Agree on the Bairstow point, been saying since the first test he should be at 6 in Stokes' absence, but I still believe wholeheartedly that Stokes wouldn't have made that much difference to the results - obv we'd have been better without him, but we've been spanked by 10 wickets 150+ runs and facing an innings defeat here, as close as it has been in parts, thats like losing 4-0, 3-0 and being 3-0 down with 10 mins left. Other than the 2nd innings at Adelaide the bowling attack has been impotent, especially the openers 1 of whom's time as a guaranteed place must be up. You could argue that our best bowler in the past 2 tests has been COverton who he would have been playing instead of, and like I'd said, I don't think he is that good a test bowler that he'd have made a difference on these pitches, he's not express pace like Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood and is typically a lot more expensive than Broaderson