England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Well done to Scott Boland, a very tidy job and added precious runs.

Another fantastic day in a fantastic test in a fantastic rivalry in a fantastic sport. Fantastic.

And just as the pattern has been throughout, when one team looked to be taking control, it just got yanked back. And it was Broad yanking it back with a brilliant spell. Labuschagne is the new Warner, as far as Broad's concerned.

174 to get. Seven wickets left. Still favouring Australia, but it'll be interesting to see how the bowling conditions are after the expected rain tomorrow. If they're anything close to what England's top order had to face yesterday, it could be curtains for Australia, but I'm not anticipating it to be that bad.

Will almost certainly be a delayed start. Hopefully the BBC's more pessimistic forecast doesn't come to fruition.

It'll probably go to the wire, that's the way the whole test has been shaping up. Might even be a tied test...

This field to Lyon is daft. Just basically hoping he takes one on and picks out one of the fielders. But he's shelved the shot since Stokes' tough drop.

12 to win. Melbourne 98, Edgbaston 05, Trent Bridge 13. All similar to today.

How many times can you just miss the edge ! Got to keep attacking top of off.

But I think Lyon has just about iced this for Australia

Yeah, when Broad beat the edge for the fourth time, this occasion being Cummins, and didn't get any reward, I thought that was it.

Then Lyon chips one over the infield magnificently for four. Yeah. Five to win. One shot to win it or tie it up.

I'd give it to Anderson for one last effort.

So near yet so far. What a game

Six to win. Surely this is done.

Think we are out of miracles. Have to congratulate these two Aussie bowlers , if they do get the job done with the bat...has been a terrific effort. Bit of luck , lot of guts.

Good bowling from Robinson now but Cummins stands firm. Spinning this out all the way...

Bit disappointing this, field all set back easy runs to be had all over

Missed a few tricks this test. Playing well under cooked Ali and Anderson and no wood and a pitch where we’ve banged it in short most of the game seems strange.

Early team announcement and declaration looks like arrogance now, either that or they stupidly didn’t look at the pitch.

Having said all that it’s been a fantastic test we’ve been pipped in, we can improve plenty by next test

Three to win. Too easy there to let Cummins get a single and retain the strike. Field placings have been woeful for this partnership.

Robinson staying on, it seems. I know Jimmy's been ineffectual for the most part, but can't believe he hasn't had a single over with this new ball.

What a game. Sadly on the wrong side of it but I think aus winning a tight one was probably due.

And Australia do indeed win.

Great effort from Cummins and Lyon. England's captaincy left a lot to be desired, again. Massive for Australia to win in England's fortress. Can't see England coming back from this.

One of the great tests to add to the archive, but this time a close one that the Aussies win. Pleasure to share the experience with all of you.

Will probably spew out some more thoughts later for you all to disagree with.

Yep, well played those two, but no way England come back from this in the series. The bowling attack is probably cooked after that. It's the Test where Smith and Labuschagne failed, but their team still won. So definitely still going with my 3-1 to Australia

I think the tortoise needs a lie down. I still can't believe that.

Don't even know where to start with all that honestly. Can probably hyperanalyse some of Stokes decisions but he's also managed to manufacture that match situation despite getting not a lot out of his frontline bowlers.

Australia hung in and hung in and in the end you have to applaud the last partnership and Cummins.

Do hope the pitches in the rest of the games offer a little more as this one was not great to say the least

Good game. Very enjoyable.

Congrats Australia

That was a terrific effort to win a wonderful Test Match. Cummins and Lyon . : hats off !

Can bemoan some of England's tactics at the end : I think they got it wrong , after getting so much right. But who's to say my plan would have worked any better ? And considering both the batsmen played and missed several times in those dying overs , the result could easily have gone the other way so I'm not about to pile on with the criticism. Probably giving Root one over too many was the game changer ; but hard to say it was daft without full hindsight.

England will be gutted to have lost that at the end (two games in a row now ) . But I certainly don't think it means the series is gone ! Despite a lot of errors , and some issues with injured/underprepared players , they've gone head to head with an excellent Australian side and fallen agonisingly short.

A truly great cricket match. Anyone complaining about that just doesn't love cricket.

Heart breaking, frustrating, compelling. An ending with a bit of everything to a Test with a bit of everything. One of the best I've seen.

I'll post full thoughts probably tomorrow evening after time to brood and ruminate.

For now, congratulations to Australia for winning a classic. Khawaja was superb. Whilst Cummins bowled as well as you'll see in the second innings and made two vital contributions with the bat. Lyon's 8 wickets can't be underestimated either.

I'm going to sit on this train for another 3 and a half hours and listen to the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt on repeat. They aren't even noise cancelling headphones. Plus my phone's going to die because I hotspotted a session from it and the plugs aren't working. I'm fine, alright. I said, I'm f***ing fine.

Pal Joey wrote:I think the tortoise needs a lie down. I still can't believe that.

Tortoise one , Hare nil...so far.

Well done PJ.

Watched the last few overs.....Surprised when you have a legend in Anderson he doesn't replace the Robinson guy near the end......Big players = Big moments.....

Great game or not....You shouldn't lose games when a batting donut comes in with big runs needed

My advice.....Bairstow opens......Duckett out and bring a proper backstop in......Missed chances cost England big...

Australia have the Ashes don't they ??......So they win the next its as good as over.....

Proactivity is the dandy..

Thought biggest mistake was at the end, after all the talk of baz ball being aggressive and positive nearly all of our fielders were sat on the fence. If we had wood I could maybe understand the tactic but on that pitch Robinson and broad don’t have the pace.

Call me old fashioned but brand new ball under lights I might have given the highest wicket taking fast bowler of all time a go with slips all around even if he has been poor this test.

Great test, blah blah blah, whatever

Sorry but England threw that away in the final hour. Absolutely shambolic captaincy - 15 overs left at drinks, Aussies need 50 odd runs, you have a new ball available, lights are on, you have three of the better new ball bowlers in world cricket and we spend the session faffing about bowling 80mph bouncers half the time with an old ball, then when we do take the new ball we only attack with one slip and gifting singles?! Why was the field set back when they were needing single figures to win?
How about an over from your highest ever wicket taker with the new rock? Even if he's been poor this game, sheesh I dunno I think it might be a prudent idea to do that.

If they chase down 50+ runs against a new rock with Anderson/Broad bowling normally (you know how they get the good bats out) backed up by Robinson, you say fair flippin play.

I've rightly complimented a lot of what Stokes has done but he totally and utterly lost the plot that final hour. As others have said, that's a huge huge opportunity missed for England with Smith/Marnus not getting runs this test too.

It was bad, almost looked like Stokes was off the field and Root was back in charge trying to set a field to contain the might of Jaspit Bumrah

That final hour was amongst the worst captaincy I think i've ever seen. Taking a punt on an extra over of Root I understood but as soon as Lyon came in the new ball should have been taken and Broad/Robinson/Anderson tasked with bowling normally. Trying to be clever for the sake of it cost them big today; Pat Cummins is not Ben Stokes, he shouldn't be feared.

There might be daggers drawn at Stokes
Unwise declaration!
Left runs on table in 2nd inning !
Gave one over too many to Root that turned the game!
Did not use Anderson with new ball! ( Didn't use  Anderson in the last 180 odd of the chase if I recall right)

BUT
It was his tactical nous,courage and inspiring leadership that brought Eng so close to winning against an Aus side that was man to man superior and considerably so in bowling deptt.

It's easy to find holes when looking at smaller patches/ pieces....but if you look at Stokes on the whole as package...it's hard to find a better captaincy package.
He's got to be applauded and backed by his establishment


But we do love to look at & analyze patches and passages of play so here we go:

-The day started 55-45 in favor of Aus in my assessment and that's how it ended , very close .....a wicket until the end could have brought two...Stokes almost pulled out one at square leg as a catcher.

-That Root over that went for 15 odd was one over too many and turned the tide and put fear of defeat in Eng....slips vanished and all out attack was gone

-That Lyon strike over the inner ring was high quality execution under pressure that all but sealed the deal

-That Cummins  rose to the occasion and rode on top of a wave of very high pressure....playing one of his best knocks I would say
I looked up & was surprised to see he averages only 16ish inspite of his unbeaten 44
( and Green bats like one who averages 16 as opposed to 37ish)

-That Aus dug a hole for themselves each time they went in a shell and came back roaring when they decided to attack. Smith needs to attack more.

-Boland's averaging 5 with the bat before today, delivered 20...worth in gold, perhaps his most consequential knock in FC cricket.

-That when going got tough Stokes surprisingly did not trust Anderson for the last 180 odd runs if i recall right and not even worth one over with the new ball

-That putting all aside and leaving all factors as they were , it was Bairstow's keeping that was the most decisively incompetent piece of cricket that made a material difference to the game.

Humdinger it was and highest quality test cricket

General thoughts:

1) The first innings. England won a good toss and got first use of a batting paradise, but two problems:

a) They only made 393. b) They declared with Root in full flow.

450 was the minimum they needed on that, maybe 500. Lots of batsmen got in - Crawley, Pope, Root, Brook, Bairstow - but only one, Root, kicked on to a big score.

I'm trying not to indulge in hyperbole, but then came one of the worst captaincy decisions I've seen in my life. England declared. Root and Robinson, a 43 partnership off 44 balls, with the ex-captain in full flow and dragging England towards par...and Stokes declared so England could have four overs at Warner and Khawaja in gorgeous batting conditions. Initiative: surrendered. Scoreboard pressure: surrendered.

2) Selection. England made some selection blunders for this test. Some more egregious than others.

They picked Moeen. 3/204 in the test on a helpful surface for the spinners. Very expensive. Outbowled by Lyon and, actually, in that second innings, outbowled by Root, also. Didn't add much with the bat either. Dawson's a better bowler, batter and fielder. Ahmed's a better bowler and batter. Please don't pick Moeen again.

No genuine fast bowler. Well, I'm not sure how much blame to attach to the selectors for this one. I have no doubt that if Archer had been fit, for instance, maybe even Stone, then England would have included a fast bowler. But injuries have left England with just Wood, who has clearly been earmarked for Lord's and can't play here, and the inexperienced Tongue. Still, no fast bowlers on these dead pitches makes it hard for the 77-85mph bowlers to manufacture wickets; a pre-series worry shared by a few. I think Australia amassed 186/2 between overs 30 and 80 in the first innings.

No Foakes. He's a better keeper than Bairstow and keeper errors cost England dearly in this test. Bairstow didn't dive for Khawaja's early edge in the second innings; missed an easy stumping off Green, and dropped Carey twice. I think that's the roll call of errors. Unforgivable. But Foakes won't come in, as he should, because he doesn't quite fit the Bazball mould.

For selection for Lord's, I expect the seamers to be rotated. Broad has played himself into permanence, so I'd anticipate Broad and Wood, with one of Anderson/Robinson/Woakes to be selected. Moeen will stay if he's fit. Not envisaging any changes to the top 7. Obviously, I'd bring Dawson and Foakes in, but that's not happening barring injury.

3) Captaincy errors/Bazball. Declaration, as said, was moronic. No Anderson with that last new ball. Foolish. Robinson wasn't doing much with it, and he was clearly exhausted. And those field placings for the final partnership? Dear me. What happened to running to the danger, eh? Oh yeah, it only applies when bowling to anyone who isn't a tailender. Reminded me of Pakistan's field placings in the 2020 Old Trafford test when, I think, Woakes and Buttler were just allowed to tap their way to victory. Not to mention delaying taking the new ball!

Overall, I'm not a big fan of Bazball. There has been no turnaround under Stokes/McCullum, at least not yet - England won 1 of 17 tests before Stokes/McCullum playing, mostly, the hardest opponents and in some of the toughest locations for England. Stokes/McCullum's leadership has, until now, only taken in series v mid-tier opposition. This context is often ignored by lovers of Bazball, but it's a vital one.

This is the first actual challenge. And it looks a challenge that England will come up short in. Plus, a tour to India likely means two series defeats in a row. No shame in that, but it will be a jolt to the true believers who think England have undergone some magical transformation, and it'll be a big test for Stokes/McCullum's* leadership if it does happen. Easy to get the confidence flowing when a team is playing in low-pressure series at home against injury-hit Kiwis or a terrible South Africa that struggled to score 200; a lot harder to manage when falling short in the big pressure tests against the toughest opponents, and, in the case of India, on the toughest tours.

*Not sure if Stokes will make a tour to India with his injury issues. I wouldn't be surprised if this series is the end.

Bazball does have its good points, but England need to know when to channel the aggression and when to rein it in, with bat and ball. It wasn't all bad this test, some of the field placings to the top order were quite clever, but England are still clueless at tailenders, and England overused the short ball in this test - quite a feat considering there were no genuine pace bowlers and it was a slow pitch.

4) Bowling problems. Broad was magnificent, 6/132, full of toil and heart and getting the ball to talk. But Anderson and Robinson, supposedly the premier two, dreadful. Anderson 1/109, very ineffectual, lacked control in the second innings, and couldn't achieve much with any of the three new balls he worked with. Robinson was marginally better, 5/98, but his figures were flattered somewhat with some tailend wickets in the first innings. He did bowl better than Anderson, undoubtedly, but there was a lot of anonymity between the rare good balls he did bowl. In such a tight test, just one of Anderson or Robinson raising their game a level could have been decisive.

Moeen, we know, couple of good balls that will see his defenders tout him for selection in every test between now and the 2027 Ashes, but mainly he bowled very expensive dross. 3/204 on a turning track, economy over 4. Dreadful. I didn't expect any different.

5) Starts not converted/batting. Too many batsmen got starts, but didn't push on. Crawley's 61, Pope's 31, Brook's 32, Bairstow's 78, all in the first innings. Those types of scores don't often you win a team games on these placid pitches. Players have to go big. And the second innings...well, pretty much the entire batting order got a start in England's second innings, but no one made a fifty. Not good enough.

Was also concerned by both of Duckett's dismissals. Might be something to keep an eye on through the series. Expect Australia to challenge him in the same area.

6) Australia in general. Khawaja was amazing. Dominated the short ball and held both innings together. Easy MOTM. Many thought he wouldn't maintain his recent form in England, but England is no longer the land of green seamers. If there's one criticism of Khawaja it is that he eat up so many dots and didn't indulge in enough strike rotation.

I thought Warner showed some positive signs. Labuschagne out twice to Broad with similar deliveries, England will love that. Carey continuing his good form. Head showing, in the first innings, flashes of what he can do at full potential.

Lyon with an excellent return with the ball, and a vital effort with the bat! Cummins pretty anonymous in the first innings with the ball, but showed everyone his ability with that one that knocked over Pope, plus he contributed 82 with the bat, including those runs when it mattered most. Hazlewood sparingly used, but showed glimpses of his capabilities. Don't think he's near top gear yet.

Boland had a very poor test with the ball. I expect Starc to come in for test two, and indeed he should. Boland went for an economy of 5.65 overall in the test, so any argument that Starc might be expensive isn't really going to hold up now.

In terms of bowler workload - Cummins 32; Hazlewood 25; Boland 26; Anderson 38; Broad 44; Robinson 40. Australia have applied a normal test match grind which can pay dividends across a compact five-game series; England haven't.

7) To sum up England's deficiencies - Questionable selection; no genuine fast bowler; at least 50 short in the first innings; Anderson, Robinson and Moeen were poor with the ball; Bairstow shelled too many chances; too many batsmen didn't convert starts into big scores, which were needed on this type of pitch; atrocious captaincy including the declaration and the field placings for the final partnership. Lot to work on.

8) Series ahead - England are in big trouble. They've lost in their fortress. And every time England have lost at Edgbaston to Australia, they have failed to win the whole series (1975; 1993; 2001 all being series losses; 2019 being a series draw).

As VTR said, this was a test where Labuschagne and Smith didn't deliver, and yet Australia still won. As an extension to that, Root delivered in this test, but England still lost. That says it all, really. Mammoth task for England to come back from here. Can't really see it myself, I thought England had to win in Edgbaston to have a chance of winning the series.

Overall, another classic test. Full credit to Australia. Big test of England's resolve at Lord's, where the Aussies have a strong historical record.

I am glad to see comments on here are a lot more considered than some of the rubbish spewing out on BBC hys at least. Still reckon there is a bit too much negativity from England fans here about a number of aspects after a game decided so narrowly in the end. Reckon the neutral KP_fan has summarised the whole thing almost perfectly above.

Like all England fans I was greatly disappointed at the way victory was snatched away by Cummins and Lyon at the death : but my anguish was tempered just a little by admiration for the way they stood up and got their side over the line. I agree to a point with many above that England's tactics were ill chosen ; but focusing just on that seems to me to be a little unfair : sometimes you just need to praise your opponents.

To details : When they were 227/8 with the new ball due it looked all over for Australia. Root had just taken the vital wicket of Carey when given "one more over" with the old ball (does Stokes not get credit for that choice ? ) and had nearly had Cummins more than once : was it unreasonable to give him one more ? (To be honest , I would not have done so , but then I wouldn't have given him the chance to get Carey either so what do I know? ) And it proved fatal because Cummins was able to take a huge chunk out of the required target and really changed the dynamics for both sides. The pivotal moment of the whole session.
37 needed and yes , I think England blinked. Suspect had it still been 50 they would have had two different goes at Lyon - as I think they should have - with an initial standard new ball assault , reverting to short stuff if that failed. But with so few to defend , tired bowlers and the knowledge that just one wicket had fallen in the first eight overs of the new ball , in the entire match - plus the fact that they had successfully bounced out the tail in the first innings with an old ball - they went with "plan A".  And lost. Though if Stokes had clung on to that catch they almost certainly would have won...

It is easy to criticize from behind the TV. we all do it. As I say , I would have done things differently. And I see most on here would have. But we cannot know that would have made any difference , can we ? Only speculate. Honest question : if one of those play and misses (there were several in the closing overs ) had feathered an edge ; would you all still be piling on to Stokes as he walked off to be interviewed as the winning skipper ?

More later. Lot to unpack still...

So many things happened during that test .... It was certainly an amazing sporting spectacle.   How does one begin to analyse it?   I think one has to first assess it in its chronological entirety.  With regard the declaration, the test moved on from it and England were still in a position to win the test until the last hour or two it seemed.   I think one needs to first assess if anything different could have been done at the end when the test finally appeared to swing away from England.  

No matter what the assessment England are still in the middle of a live test series and need to learn from what can be learnt and move forward.   The pressing issue is who to select for the next test.

ps: Given the noise surrounding the declaration, I think the first question to answer is what was the reasoning behind it.  It seems to me and I may be wrong here that there was possibly a certain element of "desperation" about it?  Maybe from a view of the formidability of the Australian batting line-up consideration was given to how best to "get at it" and what that was worth compared to the advantage to be gained to bat out the first innings.  

I think the reasoning behind it has already been answered by alfie among others: a) Root batting with two tail-enders at the end of day one when the new ball was due but having got in and at his fluent best versus  b) the unsettling nature of Australian openers being asked to bat out for four overs at the end of the day plus c) the mentality of England's approach to this test and this series.

OK , back as promised threatened.

I reckon I will be at odds with many on here : but will try to present reasoned arguments as to why I disagree with some slightly OTT comments above. Leaving Duty's commendably detailed post to last...

Did England really "throw it away - or did the Aussies pinch it ? As said above , the last Root over was a big factor. But what about those fields , indeed. Points to note : 1/ how many catches were taken at slip from a fast bowler in the entire match ? Answer : none.
2/ how did England take the last four Aussie wickets in the first innings with a thirty over old ball ? Answer : short pitched attack.

I didn't like the way they went immediately to that method. I never really do fancy that tactic , to be honest. But it has actually worked rather well on quite a few (not all) recent occasions. Failed here , yes. So by definition it was the "wrong" move. But there might not have been a "right" one.

Should Anderson have bowled ? I find it just a little odd that posters who have been very critical of Jimmy throughout this match (a bit too much so , I think. By his own admission , he's been off his best here , perhaps due to that recent injury prompted lay off. But he wasn't exactly rubbish - just a bit ineffective) are now saying he was an obvious choice to bowl at the death. Again , Robinson and Broad beat the edge several times , but no nick. On another day...

Whoever was bowling , I agree they should have tried to stop the singles. Not that easy though : and even with the field spread several boundaries were struck. When they did take the new ball , by the way, three fours were actually driven off full deliveries. Maybe there just wasn't a magic bullet available ?

So did they really "lose the plot " : or just make wrong choices ? Assuming there was a right one...

I don't really think much of the declaration either way in the end. The key passage of play ended up being that final hour, however we had got there. England had got themselves into a 19 out of 20 winning situation at that point.

There was some baffling captaincy but also feel there's an element of luck at that stage. You are talking very fine margins for Stokes to take that catch, or some of those deliveries that nearly took the edge. I stated before the series I feel its Australia's time to win over here, and it is looking like it

Now for Duty and his very forthright assertions.

1/ The declaration. Think we all know where we stand on that. Won't change anyone's mind I'm sure but honestly : it was a judgement call. If it gets a wicket that night , great. It didn't. If (if !) England had batted through and made 430 - and nothing else changes - the game ends in a frustrating draw. Better for England of course : but as it was they were a whisker away from a win. And it certainly didn't "surrender the initiative" . It actually put Australia on the back foot for much of the next day. But anyway , it's done and we should move on , surely ? Lot of other factors decided this match.

2/ Selection. We know you hate Moeen , old chap ; but it is questionable whether there was a better option. He's probably not going to play at Lord's  unless his finger develops some magic super-skin over the next few days so we will maybe find out if there is.
Wood could have played. They'd have left out Broad then , eh ? Enough said.
Foakes ? I wasn't sure about dropping him - though obviously there was no easy way to get YJB back in. But I didn't expect Jonny to have such a horror day. Not sure anyone would have either - can't be prescient.
Bit unreasonable to call any of those choices "blunders" , surely ?

3/Bazball : (Already dealt with most of the captaincy issues) No turnaround under Stokes/McCullum ? Seriously ? Gone from being wiped out in Australia and done over by a very poor West Indies side to winning 11 of 14 matches - two of those losses by miniscule margins...If you don't think that indicates serious improvement I just don't know what to say to you !
Look , no one is claiming the new order has suddenly solved all the problems - and yes , this series presents a tough challenge. But while you seem to have abandoned all hope after one narrow defeat here I think we might reasonably wait and watch a bit longer. And I hope defeatism isn't going to flow into the England dressing room as how they feel matters - unlike our emotions.
By the way I am not disagreeing with your plea for a bit more of a balance between full on attack and a sometimes more measured approach. Think they did actually do that at times in both innings ; but yes , they do overdo it a bit too often (eg Root in second innings , Bairstow in first , among others) to their cost. Trouble is where do you draw the line between the uber-aggression that has won them all these games and when to throttle back ? Nobody is perfect so they won't always get it right. But I'd rather they err on the positive side than retreat into the timid stuff that was bringing them undone under the previous regime.

4 to 8 after a coffee break...

England under McCullum and Stokes will not change, so called Bazball here to stay and I guarantee the remaing Test will be played in same manner.

Like it or not that's it. I thought more runs needed in 1st innings but cannot deny ambition.

Moeen should not be criticised, his finger was a mess and definitely affected his bowling. Question is will it heal in time for Lords.
Stokes needs to be fit to bowl, otherwise he's becoming a bit of a passenger.

Bairstow, if bloody finger pointed anywhere it could be at him. Far too many missed chances but I'd be amazed if dropped.
McCullum has stated if he's fit he plays. Unless say Foakes brought in and a.n.other dropped.

Anyway, it's been exciting and I expect rest of series be even more so.

I think Jimmy probably needs to become a conditions specific selection at this point sadly. Never looked particularly likely on a pitch that offered nothing.

Re Bazball, they are gonna have to strike a balance but in general the approach taken was the biggest reason why they had a chance to win this game. Perhaps they could've shut it down for a draw playing conventionally but as a few days ago, stokes and McCullum are prepared to risk losing to win a game (and yeah it took a 50 partnership from the 8th wicket to beat them).

To my mind the period when Stokes came out after Root got out in the second innings was bigger than the declaration. Dropped anchor, Brooks got stuck and England went from having Aus on the rack to being bang under pressure

Wine break , actually...

On to 4 and 5 : no real argument there : maybe a bit hyperbolic but everyone is entitled to have a posting style
Really was no pitch for seam bowlers. Not sure extra pace would have been very much different. Broad , and Cummins (second innings) were good. The rest won't have this in their scrap books. As for spinners : Lyon is better than Moeen. Who knew ?

Batsmen did leave a few runs out there I agree. But perhaps worth noting that apart from the excellent Khawaja , Australia had only three scores of over forty in the match , 66 the best of them.  And of course , that made little difference because they'd have declared anyway in the second innings
(That was a joke)
Good point about Duckett.  I see Trussman wants him out. Not happening yet ; but we will keep an eye out.

6/ Australia: great effort to win as they were playing catch up throughout the match after apparently being a bit unnerved by England's (controversial ?) highly aggressive approach. Essentially Khawaja , Lyon and Cummins won them the Test. With a bit of help from Carey , and Green's long arms. The Tortoise won this round. Will it keep doing so ? We will see.

7/ England's deficiencies : Not much really added there , is it ? Some players had bad games , or parts of games. And Smith got 16 and 6 on a road...that's cricket.

8/ The way ahead: bit early to say , surely ? Last time around England got thumped here (with the caveat that Anderson's breakdown rather unluckily handicapped them) and yet managed to draw the series. I may be fantasising but I see some parallels here with 2005 : very positive England start to the series , yet ending in defeat (much heavier than this one !). But it showed they would not be cowed by an Australian team that had been ritually slaughtering them for ages ... and that turned out well. This match showed an England team - with all the problems discussed above - can match it with Australia.
I do hope the pitches have a bit more for the seamers going forward. This one was almost set up in favour of the team with the better spinner ; and I'm not sure England can do much to change that particular difference in resources. Bit of sideways nibble , please ?

Still think this can be a terrific series. As this was a terrific match : and I'm pleased to see we can at least agree on that !

Oh just one other point that seems to have been overlooked in all the excitement : and to prove I am far from blind to the fact that Stokes doesn't always get it right :

Boland came in as nightwatchman late on day four. In the first innings he looked like a rabbit in the headlights when he was immediately confronted with close catchers in front of the bat and some short pitched bowling. Why on earth did it take so long to get those catchers back in his face again second time up ? Soon as they did - gone. His 20 in partnership with Khawaja was pretty handy in the final analysis...

Also noted England bowled 23 no balls to Australia's 4.

All adds up to about what some claim England missed by declaring

One thing about Bazball is the fans/media won't stand for entertainment and losing despite what Stokes says. There's no way for example would 2005 still be talked about in England if they had lost. We are nowhere near this point yet of course, but it is something to keep an eye on. Two marginal defeats in two now, though the previous one is probably unknown to many taking an interest in The Ashes. But something like a 4-1 defeat in a thrilling series will not satisfy the home support

True of any sport really but think this is England's best way to win games regardless.

Thought they took the new ball too quickly in the first innings, and then too late in the second. Take the point that it wasn't doing much, but when Carey got out and Lyon took a single off the last ball of Root's over, that was the moment to put it in Broad's hand and hope momentum carries you over the line.

On the selection; if they'd known what the pitch would be like they probably would have left out Anderson and/or Robinson (same for Boland on the other side), but I'm not going to criticise them for picking their best lineup on paper. As for Moeen, this is essentially why I favoured Livingstone; offers what people think Moeen does with the bat, could be used basically the same way with the ball, has some big game experience, and could perhaps be a medium-term replacement for Stokes as an all-rounder.

More runs from the first innings might have made a difference, but they got more or less the scenario they wanted in the final session, so I still don't have an issue with the declaration. Less convinced by the second innings approach; Root swinging at everything and then Stokes settling things down felt like unusually mixed messaging.

Anyway - my last pitch for now : Pleased to see Stokes saying (sincerely I think) that the loss is really hurting them. Might dispel a bit of the thought that England are too focused on showbiz and just out for a jolly time.

And finally , stripped of all the excess verbiage : the match was won and lost due to execution more than tactics (of which both sides got some right and some wrong).

I struggle to agree with some of the hyperbole about the declaration being the worst captaincy decision ever or the field placings in the final hour being so terrible.

The declaration was the made as it felt the right decision at the time. it didn't pay off, but easily have done so. The two openers in those 4 overs look more indecisive than at any other point. So it wasn't a terrible decision, it just didn't pay off.

And the field placings in the final hour - people want to chuck the ball to Anderson and put in slips fielders, when that hasn't worked for 4 and a half days. That would have been a stranger captaincy decision IMO. The only thing I would have done differently is put more players in catching positions in front of the batter.

Overall, I think great captaincy has got us close to beating the best team in the world in very un-English conditions and I'm not going to criticise the decisions that didn't work out

Aggers views are interesting too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/65968876

alfie wrote:Now for Duty and his very forthright assertions.

1/ The declaration. Think we all know where we stand on that. Won't change anyone's mind I'm sure but honestly : it was a judgement call. If it gets a wicket that night , great. It didn't. If (if !) England had batted through and made 430 - and nothing else changes - the game ends in a frustrating draw. Better for England of course : but as it was they were a whisker away from a win. And it certainly didn't "surrender the initiative" . It actually put Australia on the back foot for much of the next day. But anyway , it's done and we should move on , surely ? Lot of other factors decided this match.

2/ Selection. We know you hate Moeen , old chap ; but it is questionable whether there was a better option. He's probably not going to play at Lord's  unless his finger develops some magic super-skin over the next few days so we will maybe find out if there is.
Wood could have played. They'd have left out Broad then , eh ? Enough said.
Foakes ? I wasn't sure about dropping him - though obviously there was no easy way to get YJB back in. But I didn't expect Jonny to have such a horror day. Not sure anyone would have either - can't be prescient.
Bit unreasonable to call any of those choices "blunders" , surely ?

3/Bazball : (Already dealt with most of the captaincy issues) No turnaround under Stokes/McCullum ? Seriously ? Gone from being wiped out in Australia and done over by a very poor West Indies side to winning 11 of 14 matches - two of those losses by miniscule margins...If you don't think that indicates serious improvement I just don't know what to say to you !
Look , no one is claiming the new order has suddenly solved all the problems - and yes , this series presents a tough challenge. But while you seem to have abandoned all hope after one narrow defeat here I think we might reasonably wait and watch a bit longer. And I hope defeatism isn't going to flow into the England dressing room as how they feel matters - unlike our emotions.
By the way I am not disagreeing with your plea for a bit more of a balance between full on attack and a sometimes more measured approach. Think they did actually do that at times in both innings ; but yes , they do overdo it a bit too often (eg Root in second innings , Bairstow in first , among others) to their cost. Trouble is where do you draw the line between the uber-aggression that has won them all these games and when to throttle back ? Nobody is perfect so they won't always get it right. But I'd rather they err on the positive side than retreat into the timid stuff that was bringing them undone under the previous regime.

4 to 8 after a coffee break...

1) Move on, sure, but hopefully move on while acknowledging it's an error and it shouldn't happen again. If England are in the same position once more in a future test, with similar conditions, they shouldn't declare. Move on from it, but learn from it. The initiative was surrendered because the partnership was advancing at run-at-ball pace, Australia were looking ragged in the field, and England called off the assault. Imagine Cummins felt very relieved.

2) Don't hate Moeen, he's just a very poor player who confounds logic. His defenders still coming out despite his averaging nearly 70 with the ball and being the most expensive of England's bowlers. How difficult is it for them to hold their hands up and say 'yep, Moeen had a poor game.' Very difficult it seems. I don't mind criticising Jimmy or Robinson, even though I like them as players.

3) We've been over this before, dear chap. Under Bazball, England have only played mid-tier opposition in series, this is the first proper challenge. England used to beat mid-tier opposition before Bazball - remember England winning series in South Africa and Sri Lanka, or winning at home against Pakistan and the West Indies?

Where England fell short was the top table, and the top table was pretty much all they played in that 17 game run*. Is there any evidence that England are now going to win a series at home to Australia, or away to Australia and India? I don't think so. So there's been no turnaround.

*With the exception of the West Indies tour, which was marred by terrible selection. That was indeed an aberration, but so was losing to NZ after enforcing the follow-on!

alfie wrote:To details : When they were 227/8 with the new ball due it looked all over for Australia. Root had just taken the vital wicket of Carey when given "one more over" with the old ball (does Stokes not get credit for that choice ? ) and had nearly had Cummins more than once : was it unreasonable to give him one more ? (To be honest , I would not have done so , but then I wouldn't have given him the chance to get Carey either so what do I know? )

Yeah, I'm not knocking the decision to give Root another over with the old ball. I think any criticism of that is criticism in hindsight.

alfie wrote:OK , back as promised threatened.

I reckon I will be at odds with many on here : but will try to present reasoned arguments as to why I disagree with some slightly OTT comments above. Leaving Duty's commendably detailed post to last...

Did England really "throw it away - or did the Aussies pinch it ? As said above , the last Root over was a big factor. But what about those fields , indeed. Points to note : 1/ how many catches were taken at slip from a fast bowler in the entire match ? Answer : none.
                       2/ how did England take the last four Aussie wickets in the first innings with a thirty over old ball ? Answer : short pitched attack.

I didn't like the way they went immediately to that method. I never really do fancy that tactic , to be honest. But it has actually worked rather well on quite a few (not all) recent occasions. Failed here , yes. So by definition it was the "wrong" move. But there might not have been a "right" one.

Should Anderson have bowled ? I find it just a little odd that posters who have been very critical of Jimmy throughout this match (a bit too much so , I think. By his own admission , he's been off his best here , perhaps due to that recent injury prompted lay off. But he wasn't exactly rubbish - just a bit ineffective) are now saying he was an obvious choice to bowl at the death. Again , Robinson and Broad beat the edge several times , but no nick. On another day...

Whoever was bowling , I agree they should have tried to stop the singles. Not that easy though : and even with the field spread several boundaries were struck. When they did take the new ball , by the way, three fours were actually driven off full deliveries. Maybe there just wasn't a magic bullet available ?

So did they really "lose the plot " : or just make wrong choices ?  Assuming there was a right one...

1) Short-pitched bowling did get the last three wickets in the first innings, but both Cummins and Lyon were taking the short ball on in an attacking manner then. Should have been obvious that they were putting those aggressive shots away in the second innings with victory so close, especially after Stokes' nearly grab. Could also argue that Boland was out to a full one in the second innings.

2) Jimmy didn't bowl well, but Robinson was exhausted and bowled quite poorly with the new ball. Don't think Jimmy would have been a worse option and was worth a try.

mountain man wrote:England under McCullum and Stokes will not change, so called Bazball here to stay and I guarantee the remaing Test will be played in same manner.

Like it or not that's it. I thought more runs needed in 1st innings but cannot deny ambition.

Moeen should not be criticised, his finger was a mess and definitely affected his bowling. Question is will it heal in time for Lords.
Stokes needs to be fit to bowl, otherwise he's becoming a bit of a passenger.

Bairstow, if bloody finger pointed anywhere it could be at him. Far too many missed chances but I'd be amazed if dropped.
McCullum has stated if he's fit he plays. Unless say Foakes brought in and a.n.other dropped.

Anyway, it's been exciting and I expect rest of series be even more so.

Why should Moeen not be criticised? Most of his bowling in the first innings was done before he cut his finger.

Ah fair enough Duty. We are never going to agree on the declaration ; and you are entitled to your opinion. You're still wrong though

As for No Turnaround , only beat mid-tier , etc...I doubt anyone on here will agree with you. Work in progress , sure. But a staggering improvement. Let's see how the rest of this series goes before declaring it a mirage , eh ?

GSC wrote:I think Jimmy probably needs to become a conditions specific selection at this point sadly. Never looked particularly likely on a pitch that offered nothing.

Re Bazball, they are gonna have to strike a balance but in general the approach taken was the biggest reason why they had a chance to win this game. Perhaps they could've shut it down for a draw playing conventionally but as a few days ago, stokes and McCullum are prepared to risk losing to win a game (and yeah it took a 50 partnership from the 8th wicket to beat them).

To my mind the period when Stokes came out after Root got out in the second innings was bigger than the declaration. Dropped anchor, Brooks got stuck and England went from having Aus on the rack to being bang under pressure

If Jimmy becomes conditions specific then he might not play again in this series. Do think this test was the clearest indicator that the end is near, but hopefully he has a response later in the series.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:To details : When they were 227/8 with the new ball due it looked all over for Australia. Root had just taken the vital wicket of Carey when given "one more over" with the old ball (does Stokes not get credit for that choice ? ) and had nearly had Cummins more than once : was it unreasonable to give him one more ? (To be honest , I would not have done so , but then I wouldn't have given him the chance to get Carey either so what do I know? )

Yeah, I'm not knocking the decision to give Root another over with the old ball. I think any criticism of that is criticism in hindsight.

Maybe it is (though some respected pundits as well as my good self would not have gone with it ) But it was unfortunately the over that swung the game. First time Australia took the initiative.

But I'm glad to see you don't always kick Stokes for his decision making even when it goes wrong

alfie wrote:Anyway - my last pitch for now : Pleased to see Stokes saying (sincerely I think) that the loss is really hurting them. Might dispel a bit of the thought that England are too focused on showbiz and just out for a jolly time.

And finally , stripped of all the excess verbiage : the match was won and lost due to execution more than tactics (of which both sides got some right and some wrong).

Some good counter points here and above, alfie. I can also understand Duty's stronger reaction and reasoning as well.

As you say, there's nothing wrong with the positive approach of BB and it has certainly helped England turn things around since the last Ashes here. Of course, a couple of mistakes were made in the execution of the plan, a few too many fumbles (that's pressure... happens to both teams given the prize at stake) and perhaps the biggest one - the selection conundrum - with England saddled with some untimely injuries and 'forced' to pick Mo.

So in that respect (all of the above) the planets seemed to align for Australia and they were indeed 'lucky' enough to hang in there and exploit the opportunities when they arose. I'd basically given up with 72 runs to win; 4 wickets in hand. Seemed a forgone conclusion. Yet somehow (we all know how) they wriggled themselves off the hook not just once... but a few more times, particularly in that last session of play.

However, England also almost got there (too!) with some legs and arms missing and it was an incredibly close finish. Only two deliveries needed to win it. I still can't believe there weren't more feathers to Bairstow which would have wrapped the match up far sooner in England's favour.

As an outsider, I can't really offer any alternatives to Ali, as to who would have been better, etc, but I thought he was always going to face an uphill battle returning to the side as he did in a cold state without (any?) red ball form and the rapid deterioration of that finger. He worked jolly hard though... as best as he could... but Australia was quite merciless on him.

I really do feel for Root and Broad. Both played so well and it was hard (even for me) watching them see that one slip away. I still believe you can't carry a top performer like Anderson for most of the match and allow him to say 'I'm not up to it... better stick with the others' (to Stokes) or whatever the comms team were suggesting he said and applauding him for it. He had to take charge (despite his self doubt) and try and produce something special... which might have led to another wicket. That's one of Australia's greatest fears (Jimmy with the ball) even on a relatively benign wicket such as Edgbaston over the five days.

I was also running the numbers through my head (albeit only briefly) as I went to bed at 04:45 - after the result. I thought the declaration was bold and brave (although I was also surprised) and can't help but feel that even 'if' another 4 overs of Root/Robinson & co. had yielded even as few as say 15-20 runs and Stokes then declared the following morning - the whole impetus of the match would have shifted.

In that scenario, who knows what Australia would have scored in their first dig. However, assuming all things were simply shifted along in time (in reality this couldn't have happened) we probably would have been heading towards a draw given the large rain delay. And if, in that scenario (all events being the same... which again, they wouldn't) and Australia needed, say 290-300... and knocked off only 80 runs on day 4 (with only 2 wickets down)... and still requiring a further 220 runs on the rain affected final day...  well, who knows??

I'm tying us all in a Gordian knot, aren't I?

Maybe that extra over from Joe was the equivalent of the hare having a quick nap under the shady tree, eh alfie?

alfie wrote:
As for No Turnaround , only beat mid-tier , etc...I doubt anyone on here will agree with you. Work in progress , sure. But a staggering improvement. Let's see how the rest of this series goes before declaring it a mirage , eh ?

I agree.

I think questioning the approach because we lost overlooks that this Australian side is the best in the world and one week earlier had comprehesively beaten India.

For it to get us close to beating them is an indication it has been successful for me. We just need to keep building on it. I'd rather this side and this approach was used than the one from 18 months ago, with which we'd have been hammered.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:OK , back as promised threatened.

I reckon I will be at odds with many on here : but will try to present reasoned arguments as to why I disagree with some slightly OTT comments above. Leaving Duty's commendably detailed post to last...

Did England really "throw it away - or did the Aussies pinch it ? As said above , the last Root over was a big factor. But what about those fields , indeed. Points to note : 1/ how many catches were taken at slip from a fast bowler in the entire match ? Answer : none.
                       2/ how did England take the last four Aussie wickets in the first innings with a thirty over old ball ? Answer : short pitched attack.

I didn't like the way they went immediately to that method. I never really do fancy that tactic , to be honest. But it has actually worked rather well on quite a few (not all) recent occasions. Failed here , yes. So by definition it was the "wrong" move. But there might not have been a "right" one.

Should Anderson have bowled ? I find it just a little odd that posters who have been very critical of Jimmy throughout this match (a bit too much so , I think. By his own admission , he's been off his best here , perhaps due to that recent injury prompted lay off. But he wasn't exactly rubbish - just a bit ineffective) are now saying he was an obvious choice to bowl at the death. Again , Robinson and Broad beat the edge several times , but no nick. On another day...

Whoever was bowling , I agree they should have tried to stop the singles. Not that easy though : and even with the field spread several boundaries were struck. When they did take the new ball , by the way, three fours were actually driven off full deliveries. Maybe there just wasn't a magic bullet available ?

So did they really "lose the plot " : or just make wrong choices ?  Assuming there was a right one...

1) Short-pitched bowling did get the last three wickets in the first innings, but both Cummins and Lyon were taking the short ball on in an attacking manner then. Should have been obvious that they were putting those aggressive shots away in the second innings with victory so close, especially after Stokes' nearly grab. Could also argue that Boland was out to a full one in the second innings.

2) Jimmy didn't bowl well, but Robinson was exhausted and bowled quite poorly with the new ball. Don't think Jimmy would have been a worse option and was worth a try.

I wouldn't say Cummins and Lyon forsook the aggressive shots. After the Stokes drop they mainly kept them down. Thing is though , the full balls did no good either. And as I have pointed out , wherever the fielders were placed was going to be a risk. I'd have liked a couple more "in" fielders ; but not sure it would have actually made a difference.
Boland's second innings dismissal came when he was confronted with the two men "in his face" - reminding him of his first innings fate to the short ball so not sure that is relevant ?

Maybe Jimmy could have had a go. Didn't look to be moving too well by the end though , did he ? Worth a punt , agreed. But again , not at all sure it makes a difference.

Refer you to my concluding line...

I actually think the spell on day 3, under the clouds, when Australia got rid of Duckett and Crawley had more of an impact than the declaration.

The one thing I would be weighing up is Bairstow at WK. You have to take your chances at this level and I can't help thinking Foakes would have saved more runs than Bairstow gained over him in his batting. But on the flip side, Foakes wouldn't have scored as quickly, so I don't know the answer to that one!!

Afro wrote:

alfie wrote:
As for No Turnaround , only beat mid-tier , etc...I doubt anyone on here will agree with you. Work in progress , sure. But a staggering improvement. Let's see how the rest of this series goes before declaring it a mirage , eh ?

I agree.

I think questioning the approach because we lost overlooks that this Australian side is the best in the world and one week earlier had comprehesively beaten India.

For it to get us close to beating them is an indication it has been successful for me. We just need to keep building on it. I'd rather this side and this approach was used than the one from 18 months ago, with which we'd have been hammered.

Yeah, I'd like to add...

England is performing more like a No.2 side and not a No. 4 side - which was due to them having a rotten start to the last WTC cycle.

India seem to be on the wane (KP_Fan would have a better understanding of this) whilst England seem to be on the rise - given their selection problems, injuries, and a bit of bad luck here and there. They need to fight back (however they do this is the challenge) and not temper their new style. Only minor tweaks, depending on the players available and the venue conditions. The rest is self belief, determination and executing the plan better next time.