The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[mikesiva]

That first innings declaration doesn't look so clever now.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Great effort by Lyon and the captain.

Felt like England drove the game, even if quite recklessly, but Aussies win the Test.

I think England will be looking at a lack of contribution from their spinner on the last day. Maybe unlucky he was injured, but perhaps that was the risk they took.

Pace bowlers did ok. Need more from the batters. Batting first was an advantage.

Classic game!

[sussexpob]

That first innings declaration doesn't look so clever now.

Not sure it looked better 4 days ago....

[Arthur Crabtree]

Giving away 50+ runs for the ninth wicket was a bigger factor in the end.

First time Stokes' ENgland hasn't taken 20 wickets?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Done it.... Assisted by the worst decision I have possibly ever seen in sports....

Que?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Oh, the declaration.

[sussexpob]

Oh, the declaration.

Indeed. I get the sense that McCullum and Stokes have turned into the cricket equivalent of a rock star about an hour into a cliché biopic, when the ego and drugs start to take hold, and they lose track of reality. There is trying to win, and there is making outrageous decisions - this fell into the second. I don't know if Bazball is maybe taking its self a little too seriously?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Probably merit a bit of leeway though, given how they have turned results around.

[captaincolly]

I didn't mind the declaration- probably a calculation that the chance to get a wicket or two was worth sacrificing any potential extra runs. That said I do think they were too reckless with the bat on day 1 - the two stumpings were particularly poor.
England should still have won quite comfortably- had so many chances to put it to bed but missed all of those opportunities.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I could accept the declaration if the ball was hooping around in ultra-humid conditions. But that wasn't the case.

But ultimately, the lack of a proper, functional spinner on the last day was a bigger factor in the loss. I suppose for that you blame luck, or risky selection. Or both.

[captaincolly]

I could accept the declaration if the ball was hooping around in ultra-humid conditions. But that wasn't the case.

But ultimately, the lack of a proper, functional spinner on the last day was a bigger factor in the loss. I suppose for that you blame luck, or risky selection. Or both.

Yes, going back to someone who hadn't played red ball cricket in 2 years always seemed risky. I could sort of understand it as he probably was the best option in terms of ability/experience but no match fitness.

[GarlicJam]

I don't know if Bazball is maybe taking its self a little too seriously?

with the incredible amount of hubris floating around them, they couldn't be blamed.

I don't know if I have ever seen so much fanboy and self-congratulatory rubbish written and spoken about (not in this place though) one team in such a short space of time before.


Pietersen's absolute tripe in front of the camera yesterday - before Ponting shut him down - was a great example. To paraphrase:

Pietersen: the way Root batted was simply AMAZING. He controlled every aspect of the game, he just BOSSED the Australians all over the place. He OWNED the ground.
Ponting: yeah, anyway he's out. Made 40...

[Durhamfootman]

I didn't mind the declaration- probably a calculation that the chance to get a wicket or two was worth sacrificing any potential extra runs. That said I do think they were too reckless with the bat on day 1 - the two stumpings were particularly poor.
England should still have won quite comfortably- had so many chances to put it to bed but missed all of those opportunities.

I didn't mind the declaration either. That didn't cost England the game, poor execution of the basics did that. All teams make errors and give lives, but handing 3 lifelines on the afternoon on day 2 proved fatal in the end.

Onwards and upwards. Australia will doubtless be very pleased, but they will also know that the match could very easily have gone the other way. They got a lot of lives and they got a lot of luck too, but they did the basics better than England in the end.

England will go again in the same way in a few days time and they'll feel that they have the tools to win. Australia though will surely back themselves to win more than they lose if they carry on in the same disciplined manner. It'll get interesting though if they lose a couple and the Aussie media get after them for not going toe to toe with a high octane England. Of course, England will have to win a couple for that to become an issue for Australia and they might not

[sussexpob]

I don't know if I have ever seen so much fanboy and self-congratulatory rubbish written and spoken about (not in this place though) one team in such a short space of time before

My sentiments exactly. For 5 days I heard how Cummins negative fields were unjustifiable tactical idiocy, yet declaring the first evening of a test was some genius move. The English press and commentators have become pretty nauseating in their bazball mania. The truth is, through all the excitement and verbal masturbation, no one could really give me any answer as to why the declaration was a good idea.

Actually, we did get one - that they might snag a wicket in the evening before the end, without any real discussion or appreciation of the cost or likelihood of that occurring. I mean, looking at some stats to put this decision into context. Since 2000 in tests....

- Its impossible to isolate the stats for partnerships on balls faced, but going a roundabout way on RR and runs scored, for the 4 overs available to get a wicket, you had about a 25% chance of getting on in the first 4 overs. It is again, impossible with the stats to isolate partnerships inside the total scored, so this is a stat based on a much lower average total scored than those in the first innings of the match. So one would expect with higher totals, the average opening partnership would be longer, and the likelihood of a wicket even less, but its impossible to gauge.

- Would an early wicket actually have been a net benefit considering England lost two wickets in its possible pursuit?

(i) The average 10th wicket partnership is 13
(ii) The average number 10 bat who gets a start of 17 runs, averages 39.
(iii) The average opener scores 4 when dismissed inside a 24 ball period. Which is 33 runs less than average.

So, in actual fact, the average case here is England would lose out on -2 runs even in the 25% chance they succeeded.

(iv) Worth noting that Edgbaston has the 5th highest average last wicket partnership in cricket, and the only ground that has seen 2 x 100 partnerships in the data period, with a further 7 x 50. All those grounds averaging more have negligible sample sets. So it's pretty much the best full time test ground in the world for tailenders to bat in the last 23 plus years. Also Joe Root and Anderson hold the all time 10th wicket partnership, and not sure how many 10s in world cricket have a FC record like Robbo... which all increases the potential score over average.

- Scoreboard pressure

(i) Teams batting first scoring 393(England's score) to 400, loss more than they win (win ratio only 0.875).
(ii) Increasing that by only 10 runs to 400-410, increase the ratio to 1.1... there is no effect on the draws.
(iii) Adding the average expected lost runs in declaring (428) and using that as the same range (423-433).... the ratio goes up to 1.8 wins to losses
(iv) In all cases, the ratio of draw remains roughly the same (in fact, its worse with the lower scores)

Small increases in upwards scoring past 400 create huge scoreboard pressures, and are far more worth in dictating victory.

[bigfluffylemon]

Well, drat.

On the bright side, a very engaging, watchable game that for once managed to live up to some of the pre-series hype. Evenly matched all the way to the end, lots to talk about, some good performances and five days of pretty watchable test cricket. And despite not playing their best, England were close to winning - if they step it up to as well as they can play, they will win games. This Australia side is good but far from invincible.

On the down side, England lost a very winnable game, and one that they really should have won. It's easy to get into 'what ifs' and be wise after a decision when decisions should be assessed on their merits at the time they were made, but the declaration made no sense at the time and proved to be costly. Had it been numbers 9 and 10 batting together it may have been slightly more justifiable, and it's always possible the innings would have lasted two more balls, but a with a batsman of Joe Root's calibre out there on 118*, the chances were good that there were another 20-40 runs to be taken, which even at the time we pointed out could make all the difference, and indeed they would have.

Picking Mo - a tremendous risk that didn't pay off. Again, something that pre-game certain sections of the press were hailing as genius or obviously the right move, whereas the best that could have been said was that it was a left field move that could have paid off, came with risk and was only really on the table given the lack of other good options.

But at the end of the day, the basics let England down. Catches win matches, silly dismissals trying to hit Lyon out of Edgbaston (I read it was Root's first ever first class stumping in over 300 innings. He's normally rock solid against spin and was looking in superb touch in that innings until he got out). I feel as though England have just drunk the bazball kool-aid too strongly - having got some success, they now are playing this way at all costs rather than tempering it with some wisdom and restraint when necessary.

Still, if every game is this close we could have an exciting series. That said, Smith, Labu and the other Aussie middle order won't miss out every game and England will collapse in a heap trying to bazball at least once, so let's hope that this loss doesn't cost too much over the long run. I fear we may be ruing the day 1 declaration come day 25...