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...

I would hope that the pitches are a bit more competitive in the rest of the series. This one really was dire even after 4.5 days play on it

Anyway I'm not quite as pessimistic as some. Even if some of the decisions didn't work, England's aggressive approach helped bridge the talent gap to a fairly defensive Australian mindset. Smith and Labuschagne didn't fire sure, but England certainly didn't play an optimal game either. England have to pick themselves off the floor but so did Australia after Headingley

The Ali debate I think is searching for a silver bullet that doesn't exist. Maybe the argument is a Livingston type gives you more firepower but I just don't see any English spinner available that would've ran through Australia yesterday. Ali is what Ali tends to be, the odd magic ball but he goes for runs. And I think Stokes was largely happy for him to be expensive if he ended up buying a wicket when Head got a bit too ambitious.

Bairstow one is the bigger debate for me (and less likely to change). Can play the kind of counter attacking innings that changes games like his 80 in the first innings but he ended costing England far more runs with the gloves than he added with the bat. So I can't really see the argument that he sticks because he's a stronger bat. Maybe some match practice will have him in better form at Lord's but kinda asks the question why England didn't schedule a stronger opponent in the build up

To my surprise , saw a half decent article in The Telegraph (they keep sending me teasers to try and entice a subscription out of me ) by Michael Vaughan of all people. Referenced an interesting comparison with Manchester City getting smarter along with the entertainment value. Fair points I think.

Liked that Aggers article Afro posted too.

alfie wrote:To my surprise , saw a half decent article in The Telegraph (they keep sending me teasers to try and entice a subscription out of me ) by Michael Vaughan of all people. Referenced an interesting comparison with Manchester City getting smarter along with the entertainment value. Fair points I think.

Liked that Aggers article Afro posted too.

I also enjoyed this one on Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/65931664

alfie wrote: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 ?

Not seeing any staggering improvement, personally. Would people disagree that the injury-ravaged NZ, who have only won one test series in the last two years, are mid-tier? Or that dreadful South African batting order makes them anything other than mediocre? Or Pakistan, also only won one test series in the last two years, are not a top side? Any disagreements there?

If there were a turnaround then I'd be expecting England to do things they haven't done recently e.g. beat Australia at home, challenge Australia away, challenge India away etc. but I'm not seeing any evidence of that because there has been no turnaround. England are still outside the top bracket of test nations.

alfie wrote:

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

Yeah, but it's just a classic criticism in hindsight. Root took a wicket with his previous over, so entirely justified to keep him on for another go. If Root hadn't bowled another over, the hindsight merchants would have criticised him not bowling. Perfectly good decision, unlike the incorrect declaration, which didn't come off. Good decisions don't always lead to good outcomes.

Afro wrote: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!!

I would play both Foakes and Bairstow, don't think it's an either/or scenario.

Foakes comes in at 6, Bairstow stays at 7. And the one that's dropped is Crawley, putting Stokes up to open.

There's some good articles on the BBC, then the usual steaming pile of the proverbial from Stephan Shemilt. How he is employed as one of the leading cricket writers I do not know

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote: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!!

I would play both Foakes and Bairstow, don't think it's an either/or scenario.

Foakes comes in at 6, Bairstow stays at 7. And the one that's dropped is Crawley, putting Stokes up to open.

Fair enough. Has Stokes ever opened in any format? Anything is worth trying, but that would be a left field option consistent with a team that declares at 393-8 in the first innings on the first day of the first ashes test

GSC wrote:I would hope that the pitches are a bit more competitive in the rest of the series. This one really was dire even after 4.5 days play on it

Yeah I am hoping for a bit more life in the pitches...slow low rubbish for the most part that wicket. Would hope there is a bit more pace in the upcoming ones

GSC wrote:Anyway I'm not quite as pessimistic as some. Even if some of the decisions didn't work, England's aggressive approach helped bridge the talent gap to a fairly defensive Australian mindset. Smith and Labuschagne didn't fire sure, but England certainly didn't play an optimal game either. England have to pick themselves off the floor but so did Australia after Headingley

The Ali debate I think is searching for a silver bullet that doesn't exist. Maybe the argument is a Livingston type gives you more firepower but I just don't see any English spinner available that would've ran through Australia yesterday. Ali is what Ali tends to be, the odd magic ball but he goes for runs. And I think Stokes was largely happy for him to be expensive if he ended up buying a wicket when Head got a bit too ambitious.

Bairstow one is the bigger debate for me (and less likely to change). Can play the kind of counter attacking innings that changes games like his 80 in the first innings but he ended costing England far more runs with the gloves than he added with the bat. So I can't really see the argument that he sticks because he's a stronger bat. Maybe some match practice will have him in better form at Lord's but kinda asks the question why England didn't schedule a stronger opponent in the build up

The Moeen decision is either:

1) Pick Dawson/Ahmed in place of Moeen. Both give England more with the bat, plus both would have done better than 3/207, with high economy, on a turning track.
2) Pick Woakes or even S Curran in place of Moeen, and let Root handle the spin. Root's probably a better option than Moeen as a spinner, he's certainly more likely to tie down an end.

But Moeen, of course, remains immune to criticism and logic.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote: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 ?

Not seeing any staggering improvement, personally. Would people disagree that the injury-ravaged NZ, who have only won one test series in the last two years, are mid-tier? Or that dreadful South African batting order makes them anything other than mediocre? Or Pakistan, also only won one test series in the last two years, are not a top side? Any disagreements there?

If there were a turnaround then I'd be expecting England to do things they haven't done recently e.g. beat Australia at home, challenge Australia away, challenge India away etc. but I'm not seeing any evidence of that because there has been no turnaround. England are still outside the top bracket of test nations.

I think the last 18 months compared to the 18 months before where we lost 4 straight series and were losing a fifth v India only for Stokes to beat India for the series draw, has to an improvement.

We're not top tier, but we are better than we were

VTR wrote:There's some good articles on the BBC, then the usual steaming pile of the proverbial from Stephan Shemilt. How he is employed as one of the leading cricket writers I do not know

I remember one comment under one of his articles said 'not exactly Neville Cardus, is it?'. And someone replied 'closer to Gary Neville'.

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

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

Yeah, but it's just a classic criticism in hindsight. Root took a wicket with his previous over, so entirely justified to keep him on for another go. If Root hadn't bowled another over, the hindsight merchants would have criticised him not bowling. Perfectly good decision, unlike the incorrect declaration, which didn't come off. Good decisions don't always lead to good outcomes.

Ha ha. Depends how you define "good" , doesn't it ? And I do respect your view (while disagreeing with it) that the declaration would have been a "bad" call even if it had resulted in Australia being 5/2 at stumps. Wonder if you would have been quite so vigorous in repeating your disdain for the call in that situation though ?
So I am certainly not going to savage them for bowling Root one too many overs , even though I didn't agree with it and suspect it essentially cost them the match.
See , we do agree on some things

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote: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!!

I would play both Foakes and Bairstow, don't think it's an either/or scenario.

Foakes comes in at 6, Bairstow stays at 7. And the one that's dropped is Crawley, putting Stokes up to open.

Fair enough. Has Stokes ever opened in any format? Anything is worth trying, but that would be a left field option consistent with a team that declares at 393-8 in the first innings on the first day of the first ashes test

Don't think he has, but I reckon it would be worth a punt. Obviously, not going to happen though, because Crawley is loved by the selectors, and Foakes was always an awkwardness in the England side as he never quite fitted Bazball.

Afro wrote: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

Just as an aside, ironic that the renewed calls for 'slower scoring but reliable keeper' Foakes are coming off a county game in which he scored a century and dropped a sitter.

(I'm personally still cast away on the unexplored island of having Pope open to make room).

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote: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 ?

Not seeing any staggering improvement, personally. Would people disagree that the injury-ravaged NZ, who have only won one test series in the last two years, are mid-tier? Or that dreadful South African batting order makes them anything other than mediocre? Or Pakistan, also only won one test series in the last two years, are not a top side? Any disagreements there?

If there were a turnaround then I'd be expecting England to do things they haven't done recently e.g. beat Australia at home, challenge Australia away, challenge India away etc. but I'm not seeing any evidence of that because there has been no turnaround. England are still outside the top bracket of test nations.

So who is the "top bracket " then ? Australia , yeah : just had a razor thin loss to them by two wickets . India , eh ? Beat them (under Stokes ) by seven wickets last year... And you've cheerfully dismissed the rest as rubbish ...

Sure those 3 tasks are ahead of them : but it's impossible to see any "evidence" because apart from this one match they haven't had a chance to try yet !

The teams they beat are indeed a bit below the top ones , agreed. But the way England beat them was impressive , would you not admit ? Pakistan in Pakistan had never been whitewashed at home before. But hey you can continue to be underwhelmed : I'd prefer to enjoy it all for what it is and hope it keeps getting better. You do hope it succeeds , don't you ? (Because there are certainly idiots on BBC who seem to actively delight in failure and I'm sure you aren't in that category.) I do sometimes wonder if you can ever just celebrate the wins without finding something wrong with them ...like on the Football Board

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Anyway I'm not quite as pessimistic as some. Even if some of the decisions didn't work, England's aggressive approach helped bridge the talent gap to a fairly defensive Australian mindset. Smith and Labuschagne didn't fire sure, but England certainly didn't play an optimal game either. England have to pick themselves off the floor but so did Australia after Headingley

The Ali debate I think is searching for a silver bullet that doesn't exist. Maybe the argument is a Livingston type gives you more firepower but I just don't see any English spinner available that would've ran through Australia yesterday. Ali is what Ali tends to be, the odd magic ball but he goes for runs. And I think Stokes was largely happy for him to be expensive if he ended up buying a wicket when Head got a bit too ambitious.

Bairstow one is the bigger debate for me (and less likely to change). Can play the kind of counter attacking innings that changes games like his 80 in the first innings but he ended costing England far more runs with the gloves than he added with the bat. So I can't really see the argument that he sticks because he's a stronger bat. Maybe some match practice will have him in better form at Lord's but kinda asks the question why England didn't schedule a stronger opponent in the build up

The Moeen decision is either:

1) Pick Dawson/Ahmed in place of Moeen. Both give England more with the bat, plus both would have done better than 3/207, with high economy, on a turning track.
2) Pick Woakes or even S Curran in place of Moeen, and let Root handle the spin. Root's probably a better option than Moeen as a spinner, he's certainly more likely to tie down an end.

But Moeen, of course, remains immune to criticism and logic.

Probably get your wish as surely they won't risk Moeen's finger again so soon ? Root was good so four pace bowlers might make sense ...room for Woakes !

I think one more test with Bairstow behind the stumps and let him prove it was rust/a really bad game. Another horror show and there's no choice imo.

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote: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 ?

Not seeing any staggering improvement, personally. Would people disagree that the injury-ravaged NZ, who have only won one test series in the last two years, are mid-tier? Or that dreadful South African batting order makes them anything other than mediocre? Or Pakistan, also only won one test series in the last two years, are not a top side? Any disagreements there?

If there were a turnaround then I'd be expecting England to do things they haven't done recently e.g. beat Australia at home, challenge Australia away, challenge India away etc. but I'm not seeing any evidence of that because there has been no turnaround. England are still outside the top bracket of test nations.

I think the last 18 months compared to the 18 months before where we lost 4 straight series and were losing a fifth v India only for Stokes to beat India for the series draw, has to an improvement.

We're not top tier, but we are better than we were

But that's just it, isn't it? Those five series that England lost/were behind in were:

Away to India - England are no closer to winning in India. No team has won in India since 2012 (which was England).
Home to New Zealand - New Zealand were the world's best at the time and their side was much stronger then. Since, they've gone on a steep decline, caused by retirements and injury.
Home to India - A strange series, England were 2-1 down after four, but they actually controlled the majority of the games. Poor captaincy from Root cost England in the two tests they lost.
Away to Australia - England have won once here in the last thirty years, and that was when arguably the worst Australian team I've seen played arguably the best England team I've seen. England are no closer to winning in Australia.
Away to West Indies - This was an aberration, a bit like England losing that recent test in New Zealand, but England were heavily demoralised from the Australia hammering, plus England's selection was awful (Fisher, C Overton and overseas Woakes instead of Anderson and Broad!) and it is a place where England have struggled historically.

If you were to put current England up against that run of fixtures (with NZ from 2020/early 2021), I wouldn't expect much better, because there has been no turnaround.

A closer comparison of fixtures would be England's run of fixtures between the summer of 2019 and early 2021. England's run in this time was: home to Australia (draw); away to NZ (loss); away to South Africa (win); home to West Indies (win); home to Pakistan (win); away to Sri Lanka (win); and away to India (loss). That's the closest parallel you can draw between current England's run of fixtures (once the tour to India has been complete) and pre Bazball's England.

You can argue that some of England's personnel have improved - the discovery of Brook, Bairstow's return to form, Pope's improvement - but this must be tempered with the friendly batting wickets England have played on.

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

I can't really see Stokes stepping up to open. But if he did - later in the series - I wonder if it might be Duckett who would give way. Left hander for left hander.

I certainly wouldn't drop him just on this game. But the manner of his two dismissals was a bit of a concern. He will want to show better at Lord's.

I don't think Mos immune to criticism, it's really just an extension of Leach being the best of a not particularly appealing group of spinners. When he's not available it's even worse.

Will see the Lord's wicket but yeah can make the argument that if it's not a square turner then England may be better served just using Root and whatever Brooks is to throw down some overs and bolster the seam attack. Particularly if Stokes isn't going to be a frontline option (and he really did not want to bowl himself)

alfie wrote: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

Thank you and thank you again.

Feels a bit early to be looking at Duckett, particularly when his second innings was played in the only time the ball did anything all game, but I'm biased

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously , even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote: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 ?

Not seeing any staggering improvement, personally. Would people disagree that the injury-ravaged NZ, who have only won one test series in the last two years, are mid-tier? Or that dreadful South African batting order makes them anything other than mediocre? Or Pakistan, also only won one test series in the last two years, are not a top side? Any disagreements there?

If there were a turnaround then I'd be expecting England to do things they haven't done recently e.g. beat Australia at home, challenge Australia away, challenge India away etc. but I'm not seeing any evidence of that because there has been no turnaround. England are still outside the top bracket of test nations.

So who is the "top bracket " then ?  Australia , yeah : just had a razor thin loss to them by two wickets . India , eh ?  Beat them (under Stokes ) by seven wickets last year...  And you've cheerfully dismissed the rest as rubbish ...

Sure those 3  tasks are ahead of them : but it's impossible to see any "evidence" because apart from this one match they haven't had a chance to try yet !

The teams they beat are indeed a bit below the top ones , agreed. But the way England beat them was impressive , would you not admit ? Pakistan in Pakistan had never been whitewashed at home before. But hey you can continue to be underwhelmed : I'd prefer to enjoy it all for what it is and hope it keeps getting better. You do hope it succeeds , don't you ?  (Because there are certainly idiots on BBC who seem to actively delight in failure and I'm sure you aren't in that category.) I do sometimes wonder if you can ever just celebrate the wins without finding something wrong with them ...like on the Football Board

It's probably just Australia at the moment in the top bracket in all conditions. Test cricket is in a sorry state. India are in the top bracket at home, but must be noted they're in decline and will be undergoing a rebuild. NZ were, of course, in the top bracket, but since lifting the WTC, they've lost so many good players to retirement and injury.

And what else is there? The West Indies have given up on the game. South Africa barely play it. Zimbabwe, Ireland, Bangladesh, Afghanistan...say no more. Pakistan and Sri Lanka, very mediocre.

I agree, England haven't had a chance to take on Australia or India in a series under Bazball, so there's no evidence of a turnaround. Hence my point.

When England beat NZ at home last year, it was thanks in no small part due to Kiwi injuries. England wouldn't have completed the first chase if CdG didn't have to limp off; and wouldn't have completed the second one if Jamieson didn't have to hobble off. The South Africa series was dismal quality. England couldn't beat NZ in NZ.

With regards to Pakistan, they played eight tests at home v Australia, England and NZ. Do you know how many they won? Zero. Pakistan are in a dreadful state. NZ should have beaten them 2-0 out of two, for what it's worth, but bad light denied them when they were very close to a win both times. Yes, England won 3-0 which was good, and aggressive cricket forced an extra win or two, but let's not pretend Pakistan were amazing. It's about as impressive a series win as England's pre-Bazball run of beating Sri Lanka 5-0 in five tests in Sri Lanka (across two series).

Similar in football, really. England haven't beaten a big nation in football at a major tournament for a long while. I'm not excited about England beating North Macedonia because I'm unconvinced they'll make the bigger step; just as I wasn't convinced that beating a dismal Pakistan would lead to an Ashes win. And here we are.

Somewhere in an alternative reality, Australian 606v2 is arguing over Cummins leaving the field out to James Anderson

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

GSC wrote:I don't think Mos immune to criticism, it's really just an extension of Leach being the best of a not particularly appealing group of spinners. When he's not available it's even worse.

Will see the Lord's wicket but yeah can make the argument that if it's not a square turner then England may be better served just using Root and whatever Brooks is to throw down some overs and bolster the seam attack. Particularly if Stokes isn't going to be a frontline option (and he really did not want to bowl himself)

I'm leaning to the side of Foakes for Moeen, Root the main spin option, and four seamers (Stokes plus three), but it depends on picking seamers who are actually fully fit.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote: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

Thank you and thank you again.

Ah that wretched Boland ! I think we have to admit he struck a bit of a blow against the guildford anti-Nightwatchman coalition - of which I am one (though I am a bit wishy-washy on it , must admit) One swallow , though...

Hate the no balls.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

Of course it's not complete nonsense! Decisions are made on the evidence available and should be judged as such.

Do you think Stokes' call to bat first would have been wrong if England had been bowled out for 84 (same conditions, same everything, except England make 84 not 393)? Because I don't.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Afro wrote: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

Just as an aside, ironic that the renewed calls for 'slower scoring but reliable keeper' Foakes are coming off a county game in which he scored a century and dropped a sitter.

(I'm personally still cast away on the unexplored island of having Pope open to make room).

Fair to say that some of those calls - certainly by a few loud Surrey supporters - were made before that county game.

Imo, Foakes isn't a perfect keeper but he is very good and better than Bairstow. However, Bairstow's keeping would usually be much better than he showed in this Test.
Furthermore, whilst Foakes is very much a classical batsman, he lacks Bairstow's ability to biff and bat with the tail.
It was a tight call for me who got the nod before the first Test. It's probably even tighter now but I would still side with Bairstow in the expectation/hope that his keeping will significantly improve (the four catches, albeit regulation, in the second dig should help) unless others closer to the England set up believe differently.

As said before, it's tough on Foakes missing out but I regard our having one or even two dodgy opening batsmen as a separate issue.

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.

wont criticise him for the injury, just his selection. hes not a good enough test bowler. part timer at best, you might aswell give root a go. if stokes wasnt going to bowl much which he didnt we could have had a extra proper bowler in to offer something bit different to that of anderson, robinson and broad. always thought root does quite well against the lefties

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

Of course it's not complete nonsense! Decisions are made on the evidence available and should be judged as such.

Do you think Stokes' call to bat first would have been wrong if England had been bowled out for 84 (same conditions, same everything, except England make 84 not 393)? Because I don't.

If England had been bowled out for 84 on that deck I think my head would have exploded ! But that's just a totally hypothetical bit of fluff you are putting up to justify your ridiculous claim that some definitive "evidence" exists at the start of a game that mandates the correct choice at the toss. It never does. You must consider the conditions , the likely development of those conditions , the strengths of the respective sides - and make a considered judgement. Sometimes (like this game) it is pretty obvious. Often , it isn't ; and respected real experts take opposite views. How then can there ever be a way to say a decision is right or wrong ?

Only one way. It worked , or it didn't.

Doesn't make every "wrong" choice crazy. . Or every "right" choice inspired - can just be lucky. But by any definition , the decision has to be judged by whether or not it achieves its aims. What's in the book is what counts ...

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

Of course it's not complete nonsense! Decisions are made on the evidence available and should be judged as such.

Do you think Stokes' call to bat first would have been wrong if England had been bowled out for 84 (same conditions, same everything, except England make 84 not 393)? Because I don't.

I think the point is, if you judge it on the evidence, then it becomes subjective depending on your interpretation of that evidence. You might feel the evidence points to bowling first, someone else might view it differently.

The only way you can then truly assess who's judgement is right, is with hindsight, otherwise its still just subjective opinions.

Polite request to keep the quote chains short before they become one character a line on mobile

GSC wrote:Somewhere in an alternative reality, Australian 606v2 is arguing over Cummins leaving the field out to James Anderson

Yes, and Duty is Graham Bonnet singing "It's All Over Now Baby Blue"

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

Of course it's not complete nonsense! Decisions are made on the evidence available and should be judged as such.

Do you think Stokes' call to bat first would have been wrong if England had been bowled out for 84 (same conditions, same everything, except England make 84 not 393)? Because I don't.

If England had been bowled out for 84 on that deck I think my head would have exploded ! But that's just a totally hypothetical bit of fluff you are putting up to justify your ridiculous claim that some definitive "evidence" exists at the start of a game that mandates the correct choice at the toss. It never does. You must consider the conditions , the likely development of those conditions , the strengths of the respective sides - and make a considered judgement. Sometimes (like this game) it is pretty obvious. Often , it isn't ; and respected real experts take opposite views. How then can there ever be a way to say a decision is right or wrong ?

Only one way. It worked , or it didn't.

Doesn't make every "wrong" choice crazy. . Or every "right" choice inspired - can just be lucky.  But by any definition , the decision has to be judged by whether or not it achieves its aims. What's in the book is what counts ...

Yes, but that all goes into the evidence that informs a decision. The conditions, development of conditions, strength of the sides, pitch, form, historical nature of the ground etc. that's the evidence that informs the decision.

The decision has to be judged by the evidence available, not the outcome. Stokes made a perfectly good call to bat first. But he wouldn't have been wrong to do so if England had been skittled for 84.

GSC wrote:Polite request to keep the quote chains short before they become one character a line on mobile

Sorry

I am not very good at cut and paste on this thing.

Anyway I think I will bail now as this argument is getting me and my old pal Duty nowhere near agreement : will just have to stay in our respective corners ...

At least until Southgate makes the "wrong" selection for a knockout match (even if we win)

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

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 ..... was it unreasonable to give him one more ? .....

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.

Isn't all criticism of decisions based on outcome and hence hindsight?   For example on declaration let's say that Warner was bowled first ball and then khawaja was bowled in the third over for stumps, would people then have criticized Stokes decision?

You judge a decision based on the evidence available at the time, not the outcome. If, for instance, Stokes had chosen to bowl first when he won the toss, and Australia batted like clowns and were bowled out for 150, it still wouldn't have been a good decision to bowl first.

Oh give me a break ! He didn't ,obviously ,  even though they love to chase , because of the conditions. Had those been a bit different and he did send them in , 150 all out would be success - as long as the batsmen backed it up. It might have also been a bit lucky , of course ; but it really is the result that counts. You absolutely have to judge a toss decision on the outcome , not some hypothetical "evidence" that might exist in the mind of an observer.

Yeah, but I'm talking about if conditions were exactly the same. It's not a good decision to bowl first, whatever the outcome.

It's how decision-making works. You can't know the outcome in advance, so you make the best call with the evidence available. Sometimes the best call doesn't lead to the right outcome. Sometimes the wrong call does lead to the right outcome. That's life. But more 'right calls' will lead to more 'correct outcomes' in the long-term, if not the immediate short-term.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. "Correct" decision is to be judged by what ? Your view from behind a keyboard ? The opinion of the commentators who are maybe split both ways across the board ? The two captains before the toss ?

The only way you can judge a decision made at the toss is by the outcome. That is cricket.

Of course it's not complete nonsense! Decisions are made on the evidence available and should be judged as such.

Do you think Stokes' call to bat first would have been wrong if England had been bowled out for 84 (same conditions, same everything, except England make 84 not 393)? Because I don't.

I think the point is, if you judge it on the evidence, then it becomes subjective depending on your interpretation of that evidence. You might feel the evidence points to bowling first, someone else might view it differently.

The only way you can then truly assess who's judgement is right, is with hindsight, otherwise its still just subjective opinions.

Yes, sometimes it can be a tough call. You might see a green wicket in NZ, and some would say bowl first, but you might say 'oh, it's NZ, it'll still be a batting friendly wicket, don't be deceived', and then it plays out as you anticipate, that's a perfectly fair judgement with foresight.

But the original example was with Stokes' decision at the toss, and I don't think anyone would have seriously disputed the call to bat first.

GSC wrote:Polite request to keep the quote chains short before they become one character a line on mobile

Get off your mobile. Live your life. Like, erm, I'm doing!

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Polite request to keep the quote chains short before they become one character a line on mobile

Get off your mobile. Live your life. Like, erm, I'm doing!

I am more productive today at least!

And thanks , Afro , for a very succinct summation of the point I 've been trying to get across

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote: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

Thank you and thank you again.

Ah that wretched Boland ! I think we have to admit he struck a bit of a blow against the guildford anti-Nightwatchman coalition - of which I am one (though I am a bit wishy-washy on it , must admit) One swallow , though...

Hate the no balls.

NO! NO! NO!

I thought that you had covered this well in your first post and I didn't need to say anything other than express agreement.

Boland came off not because he was a night watchman but because, rather than treating him as one of ''Australia's three number 11s'' (per Robinson) and bowling at him accordingly, we bowled to him for too long as if he was the heir apparent to Ricky Ponting.

I do concede - as I have done here previously - that although the night watchman tactic far too often doesn't work, it may do occasionally. The chances of it working are obviously considerably increased if the bowlers don't do their job properly at outset.

Sorry guildford I must have been getting a bit tired...

Yes I guess we can put the Boland cameo aside on the grounds of poor bowler tactical plan. And can dismiss Leach v Ireland as - well , Ireland. And Gillespie in Bangladesh similarly ...

Eddie Hemmings in Sydney 1983 : I still don't know how he survived Hogg Lawson and Thompson so long...

But the theory still holds - most of the time

With respect to GSC and his mobile, just a couple of follow on points without using quote chains.

1. Moeen and his damaged finger. Bad luck on him perhaps but not really on England. Getting a guy who for the last couple of years (that right?) has bowled no more than 4 overs per game to send down 29 overs on day 2 was always likely to be asking for trouble to him and us.
Around the time of the Ireland game, I voiced worry about Leach bowling 23 overs in a 90 over day with the guess being that the seam trio would bowl a combined 57 whilst Root and Stokes made up the remaining 10. I thought that might be too many for him and certainly any replacement. Having to deliver a further 6 than even that ... hmmm, not for me!
No easy solution whilst Stokes remains unable to be a proper fourth seamer although the main seam trio do need to step up more collectively.

2. ''The series is lost''. I adored Duty's pessimism if only becasuse it reminded me so much of the wailings of Dad's Army's Private Frazer that, ''We're doomed. Doomed, I tell ye!.''
I don't go as far as Duty or Frazer but fair to say the loss is a kick in the nuts to us and a further lift to Australia on the heels of their World Championship victory. It's been done before of course but we'll still need to perform well to turn things round.
Joe Davis, one of the greatest sportmen of all time - provided you regard snooker as a sport - being 15 times World Champion and, even if you don't, always the most formidable of opponents, constantly stressed that the first frame of a match was so important to win as that meant your rival would need to win two in succession. Clever and canny guy, Joe.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/eng-vs-aus-1st-test-edgbaston-australia-and-england-docked-wtc-points-for-slow-over-rates-1382585

Both teams deducted two points in the WTC* and fined 40% of their match fees for the slow over rates. Don't think the WTC deductions should make a great deal of difference because: a) Australia are making the final by a distance and b) England are falling short of the final by a distance.

*This was the first game of the new WTC, don't tell me you forgot!