premise) is that top class wicketkeepers tend to have a particular physicality.

The fact that someone's seen Godfrey Evans described as stocky, or thinks that the picture of him doesn't look wiry, is neither here nor there.

My original point stands which is (essentially) that there are some wicketkeepers who are picked primarily because they are brilliant wicketkeepers, and there are some (in the modern day) who are picked primarily for their batting and who have in most cases converted to the wicker keeper role to enhance their usefulness to a side (and therefore increased their chances of being picked).

For the record, I do not agree that someone would have to be ignorant and blind to think that Godfrey Evans in his youth was not wiry (or more generally did not fit the general physicality of a wicket keeper).

There are 2 exceptions in your list of 5.

 

[Blenkinsop]

The point that I've made (already as a sub-point to my essential premise) is that top class wicketkeepers tend to have a particular physicality.

Your point would have been a lot more effective if more than three out of your five examples had actually had that physicality. Evans didn't. Neither does Foakes. Neither did, say, Ian Healy or Jeff Dujon for that matter.

 

[Brook's side]

There are 2 exceptions in your list of 5.

How interesting.

 

[Brook's side]

Your point would have been a lot more effective if more than three out of your five examples had actually had that physicality. Evans didn't. Neither does Foakes. Neither did, say, Ian Healy or Jeff Dujon for that matter.

Yes Dujon's a good example. Definitely looks like a wicket keeper. As does Foakes.

Obviously if you were told Healey was a cricketer, you'd say he was a keeper. Unlike for instance James Bracey etc, who looks nothing like a wicket keeper.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Yes Dujon's a good example. Definitely looks like a wicket keeper.

Well the big floppy gloves are a dead giveaway.

 

[slowfinger]

idon’t know where the assumption that tall wiry figures make for “natural” keepers. i always assumed shorter, more nimble footed physiques made for better keepers.

Prior, Mushfiqur Rahim, Pant, Reed, Ambrose, Jack Russell, etc.

 

[Ali TT]

idon’t know where the assumption that tall wiry figures make for “natural” keepers. i always assumed shorter, more nimble footed physiques made for better keepers.

Prior, Mushfiqur Rahim, Pant, Reed, Ambrose, Jack Russell, etc.

I think he's just making stuff up at this point

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If you are prepared to assert than someone is blind and ignorant for opining that the man in the cap is more "wiry" than "stocky", then that says considerably more about you than it does about me.

It's a minor point, but I would like to indicate @Brook's side's correctness on this one, about Godfrey Evans.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

 

[Brook's side]

It's a minor point, but I would like to indicate @Brook's side's correctness on this one, about Godfrey Evans.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

I would certainly agree with stocky in the first 3 photos.

I posted a photo (presumably from earlier in his career) last night where wiry would be more appropriate than stocky. I would also say th 4th picture above i wiry, which was the one that I originally based him on when including him in the list of players that look like wicket keepers.

Regardless, the debate on Evans' stature is almost inconsequential in relation to my overall point, and it's obtuse to the point of farce to be focusing on this particular question and ignoring the wider point.

 

[Brook's side]

To put the ridiculous exchange above into context, it's useful to have a reminder of how this started, which was that a poster @Ali TT (who has since repeatedly vehemently taken issue with the whole concept that an international keeper can be primarily a batsman, or a converted batsman) wrote,

"England have had a few cases of selecting batting keepers who are a bit hapless with the gloves to start with..."

to which I replied (I thought helpfully) with a list of the keepers that England have picked in the last approx 30 years, with their number of caps, and nominally assigning them between the 2 'groups' of keepers (which for the sake of providing a designation for the 2 lists, I labelled specialist and non-specialist).

Since I did that, the poster who made the original point about "selecting batting keepers who are a bit hapless with the gloves" and various others have appeared intent on trying to make me out to be "ignorant" for suggesting any such thing.

 

[Burgey]

It's a minor point, but I would like to indicate @Brook's side's correctness on this one, about Godfrey Evans.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

Wiry, not stocky.

I’m encouraged that at 53 and currently unable to exercise due to injury, I might still be described as “wiry”.

And it’s a bit of silly question to ask if Foakes has a case to be selected in England’s test side. He’s proven himself a very good keeper and a decent batsman at test level. You don’t leave someone like that out of a discussion about your test side.

 

[Burgey]

Well can Crawley GTFO? He's tonned up in the latest CC round. His team has completely collapsed around him too.

Yesssss. Yesssss. Keep going Zac.

It’s all coming together for Australia in the Ashes.

 

[Burgey]

Personally, if he can find a way to replicate those exact statistics against the attack he is due to face, and his surely superior keeping, I’d have him in the team.

If Foakes replicates his career numbers in the Ashes he will likely be England’s leading run scorer in the series.