The Ashes - official thread

[Gooseberry]

First topic message reminder :

SR that's not how mental fatigue works.
Also Stokes had a long break last year ...which he came back from err ...mentaly fatigued. Buttler and Bairstow haven't had that luxury.

But anyway it's not a case of "attitude" , ask Trott and Trescothick.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Maybe its psychological.

He hears that he is selected to be more aggressive than a traditional test opener, ala Warner, and that has made him go too aggressive.

In which case, then TB and JR need to be in his ear trying to reign that in.

To be fair Roy is playing like Warner...unfortunately he’s playing like Warner is in this series, not like Warner of 2016!

[GSC]

to be fair to Roy, hes gotten more than a couple of good balls in this series.

hes not in the team to play a Burns innings, hes there to try and blast a score that changes the low scoring games most are expecting.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I’d keep Denly too as he’s getting starts and taking some time up: a depressing reason for inclusion though. Does somewhat ask the question of why Vince doesn’t get the same leeway

Vince has had several goes at England and been found to be uncoachable. He was given specific things to work on and help to achieve it but simply cannot change and keeps getting out the same way. there is just no hope for him. Hes played 13 tests in two stints whilst being consistently rubbish. 

Denly has had like 5 tests, and is getting his place seriously questioned. He got booted from the world cup squad after barely getting a chance. I personally don't think he ever should have been selected in the first place for tests, and whats been done with him since is just baffling. But that in no way makes a case that they ever should have gone back to Vince or that Vince was hard done by.

It was more a musing than a considered and heartfelt opinion. I’ve ridiculed Vince many a time for his England performances, but it feels like Denly might get away with being a 30 runs player. He doesn’t seem to have the upside of Vince, and doesn’t seem to get the battering Vince did.

I’m still of the opinion he’s one of many players who could score runs at 6, we’ve got too many of those ill-disciplines but clearly talented players. Modern cricket, perhaps.

[No name Bertie]

to be fair to Roy, hes gotten more than a couple of good balls in this series.

hes not in the team to play a Burns innings, hes there to try and blast a score that changes the low scoring games most are expecting.

He is getting out early and exposing Root to the new ball - who is getting out early and exposing other batsmen down the order.  Maybe at this moment in time England need two Burns type openers to see off the new ball.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

to be fair to Roy, hes gotten more than a couple of good balls in this series.

hes not in the team to play a Burns innings, hes there to try and blast a score that changes the low scoring games most are expecting.

He is getting out early and exposing Root to the new ball - who is getting out early and exposing other batsmen down the order.  Maybe at this moment in time England need two Burns type openers to see off the new ball.

To which I’d reply that the theory still remains with Roy, but the prefer after him is wrong. Get Denly right in at three, then the gamble has more of a safety net in protecting our best players (which I consider to comfortably be Root and Stokes)

[robbo277]

"It's just the way I play"

KP every time he got out trying to slog the left arm spinner with a premeditated shot.

I'd guess it certainly is an element of not quite beinvg sure of himslef and knowing hes been backed to do what he does in ODIs coupled with the non judgemental approach they have to people getting out playing positively.

What really seems to be the issue is that he's not even managing to execute the big shots well, he should get away with a fair few even if they are I'll judged risks . .But it seems that he's lost his ability to bat skilfully as well as poor shot selection. That is very Moeen and suggests a level of stress and tension you don't see from him in ODIs. Maybe it will just take one or two shots for him to feel like he's asserting himself and he will settle down.
.But right now the weaknesses in his game and approach are getting badly exposed.

Just the way I play is a fine defence if you're averaging 45 and getting out to the occasional silly shot or being caught at long on for 94 trying to complete a ton in style. Because your style brings the success and downfalls. If you're averaging just under 20 and have 4 scores of 10 or less in 6 innings, maybe you need to give consideration to whether the way you play is correct, or not.

I think he could do worse than to give himself a balls target. Maybe 20. Stick in for 20 deliveries, even if he doesn't make any runs. After that look to play more expansively.

You'd hope for something more in the middle, but maybe he needs to overcorrect and give himself more of a chance to spend time facing test bowling.

[GSC]

I think 6 innings is also slightly early, particularly when 4 of them have been against world class fast bowlers.

Roy has stuff to work on for sure, but trying to change the way he bats midway through an ashes series isnt also a good plan to fix it. Test cricket needs clear thinking.

[Soul Requiem]

They tried to make Alex Hales overcorrect and he ended up becoming a grinder who couldn't get going, if you're picking Roy it's because you want him to be aggressive from the get go so getting him to change won't work.

[LondonTiger]

When trying to convert a middle order batter into an opener you have to look at their technique. Being successful in the ODI arena as an opener does not mean that you have the technique to do the job in test cricket. Pushing Roy up there was a punt taken with no evidence to support  it. It was and is a case of wishful thinking and desperation. He is an extremely talented batter who seems completely unsuited to opening in test cricket. He could very easily be an outstanding 6 if that is what we need, but we need top order batters and we keep squeezing square pegs into round holes, hoping one will finally fit.

 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=3;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=5;qualval1=innings;spanmax1=20+Aug+2019;spanmin1=20+Aug+2014;spanval1=span;team=1;template=results;type=batting

Our batter's record in the top 3 with at least 5 innings in the last 5 years.

[GSC]

ok, but what are the alternatives.

theres not a queue of people battering down the door to be picked. Even Burns was under massive pressure before this series.

[LondonTiger]

I agree there may be no alternatives - but we have selected a plethora of guys for that very reason. This just felt like an absolute desperation pick as there was very little (zero?) evidence that it would succeed. Having given Roy the shot I see no real point in dispensing with him yet - except that his confidence looks shot to pieces.

One of the things we also tend to do is ignore someone when they are in form and then select them when there form has departed.

However this is one area where it is easy to slate the selectors as things are obviously not working, but impossible to come up with a working answer.

[eirebilly]

So Roy has got out to a few flaps but he has also received a couple of good balls to dismiss him. I am not a fan of him opening in Test cricket but I see very little other options at the moment. I think, based on current form this Ashes, I would open with Burns and Denly, both of whom seem accomplished at defending their wicket and have Roy at 3 and Root at 4.

[Gooseberry]

I agree there may be no alternatives - but we have selected a plethora of guys for that very reason. This just felt like an absolute desperation pick as there was very little (zero?) evidence that it would succeed. Having given Roy the shot I see no real point in dispensing with him yet - except that his confidence looks shot to pieces.

One of the things we also tend to do is ignore someone when they are in form and then select them when there form has departed.

However this is one area where it is easy to slate the selectors as things are obviously not working, but impossible to come up with a working answer.

Well Sibley was knocking the door down, certainly much more so than Roy or Denly were. or indeed Root who had already been dropped down from the 3 position once and who looked to be feeling the pressure of such a heavy multi format touring schedule and the world cup drama already. Crawley too has been making a case for himself. Theres arguably the most promising group of proper young opening batsman England have had in years in this generation, and the changes to county cricket balls have helped them spend a bit more time in the middle to show that. Malan too has been making a case for  a recall. It is kinda hard to really batter the door down playing County Cricket though, as we have seen time and again the step up and transition is not easy and its not providing the required level of quality and intensity. 

But yes knowing when to make changes is difficult. Sticking by Burns looks to have payed off. Denly is only 5 tests in to his career (although Ill say again I did feel he was simply never good enough in the first place a la Stoneman and I guess Jennings too). We have collectively written off Roy based on 3 tests when he is quite possibly affected by the world cup hangover and not able to give a fair account of himself. 

I do agree that we can be a bit late sometimes on selecting folk. Burns could have been capped last summer when he was at the height of his county form. Instead we saw daft things like Moeen at 3. Arguably its happening again with Sibley. But then also perhaps England rushed into picking Stoneman based on one good season at County level without recognising that was very much a one off and hes a pretty ordinary cricketer. Ther could be a case with Sibley that they are concerned about exposing him to the level of fast bowling that Australia bring in such a high pressure environment, its something players just dont face in the CC. Is that a weak area for him? Roy was very much selected because he has the confidence and eye to take someone like Starc apart (ironically Australia haven't been selecting him!) shown at the world cup, not the same format but he has the ability to play these gusy with confidence and shots to score from them something many county players simply haven't developed. 


But yes lost of "well we could but ..." possibilities if England what to make a change. Roy could drop down the order. Denly could go back to 3. Sibley could come in. Malan could have a role somewhere. Root could go back to 4. Moeen could go back to opening .  And yeah even when we have agreed with the changes made theyve proven to be wrong, or no better than the junk that went before. I do think the case for Roy was fairly strong all be it with caveats, and there was quite a bandwagon from the media for it too with many experts backing him. 

Im assuming they will stick with the order as is for the next test. England were moral victors in the last one despite the issues. If Smiths not playing or at all rocked by what happened they should be favourites to win. Then dependant on how players make a go one another chance and how the result pans out look to make changes. It might even wait till the fifth test and if its gone horribly use that as a low pressure way to blood the likes of Sibley. 

The winter tours will be an enforced chance to experiment further. The long term three format players (Roy, Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Buttler, Woakes) will need rotating out of at least one series and given their first break in years (although Stokes got his exile that wasnt really a mental break). So there will be opportunities then and of course a new coach. So we could see a radically different England come next summer if folk stick their hands up.

[GSC]

smith ruled out for headingley

[eirebilly]

smith ruled out for headingley

As good as that is for England and equally bad for the Aussies, its the right call. If he does have concussion, he needs to recover.

[Duty281]

No real surprise to hear Smith ruled out. Had this not been a back-to-back test, he might have made a recovery in time. Makes Headingley a 50-50 game - if Root was in any kind of pre-2016 form, England would be favourites.

[GSC]

would imagine he has to pass tests on multiple days before the test and he didnt practice today so that fits

[LondonTiger]

would imagine he has to pass tests on multiple days before the test and he didnt practice today so that fits

The Aussie's touring Doc said he would have to be symptom free for 24 hours before resuming training.

[Soul Requiem]

England are big favourites now irrespective of Roots form, take Smith out and I think the England batting line up is a lot stronger.

[robbo277]

would imagine he has to pass tests on multiple days before the test and he didnt practice today so that fits

The Aussie's touring Doc said he would have to be symptom free for 24 hours before resuming training.

This sounds about right. I think the return to play in rugby is done in steps as well, so you need to train symptom free as well. If you start training and your symptoms return, you have to be removed from training and wait until the symptoms stop. I imagine it would be a similar thing here.

With the test on Thursday I guess he'd need to train symptom free on Wednesday to have a chance, and if he's not symptom-free today on Tuesday he can't train Wednesday therefore can't play Thursday.

Correct decision has been made it would seem.

[Afro]

Disappointed Smith is out. Whilst he is the current nemesis, I would have preferred us to work out how to get him out and win having beaten them with him in the side. Him not playing would diminish a win, should we win and make it look worse if we don't

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Disappointed Smith is out. Whilst he is the current nemesis, I would have preferred us to work out how to get him out and win having beaten them with him in the side. Him not playing would diminish a win, should we win and make it look worse if we don't

Tell ya this for free, none of the stick I got from Aussies had them caveating “but Jimmy got injured so maybe you guys deserved a draw.”

Delighted that the doctors are taking it seriously and aren’t to be bullied on this, think that deserves a lot of credit. Some might think that a minimum, but sport teams and their leading players can be bullies.

I’d still rather all these things were done by independent docs, but least it’s being done properly here

[Gooseberry]

Not sure it's bad luck so much in this case, it was great execution rom Archer and poor judgement that led to Smith being struck in a way that hurt him. Andersons injury wasn't down to any play incident, just him being old. England were certainly very unlucky in that game with Woakes unable to bowl fully in the second dib too. They were certainly unlucky to have Archer unavailable for that game too, although it's hard to know who of anyone he would have replaced and if he could be shouldered the work to cover for Anderson.

[robbo277]

From the telegraph:

Head coach Trevor Bayliss says England will consider reshuffling their top seven as they look to level the Ashes in the third Test at Headingley.

The hosts retained an unchanged 12-man squad following a compelling draw at Lord's but there are still questions over how best to use the batsmen at their disposal.

"Now that we've arrived here in Leeds, that'll be a conversation we'll have I'm sure," Bayliss admitted.

"We think we've got the best seven batters available to us at the moment in England... whether we can change it round and make that (order) any better, I'm not sure, but we'll certainly have a discussion about it."

Jason Roy is one of those who may come under the microscope, with his early outings at opener failing to impress.


Although a world-class opener in the white-ball formats, he has scored just 45 runs in five knocks at the head of the innings, compared to an enterprising 72 in a solitary innings at No 3.

Asked if Roy might be a more natural middle-order player against the red ball, Bayliss admitted: "Possibly. Personally, I think he probably is suited to the middle order but we've selected him in the top of the order because of his form in the one-dayers and experience in the one-day team, playing international cricket.


"At the start of his one-day career, he missed out a few times as well and it took him a little while to get the hang of it. So the possibility of him playing again at the top of the order doesn't really concern us. We know what he can do when he does play well.

"Obviously from his point of view, you'd have to ask him exactly how he's feeling but it's obviously not quite the same as opening the batting in a white-ball game."

There's a "more to follow" on the article but the above probably merits discussion on its own.

[Afro]

Disappointed Smith is out. Whilst he is the current nemesis, I would have preferred us to work out how to get him out and win having beaten them with him in the side. Him not playing would diminish a win, should we win and make it look worse if we don't

Tell ya this for free, none of the stick I got from Aussies had them caveating “but Jimmy got injured so maybe you guys deserved a draw.”

Delighted that the doctors are taking it seriously and aren’t to be bullied on this, think that deserves a lot of credit. Some might think that a minimum, but sport teams and their leading players can be bullies.

I’d still rather all these things were done by independent docs, but least it’s being done properly here

Don't get me wrong. I'd still celebrate beating the Aussies, however it happens

[Gooseberry]

Sounds like Bayliss is suggesting it wasn't his idea to stick Roy in as an opener and that he genuinely believes Denly is one of the best 7 batsmen available to England.

Maybe we will see a shuffle then.

Something about deckchairs and the titanic

[Gooseberry]

Sounds like Bayliss is suggesting it wasn't his idea to stick Roy in as an opener and that he genuinely believes Denly is one of the best 7 batsmen available to England.

Maybe we will see a shuffle then.

Something about deckchairs and the titanic

[GSC]

Sounds like Bayliss is suggesting it wasn't his idea to stick Roy in as an opener and that he genuinely believes Denly is one of the best 7 batsmen available to England.

Maybe we will see a shuffle then.

Something about deckchairs and the titanic

[king_carlos]

Ollie Pope is 176* for Surrey against Hants.

He won't come into the frame in this series but could see England returning to him. He's a hugely talented player who will put pressure on Stokes, Buttler and Bairstow but does little to solve the issues at 1-3.

[Duty281]

Sounds like Curran may come in for Woakes, if England decide the latter should be rested. Get the feeling that, like with Rashid, Root isn't 100% sold on Woakes as he has criminally under-bowled him through the opening two tests.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

In his piece on Bayliss’s comments on the Roy situation (which are ludicrous, and ultimately sum up his poor management of the test side), George Dobell drops this little nugget and information which may give us an indication of the “taxis on the rank”

“The fact that Dom Sibley was on standby at Lord's as a potential top-order concussion replacement (Ollie Pope was the middle-order option) suggests he is next in line if England do, in time, decide they require a change at the top of the order.”

https://t.co/CvKsUC8CrY

[Gooseberry]

I think Sibley as the top order next in line is a no brainer really.

Pope was less certain, but it makes a lot of sense. Although his early England stint where he was chucked under the bus wasnt exactly glorious he did make a good impression and does seem to have continued being too good for county cricket since returning from injury. That makes a nice change from most who have dropped out of England and had a dip/sulk/crisis of confidence and suggests he really might have something.

The issue of course is finding a spot for him, but over the winter that will become easier as players are rested.

I'm not entirely sure its poor management as such Olly, more a lack of agreement between the selectors which reflects the kind of discussions we have here, theres lots of bad ideas to be had to shift the problems around. Itll be interesting to see what Bayliss says about all this when his book comes out (it wont be long lets face it), this era has had such a contrast between a very settled ODI line up and a revolving door selection and constant order shuffling with a real lack of clarity and consistency applied to the test team. Lots and lots of pet theories tried out for 2 or 3 games. We havent quite seen the mass changes in selections that typified the late 80s/90s Ashes debacles but I cant think of a series where they have made an unforced change to the batting line up for some time.
Fact checked...ignoring night watchmen the last series they picked a consistent top 4 was West Indies in 2017 in that time theyve had Cook, Stoneman, Jennings, Westley, Vince, Bairstow, Moeen, Malan, Root, Burns, Denly, Pope, Roy put through the top 3 grinder. Only one of those has retired.

I guess Jennings being in and out of the side, and Moeen and Bairstow taking it in turns to jump up and down the batting order sum up the lack of clear direction and plans that the leadership truely believe in. Smith and Taylor took over as selectors during this period, and later Giles took Strausses director job which maybe explains of what happened last summer and this winter (like Stoneman getting one game) but it doesnt seem its bought any more harmony or consistent thinking. Nor does there seem to be a strong connection between the Lions and the test side anymore. Maybe this is just Bayliss.

[Cyril]

Obviously it’s good that Steve Smith is recovering well from his bash to the head, but it defies logic that this utter cheat is still playing Test Cricket. What level of cheating deserves a life ban?

[Jetty]

Curran, not effective talk etc. Only one match at each ground though...

Edgbaston 18.40 - Woakes 26.22
Lords 20.25 - Woakes 11.33
Headingley 21.50 Woakes 32.50
Oval 24.00 - Woakes 30.37
Rose Bowl 21.00 - Woakes no wickets

In England 20.62

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Obviously it’s good that Steve Smith is recovering well from his bash to the head, but it defies logic that this utter cheat is still playing Test Cricket. What level of cheating deserves a life ban?

Probably much more than ball tampering. It's been done, this discussion, and I don't think it does us any favours.

[Gooseberry]

Curran, not effective talk etc. Only one match at each ground though...

Edgbaston 18.40 - Woakes 26.22
Lords 20.25 - Woakes 11.33
Headingley 21.50 Woakes 32.50
Oval 24.00 - Woakes 30.37
Rose Bowl 21.00 - Woakes no wickets

In England 20.62

Next in our series of carefully selected misleading stats Chris Woakes averages 18.68 with the ball and 40.71 with the bat over the last two summers at home. Jacque Kallis looks ineffective in comparison.  

Curran absolutely is the next in line seamer for England should Woakes or Broad be unavailable for whatever reason, but hes not going to take their spot and certainly not the Stokes seam allrounder spot despite being a better bowler. the argument that he should play ahead of a batsman as part of a 6 bowler attack is nonsense.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Obviously it’s good that Steve Smith is recovering well from his bash to the head, but it defies logic that this utter cheat is still playing Test Cricket. What level of cheating deserves a life ban?

Probably much more than ball tampering. It's been done, this discussion, and I don't think it does us any favours.

If we're banning ball tamperers for life, then a lot of that 2005 English Ashes series winning side would've never played another game...

[LondonTiger]

Potentially libelous Olly?

[Pal Joey]

I'm starting to get a faint headache... feeling slightly nauseous too. Even before a ball is bowled. (....... only kidding)

Interesting reading Langer's comment about not wanting to get into a War of Bouncers... not that I believe Cummins' best ones are equal to Archer's.

What strikes me (excuse the pun) is that this almost represents a shift in our raw and aggressive mind set of previous Ashes series. Watching re-runs of highlights of those epic Ashes matches of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It seems as though most (if not all) of our successful ventures were in some way spurred on by some 'personal insult' or off-field drama to motivate the team to perform to greater heights. Thommo was awful by the way....  

So it's interesting, then isn't it, coming into this 3rd Test. Part of me wants to believe that this is just another type of trap - making England believe 'there are other ways, etc' but I actually am a little worried that they are now being far too kind (if such a thing is possible) and giving England the impression that they won't fight back in the traditional aggressive way. And I have no choice but to get used to it... yeah?

I suppose he may be right. Channel the aggro into a disciplined performance but the question is can they pull it off without Smith - and can they sustain this new approach when things get knocked out of shape? I think not for the last part.

[Gooseberry]

Well it depends what you consider ball tampering, but I believe what they did was technically still legal at that time if somewhat bending the spirit of the rules. Atherton rubbing dirt into the ball in 90whateveritwas wasn't, even if he did claim he was just drying his hands.

There is a difference with the Smith issue. There was an absolute knowing intent to do something that had absolutely been deemed again the rules and spirit of the game, and players pressured into taking part. Since some of the other falls outs there had supposedly been a tightening up on this and no longer a tacit acceptance that people were doing things like sucking mints to get thicker saliva, or "accidentally" transfering vaseline onto the ball (guess where the coach who taught these tricks to England came from and went back to ...)

More than that when called out on it they flat out denied it and tried to trash their opponents reputations. Even when the cameras caught Bancroft they sill all tried to deny it and cast doubt on others ratcheting up the incident.

And it wasnt just the ball tampering and lies around that, it was the culture that had encouraged this osrt of thing and some of the trashy behaviour from the likes of Warner (comments about Trott, punching Root etc)

Its far to say theres not many out there who can honestly put their hands up in the commentary box and say they haven't pushed the spirit or broken the rules at times. But Australia have been bully boys for long enough and were well over due getting pulled up on their worst excesses.

Is it worth a life ban? No not in the culture that was around and had developed in the sport, but the marker has been laid down more firmly. This sort of thing is increasingly unnacecpatble. Same could be said for Pakistan getting caught out in the spot fixing scandal, that sort of thing had been going on for years and theres plenty of ex players who openly talk about laying best on games they were involved in and other activities that would now get them severe bans.

Put it in a bracket with rugby and the deliberate missuse of blood replacements. Eventually someone took it too far and got badly caught out. They took a hammering but not a life ban.

[eirebilly]

Losing Smith is a massive blow for the Aussies but that young lad who replaced him, Labuschagne, looked a very good prospect and batted quite confidently for someone thrown into that role at the last minute. He looked a very accomplished batsman so I would be very warey of him.

[eirebilly]

I just put it in the bracket of the lads cheated, got caught, were humiliated in public and served a ban so I don't really bother about it anymore myself.

[Soul Requiem]

I'm probably in the minority of one but ball tampering is worse than spot fixing, tend to think the bans the Pakistanis received was well over the top myself.

[LondonTiger]

I'm probably in the minority of one but ball tampering is worse than spot fixing, tend to think the bans the Pakistanis received was well over the top myself.

Certainly I am not in your minority I am afraid, with spot fixing just one rung below match fixing.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Potentially libelous Olly?

I think it is fairly well known England tampered with the ball during that series...Ponting intimates it in his documentary/interview on his career with Sky and Charles Colville. Believe his quote was something like, "I'd come back to the changing room and ask our coaches how come they were getting the ball reversing after like 40-50 overs and we couldn't get it to go at all..." then he breaks into a smile and moves swiftly on.

[LondonTiger]

Potentially libelous Olly?

I think it is fairly well known England tampered with the ball during that series...Ponting intimates it in his documentary/interview on his career with Sky and Charles Colville. Believe his quote was something like, "I'd come back to the changing room and ask our coaches how come they were getting the ball reversing after like 40-50 overs and we couldn't get it to go at all..." then he breaks into a smile and moves swiftly on.

It might be widely assumed - but no-one has ever said anything to directly or even imply that England cheated. Without hard proof they know it would be hard to defend a case. A knowing smile is on the safe side.

[Soul Requiem]

Potentially libelous Olly?

I think it is fairly well known England tampered with the ball during that series...Ponting intimates it in his documentary/interview on his career with Sky and Charles Colville. Believe his quote was something like, "I'd come back to the changing room and ask our coaches how come they were getting the ball reversing after like 40-50 overs and we couldn't get it to go at all..." then he breaks into a smile and moves swiftly on.

So the opposition captain is trying to make excuses for losing the series, he's not exactly known for impartiality when it comes to that series, if that's all the proof we have then that's nothing.

[GSC]

I think in general people should really avoid taking the moral high ground given I'm sure every side has some skeletons in their closet.

Smith did his time, hes been stripped of the captaincy, the booing is getting a bit old now

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Roy passes concussion tests. Will be assessed tomorrow as doctors assure the captain they can definitely find a reason to get him ruled out if they look hard enough

[GSC]

they should consult with the Australian bowlers, they have a pretty reliable method of doing it

[Sponsored content]