Root and Bayliss look at the big picture

Bairstow

Looking at the big picture and England need Bairstow to make a go of it at 3 or as opener. He may desperately want to keep the gloves but the team needs him to bat 3. After his excellent century in the third test he let off some anger in his interviews after the day's play. Most of it was misjudged and gave the impression of a person who was focused on his self and didn't have concern for the team. There was no mention of the contributions of Ben Foakes in the previous two tests, only anger over his non selection. That Bairstow had only averaged 31 over the previous two years, hadn't scored a century in 11 tests in Asia, or that England had just won a series in Sri Lanka for the first time since 2001, with Ben Foakes being the key player didn't seem to cross his mind. Bayliss, Root and the selectors are looking at the big picture. Bairstow in this moment was looking at his own personal situation. Is it really surprising now that Bairstow wasn't even considered when Root was made captain?

On a purely motivation and personal level players need to find what works for them. If Bairstow requires this kind of motivation to make him work then that's all the better for England. Both Bairstow and Broad have dealt well with the threat of being dropped in recent times, upping their efforts and coming back better. That's the sign of top quality performers with strong mental characteristics. On a team level Bairstow seems like he is a little tough to get on with.

England now have 15-18 players who are international quality who bat between 4 and 11. Between 1 and 3 they have no proven quality. Rory Burns had a promising start, Keaton Jennings plays spin pretty well, and Jonny Bairstow just scored a hundred in his first innings at number 3 for England, but there is no guarantee any of them will be there in a year's time. For England's sake, Bairstow needs to make a go of it at 3, whether he likes it or not.

Archer

Jofra Archer is a game changer for England but does it risk the team equilibrium in 2019 in a year when they were already favourites for the 50 over WC and the Ashes?
 
The current iteration of the England ODI side has been built on 3 and 1/2 years of solid development and improvement. They are now favourites for the WC with/or without Archer. The selectors are left with an interesting dilemna. There's no doubt in my mind that Archer is good enough to be in the England ODI squad. Whilst England's batting is very strong the bowling still remains average and lacks a degree of penetration on flat wickets. Archer is a better bowler than Willey, Wood, Sam Curran, and Olly Stone who were competing for the last couple of spots in England's fifteen. By bringing Archer in though are they risking the squad's equilibrium. Currently as a result of the 3 and 1/2 years all the players in teh squad know their exact role in the team. It's a well oiled team at present. Eoin Morgan and Trevor Bayliss knows exactly how the team plays and how to get the best out of the personalities in the team. Tactically things may change if you have Archer in the side. Bringing in Archer at late notice does bring a certain pressure onto him and the team. Graeme Hick is a cautionary tale. Hick, like Archer, was dominant at county level and there was a groundswell of anticipation of his debut for England after serving a qualificiation period. As it was the pressure and expectation meant England never quite got the best out of Hick. The pressure will be large upon Archer's shoulders. There is also a pressure on the England management. England were favourites even before this announcement, there is a feel good factor around the side with the press and with fans. Bringing in Archer will only increase the expectations and the ECB will get some criticism for their cynical change of rules to suit their own purposes. Even moreso than before these critics will be looking for England to slip up.

At the end of the day though Morgan, Bayliss and selectors will have to do what is best for the side. They'll have to determine whether Archer offers enough to balance out the potential upset from bringing him in.

Post World Cup I think he'll be a regular whatever happens at the World Cup. He's a good fielder when motivated, useful lower order bat, and most importantly offers pace, hostility and has good skills for ODI cricket.

For test matches I feel he's a massive gamechanger for England. Away from home especially his ability to bowl on flat wickets should come in handy. Archer offers pace, bounce and hostility. His consistent pace is something that England don't naturally produce. We are good at the 80mph swing/seam bowler. In England there are maybe 12 or so guys (Anderson, Broad, TRJ, S Curran, C Overton, Woakes, Rushworth, Coad, Archer, Porter, Ball and T Curran)  who could do a job at international level and average less than 30, away from home this might be 1 or 2 (Anderson and Archer). England can use him two ways. He's got incredible speed endurance and for Sussex has bowled upto 25 overs a day at close to 85mph average speed. They could also use him in short bursts of genuine pace. For Australia where England bowlers have struggled for a long time he has all the attributes required. He has pace, he gets bounce and possibly most importantly he has the pace endurance to bowl 20+ overs in the day.

For this summer at least he may actually not make the side on merit. Home wickets have been fairly good for the bowlers in recent years, especially swing, and England will expect to beat Australia comfortably with or without Archer. For the time being he may have to wait to get past Broad, Anderson, Woakes and Curran. Once he does though I'd expect him to get 300+ test wickets at less than 30 all things being equal.