First Ashes Test, Edgbaston, 1-5 August 2019

[GarlicJam]

He does deserve to depart with some level of dignity, not just bowl 4 tight overs and fade away.

[SaintPowelly]

And the bowling too when A&B step down.

I'll be astounded if Anderson doesn't call it a day at the end of the series, assuming he even plays at all. He's just turned 37, he's increasingly struggling with injury, he's won just about everywhere and has nothing left to prove in the game, and the next really big series is India 2021.

Can't see them risking him for Lord's unless they have no choice with Wood and Archer both still unfit. But maybe he'll be back for the third test. Here's hoping.

He’ll be desperate to play the Old Trafford Test if he’s going to retire.

Still think he will want the 600th Test wicket (25 short) and 1,000 FC wickets (about 50 short) before he retires completely though.

[SaintPowelly]

Predictably pathetic.

Now Cook has gone this does have to be the worst England batting line-up since I've been watching cricket.

The Australia batting line up is quite poor too though, they have 3 players who haven’t played Tests in over a year, 1 of which I don’t rate (Bancroft), Wade didn’t have an international ton for 6 1/2 years they said, Paine is terrible, Khawaja is average.

[bigfluffylemon]

Predictably pathetic.

Now Cook has gone this does have to be the worst England batting line-up since I've been watching cricket.

The Australia batting line up is quite poor too though, they have 3 players who haven’t played Tests in over a year, 1 of which I don’t rate (Bancroft), Wade didn’t have an international ton for 6 1/2 years they said, Paine is terrible, Khawaja is average.

Only 2 of them made runs. Unfortunately one of them made 300, and only one of the England batting line-up made runs.

[yuppie]

If there is movement then Australias batting will always be exposed. Warner and Bancroft are walking wickets in those conditions, and Usman is only slightly better of late. With Smith, England need to bowl to a plan and stick to it. Head has been a consistent bat since he came into the team, but is not spectacular and it seems he will not hurt the opposition in the same way Australian Number 5s have in the past. Wade at 6 should please opposition teams and Paine at 7 will never hurt you the way other keepers do in test cricket.

If Australia has any strength in its batting other than Smith then it has to be from 7-11. All batsman in these slots seem to put a premium on their wickets, and stick around to help out the last remaining batsman. Many times in recent years this Australian line up has been saved by its lower order.

This Australian team is there for the taking, it is reliant on its bowlers, one great bat and 2 average bats. England at home should not be loosing to this team. They were in charge of this test 3 times and on each occasion they let it slip.

[westoelad]

That appears to be a very thorough synopsis of the Aussie batting. However the England batting is equally,if not more, vulnerable. As regards the respective bowling attacks, England's 2 main bowlers are undoubtedly on the wane whilst most of the Aussie's are at the peak. With the series played so late in the season spin is likely to be a more significant factor with Aussies possessing a world class spinner. Only weather will prevent an Aussie whitewash.

[sussexpob]

We can talk through the list of individuals and list their weaknesses and what have you, but the truth is when I look at this Australian line up "warts n all" I do so knowing that while they might not have a great line up, every single person in this team knows their role, what is required of them, and will be working to the best of their ability to squeeze out as much efficiency for the team as possible. When I look at England, I see a list of names who have absolutely no direction at all, and it's very indicative that you could predict with almost certainty the order of batting for Australia, you wouldnt even put 10p on predicting what order England come out in next test, it changes so much.

You can see the lack of planning in every core of England's thinking; as an example, we sent out a batter averaging not much past 10 runs an innings since 2018 and not a single not out in 35 test innings, ahead of someone who only 2 or 3 tests previous scored 137* on a pitch where that individual effort beat the total of both Indian innings. Woakes ended both innings batting with a limping Anderson, and was left not out in the first dig when an extra 15 odd runs taking England's lead to treble figures would have felt like a significant barrier to the Australians.

England seem to have zero plan about how to shape their batting. Root doesnt want to bat at 3, but has to because we picked a 3 not up to the task. Rather than admit that, we try to shelter him at 4 at the cost of devaluing our top asset. At 5, we have a player who is capable of taking the gloves and probably a good 7, but who doesnt score enough big runs to bat as a specialist. We have a 7 that cant hit the ball off the square who is for some reason being protected when his form has fell off a cliff. In between we have a 6 who is batting in the top slots for the sole reason that he bowls.

You cant have middle order bats averaging in the low 30s even when they are playing to those numbers, its simply not enough runs. But none of these players have any form either. It makes me laugh when Root comes out and says "we wont be knee-jerk dropping"?? Knee-jerk? Stokes has an average of 32 after 55 tests in the top 6. Bairstow is past the 60 mark. Buttler has 1 x 100 in 32 tests, and the first two's run of form lasts the best part of two bloody years. Its hardly that reactive to suggest these players simply arent good enough and have had a major run in the side. They have been consistently rubbish, over years and tens of test matches.

But thats it isnt it? We are back to the 90s style situation where undying loyalty is shown to failures for some reason, yet you get a lad averaging 55 in county cricket come in who is 20 years of age, he scores 28 on debut (on a pitch where only ONE top 6 batter out of both sides beat that), he fails once next up and is gone. Then every puts their hands up and says "who is there"? Well, if a lad comes into a dressing room of abject failure and has to smash 100s coming in at 12-2 vs the new ball on a green top with the ball jagging everywhere, and you say to him its perform here, or its all over..... you are going to be left with no one. Joe Denly averages nearly 20 less than Pope in FC cricket and has got double the test run Pope got..... why? What the hell is the thinking in that?

Of course, its in the interests of the team to claim that county players just arent up to standards rather than have to acknowledge there are other, more pressing problems further back. The Lions is controlled by a man with pretty much zero record of getting players to convert, and more than that, players who come into his setup (Like Hameed, the biggest example) leave it after a short time having forgotten how to bat. Our selector hasnt made any contributions, in fact he's picked more players who refuse to play 4-5 day cricket than others. The coach has proved that the teams approach is consistently poor. The batting coaches are stealing a living from the setup, because everyone is going backwards. And is county cricket that rubbish, or has maybe the change of toss rules almost instantly lead to average scores plummeting? When are we going to hold all of these accountable?

And Root as captain? Give to someone else, please. As Smith strode out to bat with the ball doing things in the first innings, he moved a slip out to short midwicket, and a man out the covers to leg slip. All that did was force the bowlers to bowl straight, and Smith just had fun tucking the ball off his pads. It is very clear that there is no tactical nous there. He had no clue how to get Smith out, he just went with seemingly random placements. And when England are confronted with a situation where just bowling the same lines and lengths doesnt work, they dont have a clue on a plan B. How many times was Smith able to attack 4 balls an over then get a single the last two with the tail? How many Aussies knew that if they saw off 30 balls, the scoring balls would come?

One team seem prepared for this series and have done their homework, the other when the chips were down were stuck not knowing what to do.... and in the moments where the match was in the balance, Australia consistently beat the knockout blow, then when they themselves struck, it was all over.

[yuppie]

Good points SP.

[sussexpob]

Head has been a consistent bat since he came into the team, but is not spectacular and it seems he will not hurt the opposition in the same way Australian Number 5s have in the past.

If there is one player who sums up the difference in the teams in this test, I think it is Travis Head personally. In the first innings he got key runs at a time Australia teetered on destruction, and in the second he just set about batting long and forming a partnership with Smith. Both times, and through his test career, he has shown that he is happy to curb his obvious naturally aggressive approach and get down to serious test batting. No single English player is willing to do that, they are capable of lowering the SR for 20-30 balls but a wild attempt at shot making is always going to follow. Head at least is saying "come get me out". Now he might fail the rest of the series, maybe he has issues with his technique that will be tested in other games, but he wont be giving it away. England should be looking at that and taking stock. Low risk, protect your wicket, see out 10 overs before looking to score..... opportunities will come.

Lyon was a long term project by the Australian selectors.

Maybe a bit more to do with lack of options? Tbh, while I am not like Shanky thinking Lyon is a pie thrower, I do think if he'd played in any other era of test cricket where people could defend their stumps, he wouldnt have had anywhere near the same level of success. But I guess you can only be judged on what you produce against the opposition you play, so its not much of an important point. This test, he got the first innings wrong, but in the second innings he just kept throwing up balls that had to be played, and the mistakes came. Very simple, but very smart. You dont have to rip it 4 ft and click the edge, just make batsman play all the time, make sure they judge the line right.... it was pretty much perfect against this useless line up.

I certainly don't think he deserves special criticism as a bowler at the moment. Or the team bowling (losing a main bowler was a big loss). I'm really looking at the batting.

I think you have to accept that Moeen is a player that is workable against poor line ups, but against better batters he is more successful only when they treat him with a lack of respect. A lot of teams in the past have tried to hit him out of the attack, and he's taken wickets early in the series; but as the batters then learn that he can be a danger, and start to bat to him normally, he becomes less and less useful. In Ashes series, he has found out quickly that the Australian's are not going to be the type of team to just come out and smash him, they have approached him sensibly..... and he has been useless against them.

Unless he takes wickets early in a partnership, he seems to go wandering. Balls start to go everywhere, and he can be expensive. He was terrible second innings on a pitch that helped him, he just looses his cool easily when batters start to get the better of him.

[bigfluffylemon]

Some good points here all around.

I think Moeen is symptomatic of the fact that the team management doesn't have a clue. They're just picking players who have some talent or are 'the right sort', then shoehorning them into the line-up with the result that we have three or four bits-and-pieces players in the top 7 who aren't good enough to be specialist batsmen. Moeen was a batsman first and foremost, he's been picked as a spinning all-rounder, and is it any wonder that he can't be a primary spinner? Meanwhile his batting has fallen off a cliff while he desperately tries to work on his bowling game. He never quite fit in the side, but has kept his place because whenever he's been in danger of being dropped, he's pulled a performance out of the bag that guarantees his place for the next five games.

England need to be brave, and make sweeping changes. Acknowledge that the batting isn't good enough, and sweep aside the serial underperformers with people who actually show some potential, and have application to develop it. When Australia were beaten at home against South Africa in 2016, they made some bold changes. Not all of them came off (Nic Maddinson anyone?), but they realised that serial underperformers or those who had flattered to deceive (Voges, Ferguson, Neville, Joe Burns etc.) had to be moved aside, and in doing so, they sent a message about what was expected, and won the next game too.

Moeen, Bairstow, Buttler and Denly at least should go. Probably Stokes too, but I'm not convinced there is a better allrounder and there is room for him in the order with Woakes too (maybe Woakes at 7 and Stokes 8?). Bring back Foakes as a keeper. Not sure who else - Sam Northeast maybe, and Dom Sibley has obviously been scoring well. But county form is no guarantee of a successful international career - just look at Gary Ballance, who looks set to be this generation's Graeme Hick - tearing it up season after season at county level, but can't quite cut it at international.

[bigfluffylemon]

Anderson's out for Lord's, and so ludicrously short are the turnaround times in this series that the 3rd test at Headingley is barely two weeks away, so he'd have to be a doubt for that - not long to recover and prove your fitness.

Looks as if England need to be ready for life without him, as well as Cook. And it looks a bit grim.

[yuppie]

Archer will bring something different to the team, but might England be pushing him to quickly into the set up.

[backfootpunch]

Archer will bring something different to the team, but might England be pushing him to quickly into the set up.

Yes

Hes just coming back from a side strain and has barely played any red ball cricket recently

Has mid game injury written all over it

[Arthur Crabtree]

Moeen, Bairstow, Buttler and Denly at least should go. Probably Stokes too, but I'm not convinced there is a better allrounder and there is room for him in the order with Woakes too (maybe Woakes at 7 and Stokes 8?). Bring back Foakes as a keeper. Not sure who else - Sam Northeast maybe, and Dom Sibley has obviously been scoring well.

Wouldn't look good them playing SL, WI and Ireland and then ripping the side up for the second Ashes Test.

England need to make changes, and they have seemed to address that at times, but then slipped back into familiar territory, and most particularly, tried to remake the Test side in the image of the ODI side. Even to the point of picking Rashid who had retired from fcc.

England are clearly a poor side and probably about to sink to the lower reaches of the Test rankings. And yet, with a bowler down, they lost primarily because of the performance of one player and were in the game until a disastrous fourth day. Australia aren't a good side either and unless Smith carries the Aussies all series, England will come back into the contest.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Advantage of Root being captain is he gets in the side on merit. Other candidates (Buttler?) are not certain to be picked. Anderson is injured. Broad would be short term.