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

[bigfluffylemon]

The stats do suggest that history was against Australia in the chase, so maybe England were justified in their approach https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/eng- ... ng-1382510

However, fourth innings record stats seem to have been increasingly irrelevant in the last few years, not just due to Stokes.

[sussexpob]

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

I do agree with this to a certain extent, but I would also add that playing in the way England do, they are going to get out in lame or ridiculous ways now and then, so we have to in some ways take the rough with the smooth. I remember KP got a lot of stick back in the day for not caring, or doing the same, and people didn't seem to understand that getting out badly was part of what made him good..... sometimes you go to hit a Murali and he make you look an idiot, sometimes you reverse switch hit him into row Z on the way to the most audacious 150 ever made. Its the nature of the beast, and if you change one thing, you have to change others.

That being said, I do agree about the wisdom/restraint point. Trying to reverse ramp the best bowler in the world on the first ball of the day at 28-2 for instance was pretty insane from Root; no matter how you want to play, its common sense to see a few balls and get your hands and feet in gear before attempting anything with such fine margins.

So yeah.... I am not really going to town on the concept of Bazball, I just think at stages England need to be a little more street-wize and less ideologically committed to their ultra-aggressive tactical blueprint. In general, their attacking intent has worked and they have proven to have the ability to make it pay.... but maybe it could work even better with a few tweaks.

[sussexpob]

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.

Mo obviously didn't bowl well, but England are now slightly stuck in how to process this performance. The likelihood even if he still has the capacity to be useful in this series, was that he wouldn't just come in cold and bowl Australia out. So they have to decide whether this is the level Mo will produce for the summer, or whether or not he will gradually improve given more fitness and bowling. I assume they will stick with him one more test, but if he performs like that again, might need to look for the change.

I did see someone, cant remember who, commenting in the press that county cricket has failed England by not producing a spinner of quality..... I guess I'd like to see that journo bowling spin in early April in England, and see what they achieve. It seems a result of shoving the CC games to the least spinner friendly times, that anyone with any quality is going to struggle... look at Ahmed, he has played a few matches where he hasn't got the ball. If we want good spinners, we need to help them.

[sussexpob]

The other very difficult England decision is at keeper. Bairstow made runs this test, but made mistakes. Foakes just made 125 in the CC last week and is the better keeper. And if Foakes does come in, is it Bairstow, Brook or Crawley to go? I think after Bairstow's summer last year, and after making 80 odd in a counter attack in the first innings under pressure, you have to pick him second test in some capacity... and he's not as bad a keeper as he was first test, I'd expect he will improve behind the stumps. But if Foakes comes in, I'd be tempted to change Brooks, who in both innings looked wobbly.

The real worry for me was Duckett. Hes been brilliant since his return, but his technique was torn to shreds against this attack. In both innings his footwork and weight transfer was catastrophic.

[alfie]

Glad to see this place hasn't gone into meltdown over the result of a truly fantastic cricket match...fair to disagree with some choices made by the captains ; but in cricket it is impossible to be certain whether an alternative move would have fared better or worse, since only one scenario is played out in our version of the multiverse...

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I , like DFM and Colly , have no problem with the declaration - though obviously , it didn't get the result intended. At the time , I disagreed with it : would have preferred to keep whacking the ball and hope to resume briefly in the morning and give the Aussie openers a quick turnaround : but had it caused a wicket on the first night I reckon we would all have applauded , no ?
I think Sussex has produced some stats to say this wasn't a % play ; and that was my instinctive feeling too ; but on a flat pitch I can't really fault the intent. And it wasn't just about the runs anyway : the move did rattle the Aussies a bit , I think. Risk and (hoped for) rewards. In any case , there were countless other things that influenced the result ( WK errors ; no balls (23 !) - one of which lost a vital wicket ; a freak dismissal of a key batsman ; injury to the main spinner ;a night watchman edging and nibbling a useful twenty : sure there were others ) so focusing on that seems to me a bit silly.

Lot of argument about last hour tactics from England too. Questionable , I think : I'd have taken the new ball quickly and had a conventional go at Lyon first ; but once that last Root over had gone for 14 they were running out of road so not sure any tinkering would automatically have made a difference. Game of inches : the ball that spilled from Stokes' hand as he hit the ground , the balls that just missed the edges of both bats in the dying stages ...

End of the day , it was execution , not tactics , that decided the match. Australia caught nearly all their chances. England missed a lot - some hard , some easy. I've mentioned the no balls . And while Carey caught all but one chance , Bairstow had a shocker behind the stumps. England bats were seen to get in and get out when apparently set : but apart from Khawaja only three Aussies passed forty in the game so probably not all the fault of "Bazball" that neither innings reached maximum potential.

Congrats Australia . It was a very gutsy effort to get that win. But I don't think England need panic. They've shown they can go head to head with this opponent . Just need to get the basics right more often next week.

Might help if there was a little more nibble for the seam bowlers though ? Playing on decks that only really give a bit of aid to the spinner seems to be playing into the visitor's hands...

[alfie]

The other very difficult England decision is at keeper. Bairstow made runs this test, but made mistakes. Foakes just made 125 in the CC last week and is the better keeper. And if Foakes does come in, is it Bairstow, Brook or Crawley to go? I think after Bairstow's summer last year, and after making 80 odd in a counter attack in the first innings under pressure, you have to pick him second test in some capacity... and he's not as bad a keeper as he was first test, I'd expect he will improve behind the stumps. But if Foakes comes in, I'd be tempted to change Brooks, who in both innings looked wobbly.

The real worry for me was Duckett. Hes been brilliant since his return, but his technique was torn to shreds against this attack. In both innings his footwork and weight transfer was catastrophic.

Still is a problem re the keeper , isn't it ? I agree Jonny had an uncharacteristically bad day and should improve (though I do wonder a bit if the residue of that bad leg injury might be impacting his movement ? Was discussing this with my osteo this afternoon : is possible) Oddly enough he had started very well so maybe just a bit of a glitch ?
I'd have kept Foakes , to be honest. But then I'd have discarded Crawley and moved Brook to open ; which might have spooked Brook and - well Crawley did play a good first knock : wasn't an ideal way then ; still isn't. Hope Jonny bounces back.

The really ruthless (and it won't happen - certainly not yet) move would be : Foakes in as WK ; Jonny to six , Stokes to open and Duckett back in the "Asia specialist" box. As you say , Duckett looked a worry here ; and I wasn't totally surprised. Let us see what happens at Lord's.

[Arthur Crabtree]

If England are going to go out and hit from the top of the order, they may as well open with Bairstow and Buttler, their best hitters.

I know that's idiotically reckless, but then that's their strategy.

Not that Duckett deserves to be dropped.

[sussexpob]

Lot of argument about last hour tactics from England too. Questionable , I think : I'd have taken the new ball quickly and had a conventional go at Lyon first ; but once that last Root over had gone for 14 they were running out of road so not sure any tinkering would automatically have made a difference. Game of inches : the ball that spilled from Stokes' hand as he hit the ground , the balls that just missed the edges of both bats in the dying stages ...

I guess you could fault some of the decisions, but I think these decisions might have been made with knowledge of how much was left in the bowlers tanks. When Robbo took the new ball, his pace was well down, a lot of balls in the higher 70s, and one got the sense recent injuries and a long test match had taken their toll (and he spent a long time on and off the field in the first innnings). And Anderson looked gassed in the field late in the day, he had (by memory) 3 times where he let the ball go through him not getting down to it... to coin a Ron Atkinson term, he went down in "instalments". The guy is nearly 41 and had some questions about injury.... so I don't think its a simple tactical decision not to bowl the new ball with Jimmy. So I cant really fault it.

I called it a drop to begin with, but if Stokes had caught that ball from Lyon, it would have been an absolute stunner. I am not even sure you put that down as a proper chance, Stokes is one of the best fielders of all time, anyone merely mortal probably wouldnt have got anywhere near it.

[sussexpob]

Not that Duckett deserves to be dropped.

I certainly wasnt suggesting he should be the conversation to be dropped, but he will have to be much better technically for the rest of this series if he wants to make scores against this attack. There are plenty of players who play with hand-eye coordination in the modern game, even the best batter in the world (Smith) plays almost entirely through that way. But to do that, you have to get in steady position and play from a solid base with your head still... Duckett was all over the place. The first innings dismissal, he wants to come forward, but reacts to the ball by leaning back and almost falling into the ball. And then the opposite in the second innings, he is looking to play back, but is drawn at the last minute into playing forward with his weight all on the back foot, and the result is a pathetic prod with a canyon between bat and pad. Australia would have taken note of that.... he has to improve.

Crawley has looked pretty decent so far this summer, but the carbon copy dismissals are same old, same old. He seems to have changed his approach slightly, as he was moving into the offside a little, but what worked in the first innings, got him out straight away in the second.

[Gingerfinch]

My 2nd test team would be!

Crawley
Bairstow
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
Broad
Robinson
Wood
Jimmy

No spinner but do we have a decent one? As we picked Ali, I'd say no.

Need some pace (Wood) and given Stokes will only bowl a handful of overs, only 4 seamers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Foakes isn't in the squad. I guess he could be called up.

Options: Dan Lawrence, Matthew Potts, Josh Tongue, Chris Woakes, Mark Woods.

I thought they might whistle up a spinner, but they haven't yet. Maybe there will be another pace bowler.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Rest Anderson?

[Slipstream]

My 2nd test team would be!

Crawley
Bairstow
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
Broad
Robinson
Wood
Jimmy

No spinner but do we have a decent one? As we picked Ali, I'd say no.

Need some pace (Wood) and given Stokes will only bowl a handful of overs, only 4 seamers.

I like your team. Both Robinson and Anderson will be better off after their 4/5 weeks with no cricket. They would have been better if they played for their counties just before the Test. Supppose the ECB wanted them fresh. Also not helpful that Anderson has two drops off his bowling., one being Khawaja.

Even if Stokes bowls 7 overs an innings, he got 2 huge wickets in Smith and Khawaja. No need to bowl 20/30 overs. Green only bowled 8.

Wood doesn't have a great record at Lords but he does have a very good one at left-handers... better than any other of our bowlers. Half of Aussies are left-handers



@OptaJim

35% - England's attacking shot rate in the 1st Test was 35%, the highest recorded in a men's #Ashes match by either side (since 2006); however, they also conceded 44 extras & dropped 7 catches (joint most in a men's Ashes match since 2006), Australia: 19 extras, 4 drops. Margins.

[Durhamfootman]

Still is a problem re the keeper , isn't it ? I agree Jonny had an uncharacteristically bad day and should improve (though I do wonder a bit if the residue of that bad leg injury might be impacting his movement ? Was discussing this with my osteo this afternoon : is possible) Oddly enough he had started very well so maybe just a bit of a glitch ?

I think YJB is quite an athletic guy, really, so he'll probably do pretty well making one handed diving catches standing right back to the quicks. His main problem is standing up to the stumps where Foakes beats him hands down, so Mo got far less assistance than Lyon got from Carey.

What I have noticed in all the endless discussions everywhere concerning how to play both YJB and Foakes is that Pope's name never seems to get mentioned. Why does Ollie Pope get a free ride on this? I get it with Root and Brook... one averages 50+ and will one day become the leading run scorer in test cricket and the other is perhaps the most exciting batting talent that England have unearthed arguably since Stokes. Pope averages 35 after 37 tests.... and he's another wicketkeeper. Far less disruptive to move Root and Brook up one place than try to manufacture something for the specialist position of opener

[Durhamfootman]

Of course with this new batting approach, then maybe opening the batting is no longer a specialist role in the conventional sense