England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

June 1st-June 4th: One Test v Ireland (four days)
June 16th-July 31st: Five Tests v Australia
August 30th-September 5th: Four T20s v New Zealand
September 8th-September 15th: Four ODIs v New Zealand
September 20th-September 26th: Three ODIs v Ireland

England try to wrest the Ashes back from Australia, in a series which could be the greatest since 2005. Australia have currently held the urn for just over five years, which is the longest spell of urn-holding since the 1989-2005 period.

Ireland also visit for a test before that, and then there's some limited-overs games squashed into the last days of summer.

Looking at that Aussie partnership list - 81, 72, 72* - it's a bit like England yesterday, a few sizable ones but no monster partnership, such as Smith/Head v India, that puts a team into outright supremacy. Not yet anyway...

England are still ahead in the game, but if these two get through to stumps then Australia have a good platform tomorrow, against a ball beginning to soften, to get a first innings lead.

A shame England were bowled out, because an extra 30-40 runs could have come in very handy.

Khawaja into the 120s as he nails another short ball. England have been a bit flat with the new ball. Seems the air went out of the tyres with Broad's overstep, but still time to force something.

Oh dear, Carey edges his way to 50, quite literally. Seems keeper and slip, bit tired, didn't react in time and it went between.

Sums up the evening for England.

Duty281 wrote:Looking at that Aussie partnership list - 81, 72, 72* - it's a bit like England yesterday, a few sizable ones but no monster partnership, such as Smith/Head v India, that puts a team into outright supremacy. Not yet anyway...

England are still ahead in the game, but if these two get through to stumps then Australia have a good platform tomorrow, against a ball beginning to soften, to get a first innings lead.

A shame England were bowled out, because an extra 30-40 runs could have come in very handy.

Khawaja into the 120s as he nails another short ball. England have been a bit flat with the new ball. Seems the air went out of the tyres with Broad's overstep, but still time to force something.

Nice try . But I don't think an extra 30 runs matters much in context . If those chances weren't spurned 393 would have been plenty. As it is they'll be playing catch up tomorrow. Will need to regroup mentally or this could get ugly...

Sobering last hour or so after England had to work so hard for what they had on this pitch. Still pretty even overall but could've been much better. Will need early inroads tomorrow if we get play

311/5. Khawaja

And Carey a fine back up , sees Australia take the day.

Unlike most people , I was very happy with England's first day as I regarded assumptions of a "500 par pitch" as exaggerated. But after that last session I fear that a huge opportunity to take a grip on the game has been tossed away ; and England will need a couple of good sessions tomorrow or they will be staring down the barrel .

Stokes and McCullum have been very good at keeping the team's spirits positive despite setbacks over the last year. Here's hoping they can do so again this evening

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

England so close to pushing home a big advantage but not getting past the line. On this sort of pitch you have to take the chances. Bairstow's catch from Labuschagne was excellent but then a missed stumping and catch. Broad's no ball. You can't squander three in a day on that wicket.

It is turning but often the turn is slow then one really grips and bounces. Likewise, there is that variable vertical bounce but it's not being seen much with England's pacers being on the slower side of medium-fast rather than the Aussie seamers who are the upper end of fast-medium to a genuine quick in Cummins.

There was lots of endeavour but factoring in the movement in the air from the more overcast conditions I'd say England should be disappointed and Australia very happy.

Khawaja batted excellently. His footwork wasn't great early on where his hands were getting well out ahead of him. He improved with time at the crease though, played the short ball fantastically and his playing of spin is very good indeed now.

England are more in need of a big morning tomorrow than the Aussies. They do have the advantage of batting last on this track though.

And that's stumps. England probably still just about ahead, but it's tilted in Australia's direction in this last session.

Full credit to Khawaja. His career has undergone a renaissance in the last couple of years, and this is his crowning achievement - a test hundred in England, a place where he was averaging 20 before today. Dominated the short ball, anchored the innings, and remained calm when many, more illustrious, names were arriving and departing. I had him down as my surprise player of the series and perhaps he's illustrated why.

Carey's been his best support act, looking good when on the drive and continuing his form shown in the WTC final. 52 from three innings, it's an OK effort.

England, it's been a day of frustration. Had Australia on the ropes early, tried some inventive plans, and kept chipping away throughout the day in a see-saw battle, but so many costly mistakes has meant England aren't in as strong a position as they'd like. Could have had Green out earlier, should have had Carey caught twice, and nearly had Khawaja bowled. All of which should have meant the tail would have been in tonight, against a new ball and a raucous atmosphere. Instead, England are still going to have to break this partnership tomorrow, with a ball that's already 14 overs old. As I said pre-series, Australia have the better catchers, England underlined a costly inferiority today.

Also some other pre-series fears were underlined. Outside of the new ball phase, England's seamers carried virtually no threat, and exposed the one-pace weakness. If England are to play on docile pitches like this, they need one genuine pace bowler in the team, not three sub 85mph bowlers. Having Robinson bang in 78mph bouncers with an old ball on a pitch with no pace doesn't work, for whatever mysterious reason. Moeen was poor and expensive, on a pretty helpful pitch for his type of bowling. Disappointed with Anderson with both new balls. He contained well, but you want more than that from him. Broad obviously the pick.

England are just about ahead because Australia have to bat last. So unless Australia get a 50+ lead, which they still might, England should still retain confidence. But it's about breaking that partnership early tomorrow and bowling sensibly to the tail (not banging it in short to Cummins with a split field!). At the pace Australia are batting, they'll need a full session of batting to get parity or a small lead, so if they can bat three hours tomorrow they'll be ahead in the game.

Weather currently looking wet for Birmingham from 2/3 tomorrow afternoon. A low to very low chance of rain on Monday. Tuesday currently a moderate chance of rain. Would be frustrating to see this become a rain-affected draw, especially with how dry it has been across England over the past few weeks.

A cracking stat from Zaltz:

Usman Khawaja has the highest average as an opener in Test history (68.72, min. 20 innings as opener).

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Looking at that Aussie partnership list - 81, 72, 72* - it's a bit like England yesterday, a few sizable ones but no monster partnership, such as Smith/Head v India, that puts a team into outright supremacy. Not yet anyway...

England are still ahead in the game, but if these two get through to stumps then Australia have a good platform tomorrow, against a ball beginning to soften, to get a first innings lead.

A shame England were bowled out, because an extra 30-40 runs could have come in very handy.

Khawaja into the 120s as he nails another short ball. England have been a bit flat with the new ball. Seems the air went out of the tyres with Broad's overstep, but still time to force something.

Nice try   .   But I don't think an extra 30 runs matters much in context . If those chances weren't spurned 393 would have been plenty. As it is they'll be playing catch up tomorrow. Will need to regroup mentally or this could get ugly...

I think an extra 30 runs could make a huge difference, it's shaping up to be a close test.

Eng won one session and Aus won two.
And the one that Aus lost was largely owing to the hole they dug for themselves through overly defensive play.
And partly owing to Stokes smartness as an on-field captain.

But as the shock value of rapid bowling changes & novelty of funky field placements wore off...and Aussie batsmen starting playing with intent , some normal cricket....the pitch exposed the mediocrity of English bowling.

Brook+Moeen+Root bowled 40 out of 94 overs and adding Stokes who looks no more than a part-time medium pacer to that would make 47 overs i,e half.

and the remaining 3 front line bowlers were barely 80mph ...only Broad hitting mid 80s obsessionally

Aus will get some kind of lead here for sure........I put them at 450ish yesterday and they are on course for that total I believe.

There are more worrying signs arising out of Eng's approach is to play 3  medium pacers and pack the side with useful / part time bowlers......and rely on out-batting Aus.....is dangerous low probability to succeed.

I saw Dhoni do that in overseas series with results like 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 , 2-0 or 3-0 types in overseas series.

And last but not the least worry for Eng should be  Bairstow....the back-stopper who stands effectively with a zero or negative score for those two drops.
He looks too "bulky" to be an acceptable WK.
There will be more drops and Eng will replace him as a WK by T3 is my guess.
He is a good batsman so someone like Pope or one of the openers will have to go to accommodate a good WK.

PS* Moeen Top wkt taker for Eng so far in first inning
** C.Green b. M. Ali
Ball of the Ashes so far and might go the distance

The weather forecast suggests passing thunderstorms and showers from tomorrow afternoon onwards.

That silly, unnecessary declaration looking even sillier now.

What gets into the heads of England captains in declaring when they are on top in a match? Adelaide in 2006-07, Cape Town in 2015/16 and, most grievous IMHO, the Headingley declaration against the Windies by Root (when England had worked so hard to save the match, only to then toss it away).

Stokes must distinguish between the desire to entertain and play aggressively with the hard-nosed reality of trying to beat the Australians in an Ashes match.

Before the series I wondered what England supporters would prefer - England batting first and scoring on the first day, say, a somewhat sedate 260 for two or their scoring a rollicking 360 all out. The first scenario could lead to a win while the second might lead to a defeat. Ideally it would be nice to beat the Aussies AND entertain as well. Personally I'd prefer a win, no matter how it's arrived at.

Not sure that the English bowler line up are good enough for this Australian side.

Been traveling and haven't captured a lot of the action. But England continuing to keep attacking with bat and ball. Australia more traditional, so far up to the challenge.
Great hundreds for Root and Khawaja.
Not a great pitch by the look of it though England managed a bit more life out of it than Australia managed on day one.
Moeen not letting Stokes down. He had a license to really try and buy a wicket, and while going for a few, got the wicket of Head. Should have had Green the same over had Bairstow been up to it and that might have transformed the game then and their. Had his man eventually though Green helped Khawaja repair some of the damage by then.
Quiet day for Marnus and Smith.
Stokes showing up with the ball, took the big wicket, and continued to bowl a ton of no-balls!
Broad seemed far too impressed by Stokes' ability to delivery those long overs! And that proving very costly as Khawaja is allowed to hold the innings together.
If its a single innings shootout as it is increasingly shaping up to be, think England's declaration might come back to haunt them. Thought that was too funky even for Bazball!

Duty281 wrote:England are just about ahead because Australia have to bat last. So unless Australia get a 50+ lead, which they still might, England should still retain confidence. But it's about breaking that partnership early tomorrow and bowling sensibly to the tail (not banging it in short to Cummins with a split field!). At the pace Australia are batting, they'll need a full session of batting to get parity or a small lead, so if they can bat three hours tomorrow they'll be ahead in the game.

I'd put Australia ahead even factoring in the pitch deteriorating and them batting last. Not least because I thought the England bowlers looked worryingly knackered after one day in the field.

As Guildford says, never select for the next Test until the current one is over. I'd be very surprised if we don't see rotation in the seamers as early as T2 though.

As you say it's all about breaking this partnership before the ball goes soft. Cummins can bat but after that it's three guys in the category of not bunnies but definitely tailenders.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are just about ahead because Australia have to bat last. So unless Australia get a 50+ lead, which they still might, England should still retain confidence. But it's about breaking that partnership early tomorrow and bowling sensibly to the tail (not banging it in short to Cummins with a split field!). At the pace Australia are batting, they'll need a full session of batting to get parity or a small lead, so if they can bat three hours tomorrow they'll be ahead in the game.

I'd put Australia ahead even factoring in the pitch deteriorating and them batting last. Not least because I thought the England bowlers looked worryingly knackered after one day in the field.

As Guildford says, never select for the next Test until the current one is over. I'd be very surprised if we don't see rotation in the seamers as early as T2 though.

As you say it's all about breaking this partnership before the ball goes soft. Cummins can bat but after that it's three guys in the category of not bunnies but definitely tailenders.

To be fair the Aussies look shattered at the end of day one, Stokes let them off the hook not having to warm up at the start of day 2.

This has a feel of Edbaston 2019 to me, where England had a lot of chances bit kept letting Australia back in, then pretty much sleep walked to quite a heavy defeat. Hope to be proven wrong, but I am starting to think its a defeat from here, don't think there will be enough rain to not make this a result one way or the other

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England are just about ahead because Australia have to bat last. So unless Australia get a 50+ lead, which they still might, England should still retain confidence. But it's about breaking that partnership early tomorrow and bowling sensibly to the tail (not banging it in short to Cummins with a split field!). At the pace Australia are batting, they'll need a full session of batting to get parity or a small lead, so if they can bat three hours tomorrow they'll be ahead in the game.

I'd put Australia ahead even factoring in the pitch deteriorating and them batting last. Not least because I thought the England bowlers looked worryingly knackered after one day in the field.

As Guildford says, never select for the next Test until the current one is over. I'd be very surprised if we don't see rotation in the seamers as early as T2 though.

As you say it's all about breaking this partnership before the ball goes soft. Cummins can bat but after that it's three guys in the category of not bunnies but definitely tailenders.

Well the odds agree with you, because Australia are currently 6/5 favourites and England 21/10, with the draw at 12/5. If the rain hits as expected, which would mean about half of tomorrow washed away and possible further rain on days four and five, then the draw will come firmly into the equation. I wonder how generous England's next declaration might be, in a bid to force a result?

I think Wood is a near-certainty, presuming he's fit, to come in for Lord's. The question then is England have to decide which two of Anderson/Robinson/Broad/Woakes to pick, which is a tough ask, or they could pick three and leave out Moeen.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Looking at that Aussie partnership list - 81, 72, 72* - it's a bit like England yesterday, a few sizable ones but no monster partnership, such as Smith/Head v India, that puts a team into outright supremacy. Not yet anyway...

England are still ahead in the game, but if these two get through to stumps then Australia have a good platform tomorrow, against a ball beginning to soften, to get a first innings lead.

A shame England were bowled out, because an extra 30-40 runs could have come in very handy.

Khawaja into the 120s as he nails another short ball. England have been a bit flat with the new ball. Seems the air went out of the tyres with Broad's overstep, but still time to force something.

Nice try   .   But I don't think an extra 30 runs matters much in context . If those chances weren't spurned 393 would have been plenty. As it is they'll be playing catch up tomorrow. Will need to regroup mentally or this could get ugly...

I think an extra 30 runs could make a huge difference, it's shaping up to be a close test.

Agree about the extra 30 runs potentially being so important. It's certainly looking very close atm as to who wins first dig. Although England have the advantage of bowling last, Australia probably still benefit from having the superior spinner.

king_carlos wrote:Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

England so close to pushing home a big advantage but not getting past the line. On this sort of pitch you have to take the chances. Bairstow's catch from Labuschagne was excellent but then a missed stumping and catch. Broad's no ball. You can't squander three in a day on that wicket.

It is turning but often the turn is slow then one really grips and bounces. Likewise, there is that variable vertical bounce but it's not being seen much with England's pacers being on the slower side of medium-fast rather than the Aussie seamers who are the upper end of fast-medium to a genuine quick in Cummins.

There was lots of endeavour but factoring in the movement in the air from the more overcast conditions I'd say England should be disappointed and Australia very happy.

Khawaja batted excellently. His footwork wasn't great early on where his hands were getting well out ahead of him. He improved with time at the crease though, played the short ball fantastically and his playing of spin is very good indeed now.

England are more in need of a big morning tomorrow than the Aussies. They do have the advantage of batting last on this track though.

Agree with all that, Carlos. Australia's frontline bowlers probably especially happy with a full day's rest and a bit more at least to come tomorrow.

I see I am very much in the minority here in not being bothered about That Declaration. And I'm still not - and won't be even if this ends in a narrow defeat . Here is why:

Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx. And yes , possibly having to come back and bowl a couple of overs in the morning before opening the batting might have unsettled the openers : but so did having to bat 4 overs on day one.  And since they were 29/2 next morning I think that "might" is redundant. So it is just the (modest) run cost.

But the (hoped for) gain is in a different currency. It is all about unsettling an Australian team which loves to play at its own pace , dictate the terms of the match : confident in its ability and always looking to cow the opposition into performing below its own best. Everything Stokes does has this as a subtext.

Will it always work ? Of course not. But I'd argue that it did , for a great deal of this first two days.  Australia were defensive with the ball and in the field ; relatively timid with the bat until Head started to find his range - and would very likely have been bowled out substantially behind on first innings had England not squandered three wickets through bad keeper errors and an unfortunately timed overstep.

This approach , involving risk through unorthodox methods , has been a cornerstone of the Stokes/McCullum revolution throughout their reign : it has largely worked : do we really want to return to the days of staid old "safety first" tactics ?  Just because it's Australia ?

So yes ; this particular move may end up backfiring (though I'd say the plethora of errors late on this second day will be far more to blame if things do go pear-shaped than a potential cost of a relatively modest number of first innings runs) Obviously it will be a major blow if England end up losing this game despite winning the toss and getting a very good start ; but I think the more serious damage would be done if they allow themselves to retreat into timidity just because their ultra-aggressive policy fails to get a result at first time of trying. They won't win the Ashes back letting Australia dictate terms , I am sure of that. So whatever happens , I really hope they keep taking the fight to their opponents - whether by surprise closures , arguably over-aggressive batting or throwing the ball to Harry Brook : and hopefully start holding all catches etc !

As to this match I have no real clue what will happen. Lots of rain ? Australia take a solid lead , skittle England and coast home ? Or a second innings shoot out - probably including another contentious declaration by Stokes

Should all be good to watch :bring it on !

Having got all that off my chest , time to assess + and - for both sides so far.

For Australia : Lyon's efforts in taking wickets , despite getting hammered at times and being subjected to a lot of pressure , is a very good sign. Hazlewood's return from injury so far looking pretty sound. Khawaja finding form in England at last - and playing a vital anchor role with other main players failing around him a huge factor in the state of the match. Plus Carey doing very well with gloves and bat.
On the down side : Warner's woes continue. Boland uncharacteristically ineffective and expensive - and indeed all the seamers looking just a little too easily handled on an admittedly placid surface. Smith and Labuschagne failing is presumably just a blip so no concern there.

England : pretty much as feared : struggling to take wickets on a flat track with a somewhat too similar pace attack : my main concern there was that Robinson in particular looked well off his best - I thought he'd be much more threatening even without green/seam conditions. Bairstow's keeping : the doubt I had about him coming back to the position was that he has hardly kept at all for the last couple of years - for various reasons. A longish stint in the field was always likely to test him - as seemed to be proved. Started brilliantly, great catch to get Marnus and was handling Moeen well until he missed that stumping. Add that to the late drop of Carey and quite apart from the effect on this game I really do fear his confidence could be seriously impacted ; which would be a big blow as a confident Jonny is arguably the heartbeat of this side.
Broad's no ball was maybe one of those things - except there were just too many of those oversteps : not sure why ? Same Stokes. And the less said about Stokes' batting effort the better !

On the good side : Crawley did what they want from him ; Root was superb ; Bairstow performed with the bat as if he'd never been injured and Moeen while not in Lyon's class did a surprisingly good job of bowling long spells without getting slaughtered - and had two vital wickets even with another unfortunately missed through no fault of his.

Really too early to say what if anything all these two days mean for the rest of the series. Should either side come out and dominate the remaining days and sweep an easy win then I guess we will see the match as pivotal ; but the evenness of the contest so far suggests we could be in for a very interesting -and highly entertaining - series. As we hoped before a ball was bowled...

A couple of additional thoughts

On Declaration
I would have never declared.
Robinson could easily survive 3 to 5 overs and scored a few runs  and Anderson another 3 and the way Root was striking the ball...he could have gotten Eng upto 430ish

BUT
Stokes the Captain is a Package, clever, out of box, passionate and best in tests

The Stokes mentality delivered 400 runs in a day here ( and all those wins in Pak, and amazing chases vs NZ, Ind , SA)
Is the same mentality that declared with half an hour to go.

The mentality that would not consider declaring....would not even get close to 400 in a day....but rather be floundering at 260

Eccentric Brilliance likes Stokes are a package....if you wish to remove the 10% flawed part, you risk losing the 90% brilliant part also.

The single biggest cause for Eng not leading match situation are Bairstow's two fluffs which falls under incompetence / blunders.....unlike declaration that is a considered tactical gamble.


On Eng's chances

Eng are in the game.
Aus's lead I see will be ~60ish and Eng will still get 260ish in 2nd inning....leaving 200ish chase.

If they can restrict the lead  and get a few more Eng could set 300ish.

200 ish Aus will get easily and 300 ish they most likely won't and anywhere in between is proportionate probability

No name Bertie wrote:Now it is looking like an unnecessary desperate move to declare.

I was held to account for the above comment for using hindsight.   Then when I changed my mind I was pooh-poohed.

No name Bertie wrote:I am now of the view in the "final analysis" and having read all the comments to support Stokes bold decision, given he is best placed to make that decision, and under the circumstances when that decision was made

No name Bertie wrote: I am now of the view that even if Australia go on to smash England by an innings, it was still the correct decision.

I guess at the end of the day people have opinions and there is nowt wrong with that. I was most convinced by alfies argument and kp's comments. The Australian openers looked unsettled at times when bowled at at the end of day one, and England had plenty of chances during day two to gain a clear advantage but errors cost them. Some may become fixated on the declaration and blame that, especially if England narrowly lose, while the players themselves will probably focus on the errors and maybe the lack of quality and fitness within the English side.

Second day thoughts:
Really enjoyable style clash on this pitch: England looking to score fast, Australia to bat long, and both losing wickets regularly enough not to be where they hoped.
Thought it was England's day until they took the new ball; couple of quick wickets, got rid of Smith in time to bowl at Head without a budget. Bairstow missing the stumping was a setback, but they still had a good lead when Green got out (right on schedule for Moeen, next one due in 20-30 runs time).
On which note, why take the new ball straight away on this pitch? Seems to be more chance of getting it to reverse than swing on the evidence so far. Would it not have been an idea to save it for the morning when the seamers have had a chance to recover and the conditions might help a bit more?
Far too many no-balls so far. Broad and Stokes are probably just trying to go hard to get something out of the pitch, but it needs to be more controlled than this.
Thought we might have seen Root bowl more than we did. Liked the way they used Brook too, something to think about if things go south in PJ's comp...

Forecast suggesting we're only getting the morning and maybe a bit after lunch. Day 5 still looks dicey altogether

alfie wrote:I see I am very much in the minority here in not being bothered about That Declaration. And I'm still not - and won't be even if this ends in a narrow defeat . Here is why:

Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx. ...
...

Point of order, your Honour!

Respected counsel for the Declaration has consistently argued that we don't know what would have happened. Whilst forty runs seems a reasonable figure, perhaps even bordering on optimistic, I ask for the word ''maximum'' to be struck from the record. We just don't know. It may even have been some way more and the way this Test looks this morning, every single run could be crucial.

alfie wrote:Having got all that off my chest , time to assess + and - for both sides so far.

For Australia : Lyon's efforts in taking wickets , despite getting hammered at times and being subjected to a lot of pressure , is a very good sign. Hazlewood's return from injury so far looking pretty sound. Khawaja finding form in England at last - and playing a vital anchor role with other main players failing around him a huge factor in the state of the match. Plus Carey doing very well with gloves and bat.
On the down side : Warner's woes continue. Boland uncharacteristically ineffective and expensive - and indeed all the seamers looking just a little too easily handled on an admittedly placid surface. Smith and Labuschagne failing is presumably just a blip so no concern there.

England : pretty much as feared : struggling to take wickets on a flat track with a somewhat too similar pace attack : my main concern there was that Robinson in particular looked well off his best - I thought he'd be much more threatening even without green/seam conditions. Bairstow's keeping : the doubt I had about him coming back to the position was that he has hardly kept at all for the last couple of years - for various reasons. A longish stint in the field was always likely to test him - as seemed to be proved. Started brilliantly, great catch to get Marnus and was handling Moeen well until he missed that stumping. Add that to the late drop of Carey and quite apart from the effect on this game I really do fear his confidence could be seriously impacted ; which would be a big blow as a confident Jonny is arguably the heartbeat of this side.
Broad's no ball was maybe one of those things - except there were just too many of those oversteps : not sure why ? Same Stokes. And the less said about Stokes' batting effort the better !

On the good side : Crawley did what they want from him ; Root was superb ; Bairstow performed with the bat as if he'd never been injured and Moeen while not in Lyon's class did a surprisingly good job of bowling long spells without getting slaughtered - and had two vital wickets even with another unfortunately missed through no fault of his.

Really too early to say what if anything all these two days mean for the rest of the series. Should either side come out and dominate the remaining days and sweep an easy win then I guess we will see the match as pivotal ; but the evenness of the contest so far suggests we could be in for a very interesting -and highly entertaining - series. As we hoped before a ball was bowled...

Hi Alfie - I appreciate you use the words ''so far'' at outset but I'll largely bide my time and wait for the match to be played out before making my assessments. Just a couple of quick thoughts now arising from your post, KP_f's and Lowland's:

1. After a brilliant start to the Test with bat and gloves, Bairstow ended up having a real 'mare yesterday. I just hope - for him and England - things go better again for him over the remainder of the Test, As said, he's such a ''confidence player''. Stripping him of the gloves might need to be done but it might also adveresly impact his batting. Not to say it definitely shouldn't happen but something perhaps to keep in mind.

2. Am I the only person who doesn't like the ball being given to Brook? I stick to my long held view that you should be using Test class bowlers to dismiss Test class opposition. There again, maybe, give him 18 overs in the day instead of 3, and leave out Anderson who sent down just 15?

alfie wrote:Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx.

This approach , involving risk through unorthodox methods , has been a cornerstone of the Stokes/McCullum revolution throughout their reign : it has largely worked : do we really want to return to the days of staid old "safety first" tactics ?  Just because it's Australia ?

Oh dear, here we go again. Not aimed at you personally, but it seems any criticism of the Church of Bazball is met, often, with a disdainful air of 'do we want to go back to defensive cricket?'. ''Do we want safety-first play?'

We heard this when England made a stupid decision to enforce the follow-on v NZ, which ended up costing England the test and the series, and resulted in the most embarrassing defeat in English test cricket history. Apparently, according to the believers of Bazball, the alternative option, batting on against a tired and demoralised NZ attack, was too defensive and too negative. Australia in 2006 must have been a negative team according to the followers of Bazball...

What exactly would have been safety first about allowing a partnership of 43 off 44 balls to continue, and getting Australia to continue to chase the ball to the boundary rope? What is safety-first about wearing down the Australian attack still further, and trying to score 450, or even 500?

Disagree, also, that the max cost would have been 40 runs. The Edgbaston 2019 test, and the entire series, was altered considerably by Australia adding 162 runs for their final two wickets, with Steve Smith the main man. England could have, it's not likely but it could have happened with Root in full flow, achieved the same/similar and got closer to batting Australia out of the game. But that chance was lost voluntarily.

Yes, you can say if England had held their chances they'd have a sizable first innings lead, but they didn't, and so they needed the extra runs more than they needed four overs at Australia on day one.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:I see I am very much in the minority here in not being bothered about That Declaration. And I'm still not - and won't be even if this ends in a narrow defeat . Here is why:

Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx.  ...
...

Point of order, your Honour!

Respected counsel for the Declaration has consistently argued that we don't know what would have happened. Whilst forty runs seems a reasonable figure, perhaps even bordering on optimistic, I ask for the word ''maximum'' to be struck from the record. We just don't know. It may even have been some way more and the way this Test looks this morning, every single run could be crucial.

Haha ..fair point , Mr Rumpole...

However I would submit it is somewhat unlikely that Root and Robinson (+ the Burnley Lara) would have added , say , 100.

More to the point : you are not addressing the main thrust of my argument . For Stokes , and England under his command , it is not just about relatively minor score adjustments , but the psychological battle against a strong opponent. Time will tell whether that approach makes up for some forfeit of potential runs (though I note that Ian Chappell - who has some expertise in the Test Captaincy area - has no problem with the declaration. I think I would take his view over Duty's Poll of BBC viewers )

all doubtless to be revealed in time. But I honestly don't expect this one to go to a narrow margin : think we will see either a commanding second innings from England leading to win or draw , or a second innings fold up for an easy Aussie stroll.

But hey , I am guessing , not really predicting. Whatever : I guess we will just have to agree to differ re The Declaration (which , I should remind posters , I said immediately would not have been my own choice). I am happy , on balance , to accept it as a reasonable if controversial move. I'm just a little puzzled that so many people seem to see it as "crazy" rather than just "questionable". Thought we had more cavaliers on here than roundheads but perhaps I was wrong

Anyway only fifteen minutes to Act 3 so I will leave it here for now... Court will rise and counsel should be ready to resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow...

GSC wrote:Forecast suggesting we're only getting the morning and maybe a bit after lunch. Day 5 still looks dicey altogether

Rain currently set to hit just after 14:30, so maybe a session and a half before it hits.

Oh dear indeed...It seems I've annoyed Duty : really don't mean to be disdainful so sorry if it comes across that way.

Look it is not that any criticism of Stokes/McCullum is automatically "bad". Or that all their more venturesome decisions are necessarily right. More that their regular critics (and honestly , Duty , you have consistently argued their choices have been "wrong" - even when victories have been achieved) keep on claiming they are taking unnecessary risks and refuse to reassess no matter what happens afterwards.
I for one am emphatically not saying that the choices they've made are the best or only viable ones : merely that they are all essentially reasonable options , if more daring than many would attempt. And yes , some will go wrong. But honestly 11 from 13 ? Not a bad result , is it ?

All I want to see is a little more preparedness from critics to acknowledge that sometimes the England leaders might be right and the keyboard warriors wrong...

Right, huge 30 minutes for England. Can't allow these two to resettle.

Oh dear, another drop from Bairstow. Tougher one, but one that has to be taken at this level.

Bairstow can't continue as keeper, can he? Must be in the negative, even accounting for his grab of Labuschagne.

Blairstow strikes in first over.....in favor of Australia
Atleast he stopped four

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:I see I am very much in the minority here in not being bothered about That Declaration. And I'm still not - and won't be even if this ends in a narrow defeat . Here is why:

Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx.  ...
...

Point of order, your Honour!

Respected counsel for the Declaration has consistently argued that we don't know what would have happened. Whilst forty runs seems a reasonable figure, perhaps even bordering on optimistic, I ask for the word ''maximum'' to be struck from the record. We just don't know. It may even have been some way more and the way this Test looks this morning, every single run could be crucial.

Haha ..fair point , Mr Rumpole...

However I would submit it is somewhat unlikely that Root and Robinson (+ the Burnley Lara) would have added , say , 100.

More to the point : you are not addressing the main thrust of my argument . For Stokes , and England under his command , it is not just about relatively minor score adjustments , but the psychological battle against a strong opponent. Time will tell whether that approach makes up for some forfeit of potential runs (though I note that Ian Chappell - who has some expertise in the Test Captaincy area - has no problem with the declaration. I think I would take his view over Duty's Poll of BBC viewers )

all doubtless to be revealed in time. But I honestly don't expect this one to go to a narrow margin : think we will see either a commanding second innings from England leading to win or draw , or a second innings fold up for an easy Aussie stroll.

But hey , I am guessing , not really predicting. Whatever : I guess we will just have to agree to differ re The Declaration (which , I should remind posters , I said immediately would not have been my own choice). I am happy , on balance , to accept it as a reasonable if controversial move. I'm just a little puzzled that so many people seem to see it as "crazy" rather than just "questionable".  Thought we had more cavaliers on here than roundheads but perhaps I was wrong    

Anyway only fifteen minutes to Act 3 so I will leave it here for now... Court will rise and counsel should be ready to resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow...

Ha!

Just to remind as well that I said that I could understand the reasoning for the declaration although I disliked it. A gamble that didn't pay off although the dislike was because it was a gamble that didn't need to be taken.



''It's a game of opinions, sir'' - A J Stewart.

Oh dear : Bairstow's horrors continue

Another one he should have taken. Precisely the start England didn't need. Not going to do anything for his - or the team's - confidence. Maybe should get him out of there and give Pope the gloves !

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:I see I am very much in the minority here in not being bothered about That Declaration. And I'm still not - and won't be even if this ends in a narrow defeat . Here is why:

Most seem to agree , maximum cost : forty runs approx.  ...
...

Point of order, your Honour!

Respected counsel for the Declaration has consistently argued that we don't know what would have happened. Whilst forty runs seems a reasonable figure, perhaps even bordering on optimistic, I ask for the word ''maximum'' to be struck from the record. We just don't know. It may even have been some way more and the way this Test looks this morning, every single run could be crucial.

Haha ..fair point , Mr Rumpole...

However I would submit it is somewhat unlikely that Root and Robinson (+ the Burnley Lara) would have added , say , 100.

More to the point : you are not addressing the main thrust of my argument . For Stokes , and England under his command , it is not just about relatively minor score adjustments , but the psychological battle against a strong opponent. Time will tell whether that approach makes up for some forfeit of potential runs (though I note that Ian Chappell - who has some expertise in the Test Captaincy area - has no problem with the declaration. I think I would take his view over Duty's Poll of BBC viewers )

all doubtless to be revealed in time. But I honestly don't expect this one to go to a narrow margin : think we will see either a commanding second innings from England leading to win or draw , or a second innings fold up for an easy Aussie stroll.

But hey , I am guessing , not really predicting. Whatever : I guess we will just have to agree to differ re The Declaration (which , I should remind posters , I said immediately would not have been my own choice). I am happy , on balance , to accept it as a reasonable if controversial move. I'm just a little puzzled that so many people seem to see it as "crazy" rather than just "questionable".  Thought we had more cavaliers on here than roundheads but perhaps I was wrong    

Anyway only fifteen minutes to Act 3 so I will leave it here for now... Court will rise and counsel should be ready to resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow...

Ha!

Just to remind as well that I said that I could understand the reasoning for the declaration although I disliked it. A gamble that didn't pay off although the dislike was because it was a gamble that we didn't need to be taken.



''It's a game of opinions, sir'' - A J Stewart.

Bairstow definitely can't keep in India, that's for sure, as he misses some turn off Moeen and concedes four byes.

Partnership goes past 100. Pretty brisk start for Australia.

Yesterday one went between slip and WK that wasn't catchable by either
But a good WK would have moved enuf to get a touch on it
Bairstow couldn't move until the ball was past
Again now he didn't move until ball was past for four byes


How long will Emg tolerate him before eventually and inevitably replacing him as WK?
If they do by T3 it will already be too late

KP_fan wrote:Yesterday one went between slip and WK that wasn't catchable  by either
But a good WK would have moved enuf to get a touch on it
Bairstow couldn't move until the ball was past
Again now he didn't move until ball was past for four byes


How long will Emg tolerate him before eventually and inevitably replacing him as WK?
If they do by T3 it will already be too late

It's a huge worry. As I said earlier, I was anxious he was likely to be underprepared for keeping (he's generally been much better than this , even to the spinners) But I fear his head's gone now after those crucial errors yesterday : and not sure he's getting it back in the short term.

Anderson! That's a timely breakthrough just as Australia were starting to get ahead. 1,100 in FC Cricket! Best to knock over the stumps and not rely on Bairstow.

Not sure I'd have opened with Moeen. Ball's still fairly new, Broad/Robinson are more likely to get something from it now than after another 10 overs or so.

Can England bowl sensibly to the tail?

Thank heaven for that ! Good one Jimmy...

(I got up to pour a coffee and missed seeing it live : makes four of the six

Carey is pretty good but I would probably aim to only need to dismiss him once per innings

So at least that missed chance didn't cost much. England just about hanging on here : but still need to break this pair to get at the real rabbits.

Don't like this business about Moeen's spinning finger. Might have some work to do second innings yet !

Moeen struggling with his finger, but also the fatigue of bowling this many overs, something which he hasn't done in years (another reason why he shouldn't have been picked), and Cummins is getting some easy runs.

Lead only 38. England haven't really picked up in the field since Carey's dismissal.

Cummins enjoying Moeen's offerings...add that to his finger problems and I doubt it makes sense to keep him going . And he's walking off .

Time for the other seamers to do a job. Not many runs to play with now so need to keep any Australian lead - as looks likely - to a minimum.

Here's Broad...

All looking a bit easy for the bats . How big a lead will they get , I wonder ?

Anderson into his 21st over ; Moeen with injury issues ; Robinson bit flat yesterday : not looking good for second innings.

Too soon to start praying for rain ?

Useful runs from Cummins. A shame for Australia's tail that Starc isn't also in the line up. Taylor and Sangakkara commenting that Starc being left out weakens Australia's tail and the standing of Joey's competition.*


* Well, I heard them say the first.

alfie wrote:All looking a bit easy for the bats . How big a lead will they get , I wonder ?

Anderson into his 21st over ; Moeen with injury issues ; Robinson bit flat yesterday : not looking good for second innings.

Too soon to start praying for rain ?

Taylor just said it on comms as I started typing. With Mo's finger causing him trouble on the morning of day 3 of the opening Test, what odds of him playing all five in 6 weeks?

Aaaaggghhh!!! Not only for Mo but also for a rerun of the replacement debate ....