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...

For the next test England should in my view

1. Prepare a green seaming pitch to give teeth to Old Anderson and more potentcy to Robinson
( they are like Ind's Ashwin and Axar in needing bite out of the pitch)

2. Replace one of the top-3 batters for a good WK

Aus don't need to do a lot...other than the following in my view:

1. Getting Smith to bat more positively and Manus to see-off 30 balls before playing an expansive drive.

2. Get Green to think liken a bowler who is told his job is to take 2 to 3 wkts per inning

Duty281 wrote:.... Both teams .... fined 40% of their match fees for the slow over rates ....

I feel sorry for Moeen as he had already been deducted 25% of his match fee for spraying a substance on his bowling hand without asking for the umpires' consent.   That means he will be getting only a paltry 35% of his match fee.  

This on top of the pain he had to endure with his bowling finger blistering, popping and then losing the protective skin plus the criticism he has received from the public and the media makes me think he will voluntarily be heading rapidly back into Test Cricket retirement.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12040/12904725/the-ashes-england-spinner-moeen-ali-fined-25-per-cent-of-match-fee-for-spraying-substance-on-fingers

No name Bertie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:.... Both teams .... fined 40% of their match fees for the slow over rates ....

I feel sorry for Moeen as he had already been deducted 25% of his match fee for spraying a substance on his bowling hand without asking for the umpires' consent.   That means he will be getting only a paltry 35% of his match fee.  

This on top of the pain he had to endure with his bowling finger blistering, popping and then losing the protective skin plus the criticism he has received from the public and the media makes me think he will voluntarily be heading rapidly back into Test Cricket retirement.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12040/12904725/the-ashes-england-spinner-moeen-ali-fined-25-per-cent-of-match-fee-for-spraying-substance-on-fingers

Doesn't bear thinking about. No idea how England will replace someone who took 3/207 and scored 37 runs with the bat.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

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

Interesting that there are now rumours seeping out that even the England bowlers on D1 were in the changing room saying, "seriously we need to bowl on this", which makes the declaration even odder in a way.

They wanted the pitches to be fast and flat rather than flat and slow. I expect we'll see more life in them from here. Broad wont be able to perform like that 5 Tests on the bounce on those wickets. Whilst we saw what it did to Anderson and Robinson.

Stokes got two key wickets. The Smudge one that didn't bounce as much and the Khawaja change of pace - which was a clever bit of bowling. He was close to 80mph at top tilt though. He can barely get through his delivery stride.

It was a rubbish pitch which produced an excellent Test match.

Looking ahead I don't share the despair of some. Australia are definitely favourites for the series now having got out in front. It was such a tight game though, underlining how close these two sides are.

Some are saying that Smudge and Marnus failed but we still lost. Therefore, it's all doom from here. England had two of their primary seamers bowl very poorly, a spinner rip his finger open and Brook get out in as freakish a way as you'll see when he was looking locked on during D1. It was a ridiculous seesawing Tests which Australia just pipped.

In terms of bowling I really hope they think hard about delivery angles of the seamers to the Aussie left-handers. Warner really struggles with that round the wicket angle but Khawaja, Carey and even Head are now stronger against it.

Head is a brilliant example of a player responding to the challenge of all good right-arm seamers being able to bowl round the wicket now. At one point in his career his average to that angle was dire. Now he's stronger against it the over the wicket. Batters are reacting to that fundamental change, the seamers will need to as well now.

I'm hoping for a pitch with more in it for the seamers at Lords. I'd also be looking at Woakes and Wood coming in. T2 has a week break before it but T3 is only 3 days after T2. T3 is also at Headingley too. Obviously, fitness and the pitch will come into selection but I don't think it'd be the worst thing to hold Jimmy and Robinson back for Headingley with that short turnaround. Woakes has a brilliant record at Lords, unless it's a proper green top I'd like to see Wood's pace for variety.

[quote="Duty281"] No idea how England will replace someone who took 3/207 and scored 37 runs with the bat.[/quote]

Whats Dom Bess up to these days?

king_carlos wrote:Looking ahead I don't share the despair of some. Australia are definitely favourites for the series now having got out in front. It was such a tight game though, underlining how close these two sides are.

Some are saying that Smudge and Marnus failed but we still lost. Therefore, it's all doom from here. England had two of their primary seamers bowl very poorly, a spinner rip his finger open and Brook get out in as freakish a way as you'll see when he was looking locked on during D1. It was a ridiculous seesawing Tests which Australia just pipped.

In terms of bowling I really hope they think hard about delivery angles of the seamers to the Aussie left-handers. Warner really struggles with that round the wicket angle but Khawaja, Carey and even Head are now stronger against it.

Head is a brilliant example of a player responding to the challenge of all good right-arm seamers being able to bowl round the wicket now. At one point in his career his average to that angle was dire. Now he's stronger against it the over the wicket. Batters are reacting to that fundamental change, the seamers will need to as well now.

I'm hoping for a pitch with more in it for the seamers at Lords. I'd also be looking at Woakes and Wood coming in. T2 has a week break before it but T3 is only 3 days after T2. T3 is also at Headingley too. Obviously, fitness and the pitch will come into selection but I don't think it'd be the worst thing to hold Jimmy and Robinson back for Headingley with that short turnaround. Woakes has a brilliant record at Lords, unless it's a proper green top I'd like to see Wood's pace for variety.

I think one of my main worries there is that while England did have two of their seamers bowl poorly, a big reason for why they struggled was the pitch, and we're going to see more of those pitches, so I'm not necessarily anticipating a huge improvement. Whereas Smith and Labuschagne will certainly deliver some centuries down the line.

Very good point about round the wicket v over. I think Sky flashed up a statistic showing that Khawaja's average is considerably higher against bowling round the wicket than over the wicket, yet England persisted for large swathes of both his innings bowling round the wicket. Obviously they'll be doing a lot of research on Khawaja between tests.

Wood will almost certainly come in for Lord's, and I'd expect Tongue to play at least one test in this series now England recognise they need a genuine pace option in that 30-80 over period. Still not massively enamoured by the choice of Wood, however, he averages over 40 with the ball in England and around that number at Lord's specifically, but needs must. Woakes should be a cert. Might be seen as too much of a drastic step to take both Anderson and Robinson out, but Broad more than deserves the second test.

Will be interesting to see if Moeen plays owing to his finger issue. Could be a total reconfiguring of the balance of the side if he doesn't, with Root taking the spin and another seamer added.

A possible XI could be the same top seven, then Woakes, Broad, Wood and one of Anderson/Robinson (with the one left out going on to play in the third test, and the one playing to be rested for the third test, owing to, as you note, the short turnaround time).

Imagine Australia's only discussion around their side is Boland v Starc, providing Hazlewood's fitness is fine.

Yeah I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a four seamer selection. Woakes and Wood both seem logical choices for Lord's and even though the lack of a full time spinner isn't ideal , I thought Root bowled quite well here. Longer spell than he usually has to - forced by Moeen's injury of course ; but apart from that unfortunate last over he handled it fine. If he'd hung on to the the Cummins C&B he would have been the matchwinner !
Maybe could do the job. Though probably more over rate fines incoming...

I was also initially a bit surprised they persisted with the round the wicket attack to Khawaja - they undoubtedly have all the data on his varying averages. Suspect though that this was because of the extreme slowness and lack of movement in pitch conditions (resulting , as I pointed out earlier , in the extraordinary statistic of not a single slips catch from a seamer in the whole match). It arguably rendered those Khawaja angle statistics meaningless in this context. More "normal" English pitch and I'm sure they will be back over the wicket to him.

Question is whether we will see a more normal English pitch ? I do fear for the home team's prospects if we don't , largely because of the spin strength disparity (inevitable but made worse by the loss of Leach). Though considering they managed to get inches from the finish in this one only to be pipped on the line , those fears might be a bit exaggerated ? We will see ; but I hope we get a bit more life in the Lord's deck.

In any case despite a too flat pitch at Edgbaston , the game proved a cracker. Without the new England approach accelerating proceedings , this would surely have ended in a rain affected draw and a lot less excitement for all of us. Seems almost "unfair" in a cosmic justice sort of way that the team that so sparked things into life ended up worse off as a result : one down instead of even after the first match : perhaps Good Karma will come back to repay them as the series goes on

Do have to commend Duty though for his pre-series thoughts that one down side of the very positive England approach could be that Australia's "tortoises" would be afforded more time to make their runs - and more time to rest their bowlers.  I didn't disagree with it then , by the way ; and I think it was certainly demonstrated here to be an important factor. Question going forward being whether it causes an insurmountable gap or is just another thing to consider ?

To be honest I can't see England changing too much. Not sure it would make any sense for them to do so either. Sure , they could probably have banked a certain draw by taking their second innings a bit more conservatively ; but after getting into a fairly strong position (tiny first innings lead but opponent batting last) it would have been a bit timid to put safety ahead of a serious chance to strike the first blow : sometimes fortune doesn't favour the bold. I don't think they can beat this Australian side by retreating to the methods of Cook Strauss Trott etc as the weapons of both teams are very different today. Perhaps they could dial back a few of the more outrageous attempts to monster the bowling that cost the wickets of well set batsmen ? But where exactly do you draw the line when your crazy shots are making world class bowlers scatter their fields to the boundaries ? Easy from TV land to say "that was silly" when it goes wrong... Bit like watching KP back in the day : fantastic when it comes off.

As an England fan obviously I want a win at Lord's.  But even if I could put myself in a neutral skin I'd think it would be a huge pity if the series isn't kept well alive there : as who wouldn't want to watch another three or four games like that ?

Did see a rumour they might call up Jacks as cover for Moeen, depending on how his finger heals between tests

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Did see a rumour they might call up Jacks as cover for Moeen, depending on how his finger heals between tests

Well he did get six wickets on debut...

On Moeen : I'm not joining Duty's campaign to bin him at all costs ; but I do worry that even if his finger heals over the next few days , do they really dare the same thing happening again if he has to bowl a lot of overs at Lord's ? He had the same issue in Australia years back when he was playing regular red ball cricket so can the problem really just go away now ?

I actually thought he bowled quite well until he started suffering too much pain. But he didn't do a great deal with the bat and he is never going to match Lyon with the ball ; so while he may actually be the best available I would be reluctant to go in with him if there is any doubt about his fitness for a full shift over two innings.

If Moeen isn't fit for Lords, then I'd be very tempted to go with 4 seamers + Stokes and Root unless there's a thought that it will be a spinners wicket. Woakes in for Mo, to keep (arguably improve) the batting depth and Wood in for one of Anderson or Robinson, depending on whether swing/seam conditions or a more up and down wicket.

Foakes in? Certainly Bairstow's errors with the gloves made a difference in such a tight game, but his batting is a major positive for the team, so what's the change? Crawley did OK, with a good tone-setting first innings and unlike several others was actually got out by good bowling both innings, while Pope is the vice captain and has generally done well singe being pushed up to 3 (also got the best ball of the match to dismiss him in the second innings). Duckett was the lowest contributor with the bat, but has some credit from the winter.
If it's an opener makes way, who moves up to the top of the order? Not convinced any of the middle order players really fit the niche

I think Bairstow can probably get the benefit of the doubt that it was one bad game, he hasn't been nearly that bad in the past (and Foakes hasn't been infallible behind the stumps for England). Another outing like that though and I don't think England will have a choice

GSC wrote:I think Bairstow can probably get the benefit of the doubt that it was one bad game, he hasn't been nearly that bad in the past (and Foakes hasn't been infallible behind the stumps for England). Another outing like that though and I don't think England will have a choice

Good post or at least reflecting my own view. Straight to the point as well - guess you're on your mobile at work again.

alfie wrote:Yeah I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a four seamer selection. Woakes and Wood both seem logical choices for Lord's and even though the lack of a full time spinner isn't ideal , I thought Root bowled quite well here. Longer spell than he usually has to - forced by Moeen's injury of course ; but apart from that unfortunate last over he handled it fine. If he'd hung on to the the Cummins C&B he would have been the matchwinner !
Maybe could do the job. Though probably more over rate fines incoming...

I was also initially a bit surprised they persisted with the round the wicket attack to Khawaja - they undoubtedly have all the data on his varying averages. Suspect though that this was because of the extreme slowness and lack of movement in pitch conditions (resulting , as I pointed out earlier , in the extraordinary statistic of not a single slips catch from a seamer in the whole match). It arguably rendered those Khawaja angle statistics meaningless in this context. More "normal" English pitch and I'm sure they will be back over the wicket to him.

Question is whether we will see a more normal English pitch ? I do fear for the home team's prospects if we don't , largely because of the spin strength disparity (inevitable but made worse by the loss of Leach). Though considering they managed to get inches from the finish in this one only to be pipped on the line , those fears might be a bit exaggerated ? We will see ; but I hope we get a bit more life in the Lord's deck.

In any case despite a too flat pitch at Edgbaston , the game proved a cracker. Without the new England approach accelerating proceedings , this would surely have ended in a rain affected draw and a lot less excitement for all of us. Seems almost "unfair" in a cosmic justice sort of way that the team that so sparked things into life ended up worse off as a result : one down instead of even after the first match : perhaps Good Karma will come back to repay them as the series goes on

Do have to commend Duty though for his pre-series thoughts that one down side of the very positive England approach could be that Australia's "tortoises" would be afforded more time to make their runs - and more time to rest their bowlers.  I didn't disagree with it then , by the way ; and I think it was certainly demonstrated here to be an important factor. Question going forward being whether it causes an insurmountable gap or is just another thing to consider ?

To be honest I can't see England changing too much. Not sure it would make any sense for them to do so either. Sure , they could probably have banked a certain draw by taking their second innings a bit more conservatively ; but after getting into a fairly strong position (tiny first innings lead but opponent batting last) it would have been a bit timid to put safety ahead of a serious chance to strike the first blow : sometimes fortune doesn't favour the bold. I don't think they can beat this Australian side by retreating to the methods of Cook Strauss Trott etc as the weapons of both teams are very different today. Perhaps they could dial back a few of the more outrageous attempts to monster the bowling that cost the wickets of well set batsmen ? But where exactly do you draw the line when your crazy shots are making world class bowlers scatter their fields to the boundaries ? Easy from TV land to say "that was silly" when it goes wrong... Bit like watching KP back in the day : fantastic when it comes off.

As an England fan obviously I want a win at Lord's.  But even if I could put myself in a neutral skin I'd think it would be a huge pity if the series isn't kept well alive there : as who wouldn't want to watch another three or four games like that ?

As I read the situation behind closed doors and in front of a  drawing board, Eng might be in a HUGE dilemma.
1. Whether to have seaming-green pitch for T2 which their medium pacers Anderson, Robinson Woakes etal would need to be effective
OR
2. Have a Flat pitch similar to T1

On a of pitch from the 2nd category Eng conceded 400ish & 300ish in 2nd and 4th inning respectively inspite of Manus & Smith's total flops
On the 1st category of pitch Eng seemingly doesn't have full confidence in their own Bazballing style of batting.
( that's why the made the 2nd category pitch)
However 1st category is the type of Pitch that Eng bowlers need to roll Aus out for under 250

Not Easy Choices.
If I read Stokes' mind he will go for the flat pitch again. And this time I am afraid he may not be able to dodge the Manus / Smith Bullet.
If I were to choose...no brainer...green top custom designed for Anderson...he could run through and bundle them for 150 on D1

Jacks' bowling role at Surrey in the Championship is very much ''give the seamers a break, keep it tight and try to pick up the odd wicket''. He actually performs that role to good effect when called upon although it's not been that often this season with Surrey usually selecting 5 seamers. His place in the Surrey side is far more to do with his purposeful batting plus fine fielding.

I would be fine with him being asked to do similar for England - and actually suggested it when Leach most recently became crocked - but only if England had 4 main seamers in the side (I don't count Stokes as one currently due to his injury issues). You could only accomodate him and a 4th seamer by ditching a batsman  - I earlier suggested that Crawley be the fall guy but he went and messed that idea up by making 60+ in the first Ashes dig!

I think for Lord's we swap Moeen for a seamer (maybe Woakes) and use Root as the sole spinner whilst asking the remaining seam trio (whoever is in it) to collectively step up and bowl more.

Nasser said on Sky the other day that Lord's is probably the one ground in England where you can get away without a main spinner. He didn't explain his reasons but things do seem to have changed since the days of Edmonds and Emburey twirling there. This season in the Championship Middlesex have predominantly relied upon a seam attack; the only spinner selected by Middlesex in their 3 matches at Lord's has been youngish leggie Luke Hollman, a bowling allrounder. He's only bowled in 3 innings there - totals of 9, 12 and 11 overs for one sinle wicket.

KP_fan wrote:

alfie wrote:Yeah I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a four seamer selection. Woakes and Wood both seem logical choices for Lord's and even though the lack of a full time spinner isn't ideal , I thought Root bowled quite well here. Longer spell than he usually has to - forced by Moeen's injury of course ; but apart from that unfortunate last over he handled it fine. If he'd hung on to the the Cummins C&B he would have been the matchwinner !
Maybe could do the job. Though probably more over rate fines incoming...

I was also initially a bit surprised they persisted with the round the wicket attack to Khawaja - they undoubtedly have all the data on his varying averages. Suspect though that this was because of the extreme slowness and lack of movement in pitch conditions (resulting , as I pointed out earlier , in the extraordinary statistic of not a single slips catch from a seamer in the whole match). It arguably rendered those Khawaja angle statistics meaningless in this context. More "normal" English pitch and I'm sure they will be back over the wicket to him.

Question is whether we will see a more normal English pitch ? I do fear for the home team's prospects if we don't , largely because of the spin strength disparity (inevitable but made worse by the loss of Leach). Though considering they managed to get inches from the finish in this one only to be pipped on the line , those fears might be a bit exaggerated ? We will see ; but I hope we get a bit more life in the Lord's deck.

In any case despite a too flat pitch at Edgbaston , the game proved a cracker. Without the new England approach accelerating proceedings , this would surely have ended in a rain affected draw and a lot less excitement for all of us. Seems almost "unfair" in a cosmic justice sort of way that the team that so sparked things into life ended up worse off as a result : one down instead of even after the first match : perhaps Good Karma will come back to repay them as the series goes on

Do have to commend Duty though for his pre-series thoughts that one down side of the very positive England approach could be that Australia's "tortoises" would be afforded more time to make their runs - and more time to rest their bowlers.  I didn't disagree with it then , by the way ; and I think it was certainly demonstrated here to be an important factor. Question going forward being whether it causes an insurmountable gap or is just another thing to consider ?

To be honest I can't see England changing too much. Not sure it would make any sense for them to do so either. Sure , they could probably have banked a certain draw by taking their second innings a bit more conservatively ; but after getting into a fairly strong position (tiny first innings lead but opponent batting last) it would have been a bit timid to put safety ahead of a serious chance to strike the first blow : sometimes fortune doesn't favour the bold. I don't think they can beat this Australian side by retreating to the methods of Cook Strauss Trott etc as the weapons of both teams are very different today. Perhaps they could dial back a few of the more outrageous attempts to monster the bowling that cost the wickets of well set batsmen ? But where exactly do you draw the line when your crazy shots are making world class bowlers scatter their fields to the boundaries ? Easy from TV land to say "that was silly" when it goes wrong... Bit like watching KP back in the day : fantastic when it comes off.

As an England fan obviously I want a win at Lord's.  But even if I could put myself in a neutral skin I'd think it would be a huge pity if the series isn't kept well alive there : as who wouldn't want to watch another three or four games like that ?

As I read the situation behind closed doors and in front of a  drawing board, Eng might be in a HUGE dilemma.
1. Whether to have seaming-green pitch for T2 which their medium pacers Anderson, Robinson Woakes etal would need to be effective
OR
2. Have a Flat pitch similar to T1

On a of pitch from the 2nd category Eng conceded 400ish & 300ish in 2nd and 4th inning respectively inspite of Manus & Smith's total flops
On the 1st category of pitch Eng seemingly doesn't have full confidence in their own Bazballing style of batting.
( that's why the made the 2nd category pitch)
However 1st category is the type of Pitch that Eng bowlers need to roll Aus out for under 250

Not Easy Choices.
If I read Stokes' mind he will go for the flat pitch again. And this time I am afraid he may not be able to dodge the Manus / Smith Bullet.
If I were to choose...no brainer...green top custom designed for Anderson...he could run through and bundle them for 150 on D1

Well the word is that number 1 was what Stokes has asked for throughout the series. it was just that Egbaston didn't deliver

It seems as though you'll get your preferred Australian pace bowling combo, Guildford. They are quick here to suggest Boland is out and Starc is back in for Lord's. As many predicted.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/aussies-back-smith-and-labuschagne-as-boland-s-spot-under-threat-20230622-p5dih3.html

Pal Joey wrote:It seems as though you'll get your preferred Australian pace bowling combo, Guildford. They are quick here to suggest Boland is out and Starc is back in for Lord's. As many predicted.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/aussies-back-smith-and-labuschagne-as-boland-s-spot-under-threat-20230622-p5dih3.html

That makes sense I think.

Though they might miss Boland's skill as a night watchman

KP_fan wrote:As I read the situation behind closed doors and in front of a  drawing board, Eng might be in a HUGE dilemma.
1. Whether to have seaming-green pitch for T2 which their medium pacers Anderson, Robinson Woakes etal would need to be effective
OR
2. Have a Flat pitch similar to T1

On a of pitch from the 2nd category Eng conceded 400ish & 300ish in 2nd and 4th inning respectively inspite of Manus & Smith's total flops
On the 1st category of pitch Eng seemingly doesn't have full confidence in their own Bazballing style of batting.
( that's why the made the 2nd category pitch)
However 1st category is the type of Pitch that Eng bowlers need to roll Aus out for under 250

Not Easy Choices.
If I read Stokes' mind he will go for the flat pitch again. And this time I am afraid he may not be able to dodge the Manus / Smith Bullet.
If I were to choose...no brainer...green top custom designed for Anderson...he could run through and bundle them for 150 on D1

We'll only see flat pitches. England are wedded to it - trying to replicate the ODI success post-2015 by out-blasting the opposition. It's a key part of the Bazball nonsense. It nullifies England's natural advantage and is a haven for batsmen like Khawaja, who wouldn't know what to do on a green seamer other than head back to the pavilion in a timely manner.

One thing I do think England would prefer are faster pitches. Lord's should certainly have a bit more bounce.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:As I read the situation behind closed doors and in front of a  drawing board, Eng might be in a HUGE dilemma.
1. Whether to have seaming-green pitch for T2 which their medium pacers Anderson, Robinson Woakes etal would need to be effective
OR
2. Have a Flat pitch similar to T1

On a of pitch from the 2nd category Eng conceded 400ish & 300ish in 2nd and 4th inning respectively inspite of Manus & Smith's total flops
On the 1st category of pitch Eng seemingly doesn't have full confidence in their own Bazballing style of batting.
( that's why the made the 2nd category pitch)
However 1st category is the type of Pitch that Eng bowlers need to roll Aus out for under 250

Not Easy Choices.
If I read Stokes' mind he will go for the flat pitch again. And this time I am afraid he may not be able to dodge the Manus / Smith Bullet.
If I were to choose...no brainer...green top custom designed for Anderson...he could run through and bundle them for 150 on D1

We'll only see flat pitches. England are wedded to it - trying to replicate the ODI success post-2015 by out-blasting the opposition. It's a key part of the Bazball nonsense. It nullifies England's natural advantage and is a haven for batsmen like Khawaja, who wouldn't know what to do on a green seamer other than head back to the pavilion in a timely manner.

One thing I do think England would prefer are faster pitches. Lord's should certainly have a bit more bounce.

It's 14-all in ODIs between the two since 2015, Duty. Since the 2019 World Cup it's actually 6-2 in Australia's favour. So they are probably the wrong team to use that 'out-blasting' method against. Lord's should be a proper shoot-out if it's a KP_F Type 1 pitch with a bit more bounce than Edgbaston. If so, it should suit both teams.

It's also worth noting that at Edgbaston, England scored 67 x 4s and 7 x 6s (46.5% of their total 666 runs in boundaries) compared to 69 x 4s and 11 x 6s (51.2 % of their total 668 runs in boundaries) from Australia. England's faster run rate (and declaration) actually helped Australia achieve the miracle win by giving them more time to wear down the opposition and get the job done*.

England were also out in the field for 208.4 overs (1252 balls) compared to only 144.2 overs (866 balls) for Australia... an extra 64.2 overs (386  balls) which is the downside of Bazball in that it takes more out the the bowler's (and fielder's) legs. Something to ponder perhaps.

*Alfie, we had pet tortoises as kids. One we called Speedy Gonzalez. Sure, he wasn't your Usain Bolt but if you turned your back for a few minutes he could actually cover quite a bit of ground and disappear behind some cover in the garden. Fred, on the other hand, was a bit older (when never knew how old) but he was considerably slower and preferred to stay closer to the lettuce most of the time.

Afro wrote:

KP_fan wrote:  
As I read the situation behind closed doors and in front of a  drawing board, Eng might be in a HUGE dilemma.
1. Whether to have seaming-green pitch for T2 which their medium pacers Anderson, Robinson Woakes etal would need to be effective
OR
2. Have a Flat pitch similar to T1

On a of pitch from the 2nd category Eng conceded 400ish & 300ish in 2nd and 4th inning respectively inspite of Manus & Smith's total flops
On the 1st category of pitch Eng seemingly doesn't have full confidence in their own Bazballing style of batting.
( that's why the made the 2nd category pitch)
However 1st category is the type of Pitch that Eng bowlers need to roll Aus out for under 250

Not Easy Choices.
If I read Stokes' mind he will go for the flat pitch again. And this time I am afraid he may not be able to dodge the Manus / Smith Bullet.
If I were to choose...no brainer...green top custom designed for Anderson...he could run through and bundle them for 150 on D1

Well the word is that number 1 was what Stokes has asked for throughout the series. it was just that Egbaston didn't deliver

It would have been quite difficult for the groundsman then to deliver a Pakistan like pitch so out of character to Eng in Birmingham

Indeed , PJ . And as I actually mentioned a few posts back , Duty did suggest that could be a drawback to the generally positive effects of the very attacking game. Bit of an assist for the Tortoise.

It is all about risk and reward, isn't it ? Looking at that pitch on day one - and knowing in advance you were going to lose the best part of a day's play to weather (and slow over rates) - you'd reckon a draw was just about nailed on. But by going so hard as they did , England got themselves in a position to win with an hour left in the game : the unfortunate thing for them was that Cummins and Lyon threw off their Tortoise shells and nicked the prize at the death

Better to have created the chance - even though it actually cost them in the end ? Or to have played safe and accepted a stalemate ?

Of course you can't predict every detail in advance ; but that's ultimately the choice they're making. Time will tell whether it's a winning formula against this strong opponent. Though of course we still won't know if another method would do as well or better...

I noticed that boundary count too. Some might think it odd given the way the two sides batted ; but in truth it was a natural consequence of England setting (mostly) attacking fields and Cummins scattering his fielders almost from ball one. Annoyed a lot of older Australian players and pundits, I believe : but he had the last laugh !

Yes, also worth noting that when I mentioned England's ODI success, I meant generally in that format of the game with England's domination in the run-up to 2019 and the World Cup win, and still frontrunners for 2023, not specifically a Eng/Aus H2H.

There were comments on TMS that Edgbaston is a slightly odd wicket, in that when it's as dry as it was, it goes very slow, and that the solution would have been to leave a bit more grass on, which makes it quicker but also promotes more lateral movement. Might actually have been to England's advantage.

alfie wrote:Indeed , PJ .  And as I actually mentioned a few posts back , Duty did suggest that could be a drawback to the generally positive effects of the very attacking game. Bit of an assist for the Tortoise.

It is all about risk and reward, isn't it ? Looking at that pitch on day one - and knowing in advance you were going to lose the best part of a day's play to weather (and slow over rates)   - you'd reckon a draw was just about nailed on. But by going so hard as they did , England got themselves in a position to win with an hour left in the game : the unfortunate thing for them was that Cummins and Lyon threw off their Tortoise shells and nicked the prize at the death

Better to have created the chance - even though it actually cost them in the end ?  Or to have played safe and accepted a stalemate ?

Of course you can't predict every detail in advance ; but that's ultimately the choice they're making. Time will tell whether it's a winning formula against this strong opponent. Though of course we still won't know if another method would do as well or better...

I noticed that boundary count too. Some might think it odd given the way the two sides batted ; but in truth it was a natural consequence of England setting (mostly) attacking fields and Cummins scattering his fielders almost from ball one. Annoyed a lot of older Australian players and pundits, I believe : but he had the last laugh !

With the brief mention of over rates and Cummins/Lyon, it has not escaped me that the Aussies bowled 46 overs in 4 hours early on day 4 to allow their two best bowlers in Cummins/Lyon to do the bulk of the work...lets say the cynical part of me thinks that might have been tactically slow...(and something I would hope England/England management will be having a quiet word to the match officials about for upcoming games).

Away from the mens game, the women's Ashes is underway today. Ellyse Perry is rather good isn't she?

Perry out for 99. Ouch. Aussies gone from 202/2 to 238/6. Good fightback from England.

I see one Mr Anderson in his newspaper column has not been particularly kind about the Edgbaston wicket…

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I see one Mr Anderson in his newspaper column has not been particularly kind about the Edgbaston wicket…

What did he say? Did the other bowlers think the same?

Lot of twaddle talked by Anderson in his article (reproduced below), but also some sense. Acknowledging the deadness of the pitch, and saying he was 'done' in the Ashes series if pitches continued to be like that. A fair comment, but it's a side-effect of Bazball that he'll have to contend with. Pretty much every pitch he's bowled on in the past year has been very friendly for the batsmen, so maybe he's reaching a tipping point?

Then the twaddle. Claiming England had played four and three quarter days of 'excellent' cricket. Must have missed all that. Day one was clearly Australia's, with England a fair bit short of par; day two, England fought back well in the early stages, but Australia got back in control with Khawaja being supported by Green and Carey; day three, strong start from England, but pegged back when losing both openers; day four, fell short of setting an imposing target, no batsman reaching 50+, and Australia ahead in their chase at stumps; day five, back and forth, eventually won by Australia.

Australia controlled most of the test, despite having a sizable impediment in not being able to bat first.

Also claiming Crawley sending a right loosener to the boundary was one of his favourite moments in cricket. Why are people still banging on about that, as if it meant something? A far more important boundary was the final four of the test which actually won Australia the game.

And the concerning, in that McCullum was saying England had already won after day four, because of how they played and how they stuck to their style. Sad to see that winning is secondary for England. I doubt this was a mentality shared by the great Australian and West Indies teams of the past. Even if it's used as a pressure reliever, it's taking things too far and makes you wonder about the mental toughness of England's team, beginning a ten-test run at home to Australia and away to India, some of the toughest series you can get.

England on course to lose their first home series against Australia for 22 years. I suppose Bazball is turning things around when you look at it...

Spoiler:

Duty281 wrote:Lot of twaddle talked by Anderson in his article (reproduced below), but also some sense. Acknowledging the deadness of the pitch, and saying he was 'done' in the Ashes series if pitches continued to be like that. A fair comment, but it's a side-effect of Bazball that he'll have to contend with. Pretty much every pitch he's bowled on in the past year has been very friendly for the batsmen, so maybe he's reaching a tipping point?

Then the twaddle. Claiming England had played four and three quarter days of 'excellent' cricket. Must have missed all that. Day one was clearly Australia's, with England a fair bit short of par; day two, England fought back well in the early stages, but Australia got back in control with Khawaja being supported by Green and Carey; day three, strong start from England, but pegged back when losing both openers; day four, fell short of setting an imposing target, no batsman reaching 50+, and Australia ahead in their chase at stumps; day five, back and forth, eventually won by Australia.

Australia controlled most of the test, despite having a sizable impediment in not being able to bat first.

Also claiming Crawley sending a right loosener to the boundary was one of his favourite moments in cricket. Why are people still banging on about that, as if it meant something? A far more important boundary was the final four of the test which actually won Australia the game.

And the concerning, in that McCullum was saying England had already won after day four, because of how they played and how they stuck to their style. Sad to see that winning is secondary for England. I doubt this was a mentality shared by the great Australian and West Indies teams of the past. Even if it's used as a pressure reliever, it's taking things too far and makes you wonder about the mental toughness of England's team, beginning a ten-test run at home to Australia and away to India,  some of the toughest series you can get.

England on course to lose their first home series against Australia for 22 years. I suppose Bazball is turning things around when you look at it...

Spoiler:

Thanks Duty291
Just interested in the bowling and to see if he mentioned that he and Robinson were feeling undercooked after coming back from injury.

Stokes probably wanted pitches like they had in Pakistan but faster, at least there was reverse swing, Wood and Leach.
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesAnalysis.asp?SeriesCode=0812&Scope=02#bowl

A decent article how about the Australians are approaching this Ashes Series and their thoughts about the Edgbaston Test.

Personally, I don't think they should have made some of these insights and methods of dealing with Bazball public so soon. But it's all out there now.

There's still such a long way to go and now England can analyse it and work out some sort of a plan to counteract Australia's methods.
Or simply acknowledge this happened, put it behind them and come up with another surprise plan of their own for the following 4 matches.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/you-re-stone-cold-how-the-australians-stared-down-bazball-and-won-20230622-p5diug.html

For those without access to the site, here's the full text below.

‘You’re stone cold!’ How the Australians stared down Bazball and won:

Interesting articles posted above - thanks gentlemen.

Now I am afraid it is starting to look as if I am always picking on Duty ; but I really have to contest a couple of his comments above !

Australia controlled most of the Test ?  On what planet ? They stayed in touch , sure : but England made all the running despite some sticky patches for three days and more. Aussies did well to limit their fourth innings target ; but were still looking likely losers until Cummins played some bold strikes to put England back on their heels as the last hour started.
Neither side was ever really in control. It was a dogfight start to finish. And a wafer thin final margin.
Excellent cricket from England ?  Yeah , bit of looking at the positives from Jimmy there : but indeed much of what they did was excellent. He's just skated over the bits they got wrong... perhaps not surprising as he's hardly going to focus publicly on too much negativity while he's playing the games , now is he ?

Meanwhile Duty seems determined to find nothing but reasons for despair in the whole thing A little odd , I think. Since general opinion coming in seemed to be Australia were firm favourites ; yet they've just got over the line in a photo finish . Reckon it shows there maybe isn't much between the two sides. We will see...

Jimmy very honest about his own performance. Tallies with what we all thought really : he looked a bit underdone after that minor but awkward injury lay off ; and the pitch gave him nothing. In truth it was pretty unhelpful to all the pace men ; I doubt we will have another one quite as insipid - at least I hope not !

Was pretty clear Australia had decided in advance how to combat the English batting approach so I don't think they have given away too many secrets via the SMH. Interesting to read their comments though. I suppose given the closeness of the result , it is open to question to what degree the specific plans of each side actually worked ? I'd say it was a bit of both : and ultimately it all came down to execution rather than a complete endorsement of either method... think individual small tweaks rather than major overhauls on both sides will be what we will see going forward.

Watched the women for half the day. England's catching letting them down : thought Australia were going to run away but see Ecclestone has brought it back a bit. Depends how many the rest of the bats can add I guess ; but it looks a very good pitch for batting so not making any predictions about where it goes from here.
The new players had their moments. Litchfield batted brightly though she didn't go on ; and the new lass Filer was very lively and has two great scalps for her first wickets.
Something to keep red ball fans awake before the Lord's Test ...

Hey Olly : you are not accusing Australia of skullduggery in the over rate department are you ? "Tactical game management" , I think it's called

Both sides ended up fined. Must say I thought , watching it , that the Aussies were the main culprits in slowing the game down : but I didn't have a stopwatch on it ...

And yes , Perry is a truly great player. Her best white ball stuff probably behind her ; but still an irreplaceable asset for Australia in the long game : pity she didn't get that hundred !

Pal Joey wrote:A decent article how about the Australians are approaching this Ashes Series and their thoughts about the Edgbaston Test.

Personally, I don't think they should have made some of these insights and methods of dealing with Bazball public so soon. But it's all out there now.

There's still such a long way to go and now England can analyse it and work out some sort of a plan to counteract Australia's methods.
Or simply acknowledge this happened, put it behind them and come up with another surprise plan of their own for the following 4 matches.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/you-re-stone-cold-how-the-australians-stared-down-bazball-and-won-20230622-p5diug.html

For those without access to the site, here's the full text below.

‘You’re stone cold!’ How the Australians stared down Bazball and won:

Any narrative can be built around a success retrospectively
BUT
this STONE COLD STARED DOWN BAZBALL story would  hold water if / when Aus wins more comprehensively
The margin of win was down to the category of luck/chance / divine blessings which could have well gone Stokes way had he not used up his share of Karmik blessings in WC final & that Old Trafford test match

On the contrary this seems an article to set-up Eng to do things differently in reaction to "Now that Bazball is exposed"

alfie wrote:Interesting articles posted above - thanks gentlemen.

Now I am afraid it is starting to look as if I am always picking on Duty ; but I really have to contest a couple of his comments above !

Australia controlled most of the Test ?  On what planet ? They stayed in touch , sure : but England made all the running despite some sticky patches for three days and more. Aussies did well to limit their fourth innings target ; but were still looking likely losers until Cummins played some bold strikes to put England back on their heels as the last hour started.
Neither side was ever really in control. It was a dogfight start to finish. And a wafer thin final margin.
Excellent cricket from England ?  Yeah , bit of looking at the positives from Jimmy there : but indeed much of what they did was excellent. He's just skated over the bits they got wrong... perhaps not surprising as he's hardly going to focus publicly on too much negativity while he's playing the games , now is he ?

Meanwhile Duty seems determined to find nothing but reasons for despair in the whole thing    A little odd , I think. Since general opinion coming in seemed to be Australia were firm favourites ; yet they've just got over the line in a photo finish . Reckon it shows there maybe isn't much between the two sides. We will see...

Jimmy very honest about his own performance.  Tallies with what we all thought really : he looked a bit underdone after that minor but awkward injury lay off ; and the pitch gave him nothing. In truth it was pretty unhelpful to all the pace men ; I doubt we will have another one quite as insipid - at least I hope not !

Was pretty clear Australia had decided in advance how to combat the English batting approach so I don't think they have given away too many secrets via the SMH. Interesting to read their comments though. I suppose given the closeness of the result , it is open to question to what degree the specific plans of each side actually worked ?  I'd say it was a bit of both : and ultimately it all came down to execution rather than a complete endorsement of either method... think individual small tweaks rather than major overhauls on both sides will be what we will see going forward.

'England made all the running' - well, I suppose in a sense they did, because they batted first. But Australia were ahead in the game after the first, third and (most crucially) fourth innings, so I'd say they controlled most of it. Didn't you give up on England's chances midway through the third innings, also? Even I hadn't given up by then!

Aussies got over the line in a photo finish? Perhaps, but should be remembered they lost the toss and had to overcome a sizable disadvantage, with conditions for batting perfect on day one and not-so-perfect on day two; plus Australia were a bit below their best; and this was played at England's best home venue, so any win for Australia will do. Australia were my firm favourites for the series, but Edgbaston was the place where England were most likely to record a win, and also the Bazball strategy was likelier to get a win early on.

The key point in that other article is how happy Australia were to be let off the hook when Root and Robinson were scoring briskly.

KP_fan wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:A decent article how about the Australians are approaching this Ashes Series and their thoughts about the Edgbaston Test.

Personally, I don't think they should have made some of these insights and methods of dealing with Bazball public so soon. But it's all out there now.

There's still such a long way to go and now England can analyse it and work out some sort of a plan to counteract Australia's methods.
Or simply acknowledge this happened, put it behind them and come up with another surprise plan of their own for the following 4 matches.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/you-re-stone-cold-how-the-australians-stared-down-bazball-and-won-20230622-p5diug.html

For those without access to the site, here's the full text below.

‘You’re stone cold!’ How the Australians stared down Bazball and won:

Any narrative can be built around a success retrospectively
BUT
this STONE COLD STARED DOWN BAZBALL story would  hold water if / when Aus wins more comprehensively
The margin of win was down to the category of luck/chance / divine blessings which could have well gone Stokes way had he not used up his share of Karmik blessings in WC final & that Old Trafford test match

On the contrary this seems an article to set-up Eng to do things differently in reaction to "Now that Bazball is exposed"

Yes, this particular narrative (written today) is retrospective but as the article explains - a lot of pre-planning went into it. The rest was up to the response to the match situation on the field. It was touch and go at various points. Could have gone either way. There's always some good luck/bad luck involved and there's always pressure on both captains' leadership and decision making in the heat of the contest... as Tubby points out at the end of the article.

I agree, the mind games have intensified and maybe also setting things up for England to do things differently. Don't think they will though. I think they'll go even harder at Lord's.

Pal Joey wrote:

I agree, the mind games have intensified and maybe also setting things up for England to do things differently. Don't think they will though. I think they'll go even harder at Lord's.

Yes Mind Games are Playing up a lot more now.
Eng's fans, media and commentators  are contributing to building pressure on Stokes & his team.

I think already under pressure England will "Go-Green" with the pitch........& One more defeat and the pressure would be monumental.
2-0 down becomes almost the border-line for an irreversible, slippery, downward slope toward a whitewash

I see that after a warm weekend the weather gets a bit cooler with more cloud from Monday. I'm no expert but do they have enough time to 'doctor' the pitch a little? Not sure... I don't think so. They'll no doubt work with what's there but a little more natural life in the pitch helps both teams.

The Aussie women have passed the 393 mark... 8 down. No declaration before lunch. I like this ShellBall approach. Keep going and build that total.

The game is moving along nicely as Sutherland brings up her ton. Can see her playing a greater role in the coming years (she's still only 21) and would be most likely to carry Pez's mantle going forward.

The good thing about this team is the healthy competition for places as some big names approach the end of their careers or have already just retired like Haynes and Lanning.

Middle order and pace/spin bowling seems to be covered (some talented all-rounders) but I'd like to see some more top order batters come to the fore. Litchfield is still very young and needs some experienced support when Mooney eventually hangs up the boots... which is still a few years away.

Over 100 runs have been added since this morning. 430/8

I wouldn't say anyone had control of the test tbh. Who you thought had the upper hand changed all the time, which is why it was such a good game to follow. Two evenly matched sides, and it just happened that it swung back Australia's way at the time that mattered most.

Either team winning wasn't, or wouldn't have been, an unfair outcome.

Rehan Ahmed called in to the squad for T2 btw

Afro wrote:Rehan Ahmed called in to the squad for T2 btw

Better him than Jacks, at least, which was the speculation yesterday.

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote:Rehan Ahmed called in to the squad for T2 btw

Better him than Jacks, at least, which was the speculation yesterday.

Despite Jacks' audition for Bazball last night, I definitely agree. He looks to be the future front line spinner, so giving him the odd test when the current first choice is injured (or being the second spinner in the sub-continent) seems logical for his development.

Afro wrote:Rehan Ahmed called in to the squad for T2 btw

Olly will be ecstatic !

Not sure he will play but they are certainly contemplating using him at some time during the series. Want to keep him round the squad - good idea I think

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/saqib-mahmood-faces-further-setback-amid-fears-of-stress-fracture-flare-up-1383292

Big setback for Saqib Mahmood. He's tried to make a comeback from injury this season, but the same injury appears to have flared up again, leaving him out of the rest of this season in all likelihood.

Duty281 wrote:

'England made all the running' - well, I suppose in a sense they did, because they batted first. But Australia were ahead in the game after the first, third and (most crucially) fourth innings, so I'd say they controlled most of it. Didn't you give up on England's chances midway through the third innings, also? Even I hadn't given up by then!

Aussies got over the line in a photo finish? Perhaps, but should be remembered they lost the toss and had to overcome a sizable disadvantage, with conditions for batting perfect on day one and not-so-perfect on day two; plus Australia were a bit below their best; and this was played at England's best home venue, so any win for Australia will do.

OK I can see we see this differently : you reckon Australia were "ahead" after England had batted first ? But that is just an opinion - and somewhat confounded by the fact that they finished their own innings (minimally) behind. Reckon it was 50/50 after England's second knock too - but even if you believe otherwise , surely no way could that be considered "control".

Finished up in front so last laugh , certainly. But that is a different matter. Not that it matters as it is the result that counts !

By the way you evidently didn't realize that my "giving up" on Monday afternoon actually was a fairly transparent attempt to "change the luck" : I do it quite often ; bit of an old joke with some of the old ex-BBC posters on here
Won't deny I was concerned then though ! But honestly the only time I felt Australia actually got "ahead" in the game was when Cummins and Lyon got the target down under thirty and England seemed to have run out of ideas and energy.

Agree Australia will be delighted to have got the win here. But I don't accept that they were really disadvantaged by the conditions , which remained similar throughout - and in fact favoured the team with the better spinner. 1-0 is an advantage to be sure ; but let us wait and see what comes next eh ? I am still as unsure of the future outcome as I was before the toss last Friday...

Big total for the Aussie women

Good late order batting ; England rather let down by catching in that innings...will need to make up for it with the bat.

But better news for Scotland it seems ...

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

'England made all the running' - well, I suppose in a sense they did, because they batted first. But Australia were ahead in the game after the first, third and (most crucially) fourth innings, so I'd say they controlled most of it. Didn't you give up on England's chances midway through the third innings, also? Even I hadn't given up by then!

Aussies got over the line in a photo finish? Perhaps, but should be remembered they lost the toss and had to overcome a sizable disadvantage, with conditions for batting perfect on day one and not-so-perfect on day two; plus Australia were a bit below their best; and this was played at England's best home venue, so any win for Australia will do.

OK I can see we see this differently : you reckon Australia were "ahead" after England had batted first ? But that is just an opinion - and somewhat confounded by the fact that they finished their own innings (minimally) behind. Reckon it was 50/50 after England's second knock too - but even if you believe otherwise , surely no way could that be considered "control".

Finished up in front so last laugh , certainly. But that is a different matter. Not that it matters as it is the result that counts !

By the way you evidently didn't realize that my "giving up" on Monday afternoon actually was a fairly transparent attempt to "change the luck" : I do it quite often ; bit of an old joke with some of the old ex-BBC posters on here
Won't deny I was concerned then though ! But honestly the only time I felt Australia actually got "ahead" in the game was when Cummins and Lyon got the target down under thirty and England seemed to have run out of ideas and energy.

Agree Australia will be delighted to have got the win here. But I don't accept that they were really disadvantaged by the conditions , which remained similar throughout - and in fact favoured the team with the better spinner. 1-0 is an advantage to be sure ; but let us wait and see what comes next eh ? I am still as unsure of the future outcome as I was before the toss last Friday...

Yes, Australia were ahead after England's 393 because par was about 450+, and Australia plus Stokes did well to limit England to an underwhelming score. England got in front through their bowling effort, but ceded any notion of being in control for longer when they lost both openers quickly, and the target eventually set was something I thought Australia were favourites to get. Australia controlled most of the game and England did not play four and a bit days of excellent cricket, or whatever it was claimed.

Batting on the first day was a complete paradise, whereas the ball was always doing a bit on subsequent days. Don't think Australia would have ended up with sub-400 had they batted first.

I'm even more sure of the series outcome now England have lost in their fortress. Australia are better in every area. A green wicket might address the balance, but that's not happening.

But do cheer up because, remember, under Bazball winning is secondary to how England play. And England scored at a higher run-rate than Australia in the first so, really, England have already won.

Zak Crawley has even said it himself today, while also predicting that England will win at Lord's by 150 runs: "I think Sky had record viewing figures, Test Match Special had record listening figures, so this week was a great week for cricket and that's what we're all about. We're not about results. We always talk about that. We're not about winning or losing: we're about entertainment."

Maybe if England lose the series 0-5, Stokes can dress up as a clown and do a juggling act while getting through 'I am the very model of a modern major general'. Entertainment would be through the roof.

OK have it your way , old chap . Opinions are free ...

You are going to keep watching , though ?

This England setup is far from the first in sport to employ a 'culture first, results second' approach when turning things around. Legacy by James Kerr (cracker of a book for folk interested in sport by the way) about how the all conquering NZ rugby team built that juggernaut starts similarly for instance. The difference with this England Test side is how vocal they are being about it.

It was a real slump they were turning around too. Yes, the 1 win in 17 Tests came from a brutal fixture list but it also culminated in an Ashes that was one of the most dismal tours I've seen. That Aussie side had their issues with availability too. They were far from unbeatable even at home. England were dire with bat, ball and in the field though. The final part there is often overlooked it feels. England dropped something like 11 catches before the Aussies shelled one. Between catches, missed runouts and wickets off no-balls (sound familiar...) they wasted 17 chances in 3 innings.

The issue with such a monumental shift in culture and approach for the England Test side is coming to a home Ashes relatively early though. The Ashes is everything in English cricket. For better or worse. It's often, and justifiably, opined that English cricket has an unhealthy obsession with the Ashes. I've said it in the past. It's common for day in, day out England fans such as many of us here to feel that focus can hold the game back. Yet, here we are. Glued to this series in a way even we acolytes aren't quite to most the others. Let alone the way that more casual fans engage. We just need to look at the lovely number of 606ers who wouldn't usually frequent the cricket boards contributing during T1.

The most interesting example of that obsession is comparing the perspective the 80s vs 90s are held in compared to results. The 80s had that wonderful Windies side but not a lot beyond. England and Australia both had great players but were fairly poor sides. NZ still had semipros. Pakistan and India were early in their development. SA were in exile. Whereas in the 90s Australia were becoming a juggernaut. Windies were still strong. SA were back. India and Pakistan had developed a long way. Even Zimbabwe had some cracking cricketers. If you compare results across the two decades England actually did slightly better in 90s. Yet the 90s is remembered as the shambolic drawn out demise amateurism in English cricket. Whilst the 80s are remembered very fondly. The difference? The Ashes. England won some in the 80s and they had competitive, engrossing series. In no small part because both sides were flawed. Whereas in the 90s Australia were just so good and professional that they destroyed England. Therefore that's, "the worst era of English cricket ever".

That painting of the game extends to players too. How many of the poorer 90s players are almost used as punchlines now? Whereas poorer players from the 80s are often fairly loved. Derek Randall, one of my favourite characters from cricket, is a good example there. Factoring in the 80s being a high scoring period (fully covered pitches, improved pitch curation that came from that and benefit of doubt from umpires heavily favouring batters) Randall's record is actually pretty weak for a player with over 50 Tests. He's a beloved character in cricketing folklore though. Randall before an Ashes series England were heading into with bad form, "We'll play like a pheasant rising from the Ashes!" Teammate, "Do you mean a phoenix Derek?" Randall, "Who cares? It's some bird starting with an f".

Given the talent he had early on Ian Bell's record with the bat ended up a bit underwhelming considering he played in the second best batting period ever, largely in very strong sides. He's the winner of 5 Ashes series though. Whenever Bell's introduced in English cricket for the rest of his life he'll be, "5 time Ashes winner Ian Bell".

The Ashes still is and basically has always been everything in English cricket. This huge shift was always going to divide opinion more when it came to the Ashes.

It really made me laugh on D4 when KP was waxing lyrical about how well Root had been playing all game when Punter just cut in, "yeah, but he's out now and he only made 40-odd".

Personally, I'm actually quite enjoying the absolute collision of styles. Whilst the declaration with Root still in and Root dancing down the wicket, getting stumped to a bowlers he's dominating both frustrated me I do have to say England didn't lose that game batting. On an absolutely flat deck they produced enough chances to take 20 wickets for the 14th Test on the bounce. They squandered to many yet again. The Khawaja wicket off a no ball, missed stumping of Green and the no attempt made to Khawaja's nick in Jimmy's first over of the second innings. That's where this was lost. All too familiar to the start of the '21/22 Ashes despite the gigantic changes of style and fortune. To me the talk of Bazball, declaration, irresponsibility with the bat are slight red herrings given how many chances England had to win in a game where two of their premier seamers bowled poorly and their spinner could use his bowling finger for most the match.