Ashes 2025-26.

[sussexpob]

McC said he didn't want the batters confidence being undermined ahead of the second test.

Not exactly a glowing assessment... I dont want to expose them to failure, so we wont play them.

[andy]

Surely their confidence can't get any lower? They may say that they're fine but there's no way they can have any actual batting confidence surely...

[Durhamfootman]

trust the process, probably

[Arthur Crabtree]

Walk towards the danger!

[Durhamfootman]

do bend over to pick up the soap in the prison shower

that one might have been a chapter in Sarkozy's book

[Durhamfootman]

as long as they remember never to walk into the light, no matter what Baz tells them

[alfie]

Seems odd not to take the opportunity of playing a night game with a pink ball when they have time. However I did see comments some time ago from an Australian State coach/player (name escapes me for now) that the conditions in Canberra would be so far removed from those in Brisbane that the practice benefits would be extremely minimal.

As we saw in Perth , it is the treatment of bounce/length that brings visiting players undone ... and certainly did England's top order. If they can bring themselves to have a decent look at the bowling before flashing outside off they might have a chance to make runs - pink ball or otherwise. And Pope in particular needs to accept if you've been beaten half a dozen times outside off it probably isn't a great idea to keep swinging away - especially when you have just lost your partner.

I have no problem with them continuing to proceed with a very aggressive game plan : it (notably the hammering of Boland ) arguably enabled them to score 170 rather than 120 against a brilliant Starc attack in bowler-friendly conditions on day one. Australia's more timid approach later the same day did not fare so well. But the failure to read the situation after lunch second time around , when just a few overs of more conservative consolidation would have had Australia working through their change bowler options , undid all that. Overconfidence ? Suspect it was ; because the way in which they then lost hope so quickly when Head blasted off spoke of a team that had had a huge shock and just wasn't in the same headspace as they'd been on the first day.

[sussexpob]

I have no problem with them continuing to proceed with a very aggressive game plan

I think there is an acute difference between making informed decisions taking high reward/risk as a default position, and the "run to the fire" type of idiocy that England advocate. I take poker as an example - there are endless scenarios where a very aggressive player can use skill and misdirection to win hands where he deduces he is mathematically more likely beaten, and bluffs are a key factor in success in the game.... but anyone who just sets out to bet blind or be wantonly aggressive without a plan or without reacting to how others bet will only ever win in isolated cases where they get incredible luck, and such a method is not a method for any level of even very short term success in 99.99% of scenarios.

Jamie Smith summed up England's approach after his score vs India last summer. He pretty much literally said that he decided to come down the pitch and whack it at a whim, decisions he made while the bowler was walking back to his mark. Stuart Broad loves to tell the story of Joe Root declaring at dinner the day before a test that, no matter what, he would slog the first ball he got.....This is the equivalent of a poker player not looking at their cards and going all in. There isn't a plan, its not aggression... its just idiocy.

Someone like Dave Warner on the other hand had an excellent record in Australia, and was a very aggressive player. I didn't see him dilscooping a 93mph ball over the keepers head ever - that "aggression" manifest itself in him saying "if the ball is fractionally fuller than what is normal to pull, I trust my technique and ability in playing the shot to get down on the ball and hit it. If the ball is slightly tighter than is normal to cut, I trust my ability to free my arms enough to get over the ball. If the ball is slightly uppish or a little wide, I trust my ability to hit the ball at the top of the bounce and drive it through the covers"......

You end up with a key difference. The former has no form of risk or reward analysis, the other is a concerted plan to play the percentages to your favour by taking an aggressive approach. Everytime Warner went at a slightly uppish ball that most batsman would not drive at, he was saying my better ability to play these shots outweighs the risks involved. I might get out 10% of times I play it, but I will add 20-30 runs now one else gets from doing it, which is then added to the conventional runs made from bad balls....someone else with slightly less ability might get out 20% of times they play it, which then makes 10-15 runs only, which in turn would not be efficient overall. How can any of that process or appreciation of risk be factored into what England do if they just decide to baseball bat whatever comes their way before they know what ball it is? The risk of playing a ramp shot changes from minimal to almost 100 percent depending on where the ball pitches....

As a risk analysis, you are essentially saying at that point I am willing to accept a possible near 100% risk for a boundary.... which, to stick with the poker pun, is like going all in with a 6 high when the pot has nothing in it.

[sussexpob]

When Bazball first arrived, I understood the idea in terms of a strive for efficiency; a rational idea to a problem England faced with players not having the technique to survive long enough to make big scores by batting conventionally. Zak Crawley will edge one behind from a ball in the channel on average given 50 balls to face, so if we have only 50 balls and he spends that time blocking, he goes nowhere.... on the other hand, I accept his average innings will reduce to from 50 to 35-40 being aggressive, but the risk factor when he drives is lower than most because he plays thee shot so well... I can expect more runs with him taking risks than him blocking. Its a perfectly acceptable idea for me.

The problem is, either the idea got warped or I gave McCullum too much credit, because the point then where you essentially embrace any level of risk turns the result into a totally difference calculation. You are no longer striving for efficiency because your average balls is lowering dramatically to the point you are going the other way - you would be better to block going nowhere, because the alternative is to burn out in a few balls. I palpably refuse to believe in pretty much any conditions and against any attack in history, save for playing on something like 1997 Sabina Park type pitches, that a test match side cannot bat more than 60 overs in a test.

The result is a bat average in the last test of 15.... you will lose 99% of games batting like that. England need to be smarter, need to adapt to pick their battles more.