England's Winter of Cricket 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

The Lions are doing some Bazball v Sri Lanka A.

Sri Lanka A were bowled out for a paltry 136, Fisher with 5/34, and the Lions have already amassed 249/3 in 48 overs. Hameed, who's captain, 81 off 109, Lees 56 off 69, and Haines unbeaten with 62 from 72.

Guess you lot are all off to bed after that...I have opened the bottle.

Terrific game of cricket. Some great play - and some silly errors - from both sides. Can't get closer than that. England usually win these extremely close ones so probably about time for one to go the other way - and the way NZ fought back after the first two days they certainly earned their win

Does it mean anything much for the ongoing England style ? Can't see McCullum and Stokes changing because of one reverse so no. Think they will recognize they got a few things wrong here (apart from the debateable choice to enforce the follow on) : sending in a night watchman wasn't a very helpful contribution , especially as Robinson proceeded to just throw his wicket away early and too easily today. And there was an air of panic in the morning session ; Duckett may be excused , perhaps ; but with three down already Pope didn't bring any calming influence in a skittish little innings - and the needless run out of the in form Brook was a shocker. You could also criticize Stokes and Root for getting out in the manner they did , after all their efforts to bring the situation under control.

But it is an easy game from here in front of the TV set

Don't think McCullum will be too bothered , to be honest. He knew it wouldn't always work - indeed has warned us in advance. 10-2 is a decent record !  Reality check , perhaps ? This is a decent team ; but it still has weaknesses. Selection discussion for later...

Rest for now until the Indian match kicks off tomorrow.

Well that for me is the most embarrassing defeat in English test history. Innings defeats and getting rolled for 58 are one thing, losing after enforcing the follow-on is a whole different level. I've criticised Root in the past for his captaincy errors, but Stokes' decision to enforce the follow-on is the most brainless call I've seen, and England have lost a game and not won a series as a result.

I don't understand much of the discourse around the follow-on decision. Many people saying, not necessarily on here, that batting on is 'defensive' and enforcing the follow-on is 'attacking', and that the new way must be embraced.

But it isn't like that. Broadly put, if England had batted on, an England win is the most likely, then the draw, and the Kiwi win a minor speck. If England enforce the follow-on, as they did, an England win is the most likely, then the Kiwi win, and the draw a minor speck. Where's the sense in that?

If England batted on, they would have smashed the Kiwi attack around the park, recharged the bowlers, and set NZ 500+ to win in about 165-180 overs. That's defensive, according to some.

And Stokes must have known about how Kiwi pitches flatten out on days three and four, as well as his own injury problems (which aren't exactly new), Robinson's fitness issues, the age of Anderson and Broad, and how this seam attack is playing back-to-back tests. Daft. Hope he learns from it.

Batting wasn't the best today, it has to be said. Most dismissals, I think, were avoidable, rather than down to supreme bowling. The run-out of Brook probably summed it up. A lot of dismissals you could criticise, but this is the way England play now, so I won't knock it just for the sake of it.

But in some ways a defeat is good. England haven't made many steps forward since Stokes and McCullum took charge. At least not yet.  No doubting they've radically overhauled the style in which England play, and that's all well and good, but they've played 12 tests now, 11 of which have been against poor opposition. Not England's fault, of course, you only play what's in front of you. But what has been in front of them is a very poor New Zealand side, wrecked by injury, dodgy selections and retirement; a terrible South Africa team and a fairly poor Pakistan team.

England have achieved some good results, no doubt, but England before Stokes/McCullum were able to get good results against mostly poor opposition, such as six straight overseas wins between 2019-2021, or four series wins in a row between 2019-2021. The way some people talk you'd think England barely won a game before McCullum came in! Where England have come up short recently is against the top table, formerly Australia, India and New Zealand, but which is now just Australia and India. I worried that expectation was starting to get out of hand ahead of the Ashes so this is a good jolt back to reality and ground level.

What I have liked this winter is England have dominated opponents on occasion and generally controlled games -  you go back to last summer and England were having to dig out great escapes v NZ and India. That wasn't sustainable. You can't expect to chase 300 every time!

I've liked England's new approach with the bat, but, at the risk of sounding churlish, we haven't seen it properly tested yet. Another reason why I'm looking forward to the Ashes. Most of the games England have played with this new approach have contained some/all of the following: terrible Dukes balls, flat pitches, tiny boundaries, rubbish attacks and/or inexperienced attacks.

In fact I'd say the only time we've seen a good bowling attack come up against England was the series v South Africa, where England were skittled for under 200 in three of the five innings. So that's a concern ahead of the Ashes, as Australia possess an even stronger attack. But it should be a great battle. England will aim to destroy with the bat, Australia likewise with the ball. Who will blink first?

Good news this winter is Duckett's resurgence and Brook's outstanding start to test cricket. Both should be nailed in for the summer. Also got Foakes and Pope quietly, but confidently, doing well with the bat. I've said it enough times, but once more: Crawley has to go.

On the bowling front, the seamers are something we all love. Jimmy's marvellous and Robinson continues to excel. But I think Leach's time should be drawing to a close. Hopefully Rehan Ahmed will be the answer, in God's good time.

Full credit to New Zealand today. I rather felt they threw the towel in in the last test v England in the summer (for the chase), but here they were full of fight and vigour to the very end. They've got a lot of things wrong in this series, with regards to selection, but fair play to Wagner who's had a torrid series with the ball until today, where he has bowled his country to victory. And six of New Zealand's top seven showed the right level of application and solidity to take advantage of an exhausted England, and set up the chance to win. They may be in steep decline, but they defended their stupendous home record to the last ditch.

To the last run, you might say.

And it was a fantastic advert for a dying game, that is out of place in the modern age. We'll miss this silly game when it's gone.

Ah Duty , there is much to agree with in your post above ...

But at the risk of being boring I still can't accept your argument that the follow on call was crazy. Sure , it would perhaps have been a safer option to bat again : but then again : the way England bat in setting up declarations , might they have overdone it and been bowled out for 220 ? Leaving NZ two days to chase 440 on a flat pitch ? Not that likely , perhaps. But NZ making 483 and England getting rolled for 250 were not high on the probability curve either...

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one

I do think this match - in particular the last three days - has underlined the fact that despite their excellent recent record this team does have weaknesses (definite and potential). The bowling looked a bit threadbare on day four - though full credit for the way they fought back late to set up a gettable fourth innings chase. The fact that fitness issues stopped Stokes from bowling really had a huge impact ; and is a real worry looking ahead to the Ashes series - as I think we are entitled to do now
A few fast bowlers (hopefully) fit to join the hunting pack then and a bit of rotation might be necessary : one would hope they judge the permutations better than on that last trip to Australia !
Leach ended up with five. But he really does have his limitations , for all his admirable determination. Will Ahmed be considered at home ?

The batting was certainly exposed today. Crawley has had enough bashing already ; Duckett as I suggested before still has a question mark over his chances in more pace-oriented games . Pope has improved a lot and done better than I expected at three ; but I'm still not entirely convinced he is a lock for the next five years : he had a horrible Ashes in Australia , and how he manages to turn that around at home in a few months will be huge for his career , I believe. And big for England in their quest to regain the urn.
Root is Root. Brook has had a wonderful start and looks the real deal - couldn't have done much today except scream "no !" and stand still ! Still he will find Starc Cummins etc a step up in class. And Stokes (hopefully fit because heaven help England if he isn't !) will need to play with a bit more care than he has often of late.
Not much doubt Bairstow must come back into the side as long as he's fit. After last year I think it is clear he is among the best few Test bats in England. How to fit him in and how to shuffle the order I will leave for now...

One loss won't define this team. But if anyone was getting carried away about the chances of regaining the Ashes I think today might be a bit of a handbrake for optimism...it won't be easy !

Not going to pile into them for the follow on decision and ensuing defeat. Rightly or wrongly this isn't that important a series. Yes it was a chance to win a Test series away to NZ, but that kind of thing barely registers outside of the hard-core followers such as those of us on here.

I hope there's some sense in The Ashes that a draw can be a good result, so it's not necessary to try to force the win all the time. Its going to be very hard fought and I think will likely be won by one match either way, so don't give anything away. Or put another way, I can accept what has happened here, I would be fuming if it happened in The Ashes

It is rather annoying that it means no series wins in NZ since 2008 . Getting like West Indies for England touring teams !

Seems crazy that England have more recent series wins in both Australia and India than either of those places

I suppose with that, a few of those series have only been two Tests long, or severely rain affected, so there haven't been huge chances to win, allied with some abject performancs at times. Of course this should have been a series win, but they clearly wanted either 2-0 or 1-1 and weren't really interested in 1-0

The Windies though there is no such excuse, the series are always at least 3 Tests and England seem to play their worst cricket over there

Fab finish and one of the very few (only?) time(s) I've not been too bothered by an England defeat.

Yes, England should not have enforced the follow-on, especially after Southee's fireworks on the third morning. And yes, you have to think if that had been an Ashes Test Stokes would have batted again.

Looking ahead, England don't really NEED to play Bazball cricket in the upcoming Ashes series. First, they may not be able to, given the Aussie attack. Secondly, an Ashes series comes with its own excitement, big crowds and hype. It doesn't need an all-out-attacking England style to sell itself.

And what would England fans rather see? England grinding out Ashes victories or smashing it around and losing to the Australians?

sirfredperry wrote:

And what would England fans rather see? England grinding out Ashes victories or smashing it around and losing to the Australians?

Given the evidence of the 17 Tests before the BazBall era, I don’t think these are the two options available to England.

JDizzle wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:

And what would England fans rather see? England grinding out Ashes victories or smashing it around and losing to the Australians?

Given the evidence of the 17 Tests before the BazBall era, I don’t think these are the two options available to England.

Yes I think people have slightly forgotten just how dire things were!

A very frustrating loss, albeit incredible game of cricket. Definitely will be things to learn for the team, I think the follow on decision itself was justifiable and fine, but only if Stokes thought he could bowl his usual workload. If he knew he was going in with his knee not allowing him to bowl, it was a bit too much to ask the four man attack to go again so quickly.

The winter itself has been an incredible step forward for this team, and I don't really buy the "rubbish opposition" narrative that Duty is peddling above. Winning overseas tests is not something England were particularly good at, for well, a while, so to win four of five this winter is very impressive.
And it's not like England have had perfect selection issues themselves throughout, they have missed their best batsman of the summer of 2022, in Pakistan they had the illness in camp pre-first test (Foakes missing games, Broad not on tour etc, Wood not available for this NZ series etc).

I do think it is time to end the Crawley experiment - it probably has been for a while, but I have no issue with them giving guys extra rope while the team is winning, and following through on that which they did outline at the start of the McCullum/Stokes reign. But it's clear he needs to go away and work on his game, and tbh I think he would be best served focusing on white ball cricket as I think his game is far more suited for that format.

Just on the Stokes and his knee issue...it's one to keep an eye on for sure, because if he can't bowl suddenly the balance of the side becomes difficult to manage. I love Anderson and Broad, they are obviously still fantastic bowlers, but they are 40 and 36 respectively now, asking them to shoulder the workload of a four man attack with one spinner involved (and that spinner not being a Graeme Swann!) is a LOT to ask. Even if you bring in someone like Wood/Archer, again you'll be asking bowlers with potted history injuries to be part of a four man attack.
There isn't really a solution if Stokes can't bowl...unless they really do go bold and play Ahmed as the spinner at 7 and drop a bat? (maybe with Woakes at 8 in home conditions...). But then you're reshuffling batting orders and making a bunch of changes!

I guess the ledger for the winter for bold/risky declarations or choice to enforce follow on is 2 wins to 1 defeat, converting them from 3 nailed on draws. So there's an argument of the approach working overall

I don't buy this being anywhere near England's list of embarrassing defeat. Have we forgotten Chase's 8 wickets, with that arguably not even being the worst thing from that match. Bumrah smashing us around followed by a feeble collapse? That's a couple off the top of my head without even thinking about it. Too charitable maybe, but not embarrassing

VTR wrote:I guess the ledger for the winter for bold/risky declarations or choice to enforce follow on is 2 wins to 1 defeat, converting them from 3 nailed on draws. So there's an argument of the approach working overall

I don't buy this being anywhere near England's list of embarrassing defeat. Have we forgotten Chase's 8 wickets, with that arguably not even being the worst thing from that match. Bumrah smashing us around followed by a feeble collapse? That's a couple off the top of my head without even thinking about it. Too charitable maybe, but not embarrassing

Yeah I agree on the embarrassing defeat thing - pretty much all the last Ashes series defeats were far more embarrassing than this. Scott Boland will forever haunt me in particular

From the read of reports and look of the scorecard, this was a great test match and another manifestation of the reason why so many of us love test cricket.

I am relieved to see Eng lose.....their Bazballing run had become ominous....and needed a reassurance that it's fallible and they are mortals made of flesh and blood...and can be beaten

Don't forget though Eng went down because they had the courage to enforce a follow-on and then fought back from 80-5 and 210-8 to pull it off (almost)
They remain the most imposing side in test cricket, even in this defeat  and I hope they continue their brand of cricket    

alfie wrote:Ah Duty , there is much to agree with in your post above ...

But at the risk of being boring I still can't accept your argument that the follow on call was crazy. Sure , it would perhaps have been a safer option to bat again : but then again : the way England bat in setting up declarations , might they have overdone it and been bowled out for 220 ? Leaving NZ two days to chase 440 on a flat pitch ?  Not that likely , perhaps. But NZ making 483 and England getting rolled for 250 were not high on the probability curve either...

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one

Even if that had have happened, England could have defended 440, with a refreshed bowling attack.

VTR wrote:Not going to pile into them for the follow on decision and ensuing defeat. Rightly or wrongly this isn't that important a series. Yes it was a chance to win a Test series away to NZ, but that kind of thing barely registers outside of the hard-core followers such as those of us on here.

I hope there's some sense in The Ashes that a draw can be a good result, so it's not necessary to try to force the win all the time. Its going to be very hard fought and I think will likely be won by one match either way, so don't give anything away. Or put another way, I can accept what has happened here, I would be fuming if it happened in The Ashes

I agree with your second paragraph, but I think the approach will still be aggressive and not accepting a draw in 99.9% of circumstances.

sirfredperry wrote:Fab finish and one of the very few (only?) time(s) I've not been too bothered by an England defeat.

Yes, England should not have enforced the follow-on, especially after Southee's fireworks on the third morning. And yes, you have to think if that had been an Ashes Test Stokes would have batted again.

Looking ahead, England don't really NEED to play Bazball cricket in the upcoming Ashes series. First, they may not be able to, given the Aussie attack. Secondly, an Ashes series comes with its own excitement, big crowds and hype. It doesn't need an all-out-attacking England style to sell itself.

And what would England fans rather see? England grinding out Ashes victories or smashing it around and losing to the Australians?

They don't need to, but they will. Though it will astound some supporters of Bazball, England have done quite alright at home v Australia before Stokes/McCullum, winning four and drawing one of the previous five home series v the Aussies, dating back to 2005.

'They may not be able to' - yes, this is what I meant earlier but asking who will blink first? If England get rolled cheaply in the first couple of tests and go 2-0 down, will they change approach? I doubt it.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:

And what would England fans rather see? England grinding out Ashes victories or smashing it around and losing to the Australians?

Given the evidence of the 17 Tests before the BazBall era, I don’t think these are the two options available to England.

Yes I think people have slightly forgotten just how dire things were!

A very frustrating loss, albeit incredible game of cricket. Definitely will be things to learn for the team, I think the follow on decision itself was justifiable and fine, but only if Stokes thought he could bowl his usual workload. If he knew he was going in with his knee not allowing him to bowl, it was a bit too much to ask the four man attack to go again so quickly.

The winter itself has been an incredible step forward for this team, and I don't really buy the "rubbish opposition" narrative that Duty is peddling above. Winning overseas tests is not something England were particularly good at, for well, a while, so to win four of five this winter is very impressive.

As mentioned, beating middling to poor opposition overseas was something England were doing prior to Bazball, such as beating Sri Lanka 2-0 and 3-0, and dominating South Africa 3-1. Also got a test win in India which was incredible. The West Indies series was an aberration, however, but England did win six straight overseas tests between 2019 and 2021.

Where England fell short was against the best teams - of those 17 games listed above, all but three were against the best teams in the world, and most were away from home. This England haven't yet faced a similar level of challenge over a series.

VTR wrote:I guess the ledger for the winter for bold/risky declarations or choice to enforce follow on is 2 wins to 1 defeat, converting them from 3 nailed on draws. So there's an argument of the approach working overall

I don't buy this being anywhere near England's list of embarrassing defeat. Have we forgotten Chase's 8 wickets, with that arguably not even being the worst thing from that match. Bumrah smashing us around followed by a feeble collapse? That's a couple off the top of my head without even thinking about it. Too charitable maybe, but not embarrassing

I don't agree that this test was a nailed-on draw without enforcing the follow-on. England would have had around 165-180 overs to bowl out NZ had they batted on.

Embarrassing? Well it's England first follow-on defeat in 140 years for a reason.

Oh and England v Bangladesh starts tomorrow. I believe it's being streamed for free on the ECB website, if you're in the UK.

Fair enough, this wasn't a nailed on draw, I was a bit lazy grouping the three games together in that respect. Agree to disagree on embarrassing, I define that more as being utterly dominated, especially at home, usually with a sprinkling of outlier performances from utterly average players. I feel far better about this than losing to Shai Hope making twin hundreds

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Just on the Stokes and his knee issue...it's one to keep an eye on for sure, because if he can't bowl suddenly the balance of the side becomes difficult to manage. I love Anderson and Broad, they are obviously still fantastic bowlers, but they are 40 and 36 respectively now, asking them to shoulder the workload of a four man attack with one spinner involved (and that spinner not being a Graeme Swann!) is a LOT to ask. Even if you bring in someone like Wood/Archer, again you'll be asking bowlers with potted history injuries to be part of a four man attack.
There isn't really a solution if Stokes can't bowl...unless they really do go bold and play Ahmed as the spinner at 7 and drop a bat? (maybe with Woakes at 8 in home conditions...). But then you're reshuffling batting orders and making a bunch of changes!

Woakes is a bit of a dark horse in the Ashes selection conundrum for me. Absolutely brilliant in English conditions at his best but also a terrific number 8 batter. That batting depth when you're going hard is useful both as a backup and because it gives the batters higher up the confidence to play freely. The importance of batting depth in the ODI side giving batters confidence to go very hard early in the Morgan era is well known and really interesting.

Usually I'm firmly in the pick your best bowlers for the conditions then worry about batting depth after camp. If, it is still an if at the moment regardless of how highly I rate him, Woakes can get fully fit and at his best he is right in the discussion as one of the best in English conditions though. Plus he's a very good lower order batter.

I'd presume they'll be ideally looking at picking two out of Anderson, Robinson and Broad then pace ideally from Archer and possibly Wood depending on how he's shaping up. If Woakes can enter that discussion as well that would be terrific. With 5 Tests in a short space of time they'll have to rotate or we'll inevitably see bowlers become ineffective or get injured. In the 3rd innings here our seam attack, marvelous for much of the tour, saw their average pace drop comfortably below 80mph.

For the reasons above around batters being less confident in going very hard with a weaker lower order I'd be really surprised if they went with Rehan at 7.

Duty281 wrote:Oh and England v Bangladesh starts tomorrow. I believe it's being streamed for free on the ECB website, if you're in the UK.

Some interesting competition for CWC spots there in a bilateral white ball series that I'll honestly struggle to follow that enthusiastically.

Malan vs Roy - Looks like a shootout between these two to partner YJB

Bowling all-rounders - Woakes and Surran are both on tour but they might struggle to fit both into a full strength XI

Spin bowling all-rounders - On the batting all-rounder side Mo could use a performance or two and Jacks has a shot with Livingstone injured. Rehan of course is there on the bowling all-rounder side, boy do England need a backup to Dilly.

Perhaps the area I'll be watching most closely will be the middle overs Plunkett role. It's something England have been missing a bit for a while. Wood seems the most obvious fit there but obviously has fitness issue. It will be interesting to see if they try to manufacture another bowler into those overs as they did with Surran being turned into an odd but very effective death bowler at the World T20.

KC
Don't forget Hales as another option opening - is playing franchise cricket this winter, apparently with the blessin of the ECB.
Could we also see Duckett get a chance at the top of the order, after his reasonably successful winter as a Test opener?

VTR wrote:Not going to pile into them for the follow on decision and ensuing defeat. Rightly or wrongly this isn't that important a series. Yes it was a chance to win a Test series away to NZ, but that kind of thing barely registers outside of the hard-core followers such as those of us on here.

I hope there's some sense in The Ashes that a draw can be a good result, so it's not necessary to try to force the win all the time. Its going to be very hard fought and I think will likely be won by one match either way, so don't give anything away. Or put another way, I can accept what has happened here, I would be fuming if it happened in The Ashes

This.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Oh and England v Bangladesh starts tomorrow. I believe it's being streamed for free on the ECB website, if you're in the UK.

Some interesting competition for CWC spots there in a bilateral white ball series that I'll honestly struggle to follow that enthusiastically.

Malan vs Roy - Looks like a shootout between these two to partner YJB

Bowling all-rounders - Woakes and Surran are both on tour but they might struggle to fit both into a full strength XI

Spin bowling all-rounders - On the batting all-rounder side Mo could use a performance or two and Jacks has a shot with Livingstone injured. Rehan of course is there on the bowling all-rounder side, boy do England need a backup to Dilly.

Perhaps the area I'll be watching most closely will be the middle overs Plunkett role. It's something England have been missing a bit for a while. Wood seems the most obvious fit there but obviously has fitness issue. It will be interesting to see if they try to manufacture another bowler into those overs as they did with Surran being turned into an odd but very effective death bowler at the World T20.

Yes, it's an important series, in similar conditions to that which England will face at the World Cup, for squad places and such. This may be Roy's last chance. A poor return here and he may not get back into the side for England's next ODIs, which are in August. Hoping that Rehan and Jacks can force their way into contention.

Bangladesh (probable): 1 Tamim Iqbal (capt), 2 Litton Das, 3 Shakib Al Hasan, 4 Mushfiqur Rahim (wk), 5 Mahmudullah, 6 Afif Hossain, 7 Towhid Hridoy, 8 Mehidy Hasan Miraz, 9 Taskin Ahmed, 10 Taijul Islam, 11 Mustafizur Rahman.

England (possible): 1 Jason Roy, 2 Phil Salt, 3 Dawid Malan, 4 James Vince, 5 Jos Buttler (capt/wk), 6 Will Jacks, 7 Moeen Ali, 8 Sam Curran, 9 Chris Woakes/Mark Wood, 10 Adil Rashid, 11 Jofra Archer/Saqib Mahmood.

Anticipated teams according to Cricinfo. Rehan Ahmed has been struggling with illness, so may not get a game here. Bit of a patchwork England side, if we're honest, while Bangladesh look pretty near to full strength. They've got all their star names available.

Difficult to call the series, maybe I'm narrowly favouring the home side. Bangladesh have won their last 7 home ODI series (or 13 of their last 14), including beating India 2-1 with two very narrow victories, and it's a run which stretches back to before the last World Cup. England, meanwhile, have struggled for consistency and haven't won any of their last four ODI series.

Seeing some discussion above about whether England should seek to "change their approach" for the Ashes series in recognition of the strength of the opposition. But what does this actually mean ?

Is anyone really going to suggest that the general principles of the new order (always play with positive intent , seek wickets over economy when in the field , be prepared to push for and set aggressive targets , and chase your own targets even when the RRR appears steep) should be abandoned ? Would be a sad thing if it were , I think.

Maybe adopt a slightly more nuanced tactic with the bat , depending on circumstances ?

The thing is , I reckon they have already done that on occasions (although I do think they rather lost the plot for a couple of periods yesterday ; which cost them the match)

Remember last summer v SA at Old Trafford ? England fell to 43/3 in the last session , after SA had been bowled out for 151 ; and the ball was doing plenty. Crawley then played completely against type - (more like Sibley ! ) to ensure no more damage that evening . OK , YJB was still scoring fairly freely but even he was a bit more restrained than usual...They both got out the next morning but then Stokes & Foakes went big : but what might have happened if England had lost further wickets on day one ? I think that was an illustration of playing the situation.

Similarly yesterday : after the early chaos , Root and Stokes played quite circumspectly - especially Ben - to get the chase back under control. Unfortunately both suffered a rush of blood which rather wasted their earlier efforts : I guess everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I do think Matt Henry had a lot to do with that. His 11 over spell for just 19 runs after lunch (it had been 7 overs for 12 when they brought Wagner back at the other end) seemed to frustrate Root in particular , and seemed to me influenced the ill-advised attempts by both bats to launch immediately at Wagner ; when a little more patience would surely have got the job done. As I say ; mistakes , eh ? But it doesn't mean they are committed to always playing in the same manner.

There is room within the "Bazball" template for variation depending on the state of the game ; and as long as they remember that - and perhaps get better at judging when to use the brakes or the accelerator - I don't think they need to change too much just because this one got away. Whether playing Australia , NZ or Ireland : have a game plan ; but keep your cricketing brain alert for when a minor and temporary variation is called for...

One other thing before we leave NZ (with another drawn series )  :

Has been a lot of comment about NZ being a mediocre opponent.  Indeed they have certainly slipped from the height of winning the WTC in 2021...small wonder with Taylor , Watling, Boult , CdG all moving on or out ; and others ageing a little.  But if you compare the batting averages of their top seven with those of England you might think them overall the stronger line-up - at least on paper. Apart from Harry Brook's amazing - and early - figures , NZ have three men averaging better than even Joe Root ; and two more over 40 while the rest of England's group struggle to top 30 . Sorry , Duckett has 38 - but again small sample.

Bowling is different , of course. But with Henry back the NZ pace attack showed it wasn't quite as inferior as one probably would have thought before the match. With a fit Jamieson  they might not be quite ready to fall into the second division just yet ! (They do need a better spinner. But some might suggest England do too - with due respect to the honest and persevering Jack Leach)

I reckon they will be much too good at home for Sri Lanka. And even if they do need to find some new blood to replace the ageing warriors , they may well continue to punch above their weight. And wins over them should not be regarded as inconsequential or "expected".

alfie wrote:Seeing some discussion above about whether England should seek to "change their approach" for the Ashes series in recognition of the strength of the opposition. But what does this actually mean ?

Is anyone really going to suggest that the general principles of the new order (always play with positive intent , seek wickets over economy when in the field , be prepared to push for and set aggressive targets , and chase your own targets even when the RRR appears steep) should be abandoned ? Would be a sad thing if it were , I think.

Maybe adopt a slightly more nuanced tactic with the bat , depending on circumstances ?

The thing is , I reckon they have already done that on occasions (although I do think they rather lost the plot for a couple of periods yesterday ; which cost them the match)

Remember last summer v SA at Old Trafford ? England fell to 43/3 in the last session , after SA had been bowled out for 151 ; and the ball was doing plenty. Crawley then played completely against type - (more like Sibley ! ) to ensure no more damage that evening . OK , YJB was still scoring fairly freely but even he was a bit more restrained than usual...They both got out the next morning but then Stokes & Foakes went big : but what might have happened if England had lost further wickets on day one ? I think that was an illustration of playing the situation.

Similarly yesterday : after the early chaos , Root and Stokes played quite circumspectly - especially Ben - to get the chase back under control. Unfortunately both suffered a rush of blood which rather wasted their earlier efforts : I guess everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I do think Matt Henry had a lot to do with that. His 11 over spell for just 19 runs after lunch (it had been 7 overs for 12 when they brought Wagner back at the other end) seemed to frustrate Root in particular , and seemed to me influenced the ill-advised attempts by both bats to launch immediately at Wagner ; when a little more patience would surely have got the job done.  As I say ; mistakes , eh ? But it doesn't mean they are committed to always playing in the same manner.  

There is room within the "Bazball" template for variation depending on the state of the game ; and as long as they remember that - and perhaps get better at judging when to use the brakes or the accelerator - I don't think they need to change too much just because this one got away. Whether playing Australia , NZ or Ireland : have a game plan ; but keep your cricketing brain alert for when a minor and temporary variation is called for...

Yes people remember the highlight attacking but there have been plenty of adaptations with the batting approach shown already - that Stokes/Foakes partnership in the SA game happened at a “normal” scoring rate too. And while that India incredible chase by the end was rapidly going along (once they had broken the Indian spirit), Root and Bairstow were very circumspect to begin with.

Don’t see why we should change approach either Alfie - it may not work in terms of wins over the Aussies, but it’s producing wonderfully entertaining cricket, which is ultimately what I want to see!

As for the ODI, Bangladesh win the toss and bat. Off to a decent start at 75-2 off 15 overs, wickets for Woakes and Wood. Will Jacks making his debut at 6 for England

Some good middle overs work from England, Rashid in particular has restricted Bangladesh to 177-7 off 41 overs - pitch is a bit two paced and there is turn of course, but you'd fancy England are currently on top here

Ali finishes off Bangladesh.

Does not look an easy track to bat on...

With another failure with the bat. Could we be seeing the end of Jason Roy's chances at the ODI CWC?

I would have Hales in there opening with YJB and interchanging (depending on conditions) with Malan.

Plenty of games left in this series yet Billy, wouldn't write his obituary just yet - albeit a poor dismissal today.

Unless Hales shows a willingness to play 50 over stuff in the build up (his last 50 over game was in 2019!), I wouldn't have him near the 50 over side. Malan next cab off the rank then Salt for me

Just do not think that Roy has it anymore to be honest Olly.

Hales would still be able to do a job But I did forget about Salt and agree, he would be ahead of Hales.

Vince is a favourite of mine but he is too hit and miss for me.

This isn't on view down here. But text report tells me England are in a spot of trouble ? Plenty of time left but wouldn't want to lose another wicket just yet ?

Malan continues to show how useful he can be : it seems he is always thought of as a "fringe" selection - but he keeps getting decent runs when others don't...

Hope that doesn't jinx him

You can certainly see how Bangladesh achieved those home ODI stats that Duty posted above - a very very effective bowling unit for these conditions. I can see myself now tipping them as my underdogs for the world cup for them to crash out in the group stage

Think this will be close still, stating the obvious but Bangladesh can only win by bowling England out. Might be a one run defeat?

Can see myself doing the same, Olly!

I enjoy these low-scoring ODIs, more than the 340-style ones. Not a lot of batting for England after these two.

alfie wrote:This isn't on view down here. But text report tells me England are in a spot of trouble ? Plenty of time left but wouldn't want to lose another wicket just yet ?

Malan continues to show how useful he can be : it seems he is always thought of as a "fringe" selection - but he keeps getting decent runs when others don't...

Hope that doesn't jinx him

Just to say Alfie, while Malan deserves credit for still being there...I'm not entirely sure how he still is! Taskin had him in all sorts of bother, and he's almost chopped onto his stumps off Mehedy a few times too

Hopefully he can cash in that luck

Struggling fo rruns just at the moment, needing 97 of 19. Moeen with just 5 off 20 so far, and Taskin with 1 for 9 in 6.5 overs...
(obviously, Mo hit the next ball for 4)

Just under 5 an over required, with these being the last two 'specialist' batsmenn although obviously Woakes and Rashid have some ability while Wood and Archer are more hitters than batsmen.
Interstingly poised match

I'm really not fancying anyone from Woakes below to score much on this surface, so I think these two have to get it below 40. Few more tight overs and the required run-rate might start to become a problem.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:This isn't on view down here. But text report tells me England are in a spot of trouble ? Plenty of time left but wouldn't want to lose another wicket just yet ?

Malan continues to show how useful he can be : it seems he is always thought of as a "fringe" selection - but he keeps getting decent runs when others don't...

Hope that doesn't jinx him

Just to say Alfie, while Malan deserves credit for still being there...I'm not entirely sure how he still is! Taskin had him in all sorts of bother, and he's almost chopped onto his stumps off Mehedy a few times too

Hopefully he can cash in that luck

Haha.. thanks , Olly. As I say , only checking the scores. Sounds as if Malan has borrowed one of Labuschagne's bats

Seems to be going up a gear now ? RRR 4.6 , five in hand ...who's your money on ?

Just as England seemed to get a semblance of momentum, Mehidy breaks Moeen's stumps with a neat ball. Last ball of his spell, too.

Still 69 away.

Mo just gone - 69 needed in 15 overs with Malan plus all rounders / bowlers to come.
Really comes down to Malan now - if he can bat through I think we'll get home, but certainly not a gimme.

But then, it's not as though England have been involved in many tight finishes recently.

Good bowling change and an awkward stay for Woakes comes to an end.

Think Malan will need to step it up now.

Woakes gone now ? Looks a forlorn hope now I think. Doesn't seem anyone apart from Malan has been able to get going on this so bit much to expect Rashid and the two quicks to do the business now...

Hope you chaps get to see a good finish

44 needed, 10 overs left and only 3 wickets in hand.
I don't mind Malan letting Rashid have the strike, but I think he'll need to farm it once we get to Archer and Wood. Run rate not a huge problem - we win 95% of the time if we make it to 50 overs.
One big over either way swings this conclusively.

Hearing reports that Adil Rashid has 10 first class hundreds, can anyone confirm?

Good job England - hats off to Malan (and Rashid)

SA on top in the other game but that will do me. Sleep calls ...

Superb innings from Malan to get England home. He has to be nailed in for that opener spot ahead of Roy and anyone else now. And full credit to Rashid for the support act - third-highest score of the innings without much trouble.