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...

Duty281 wrote:Really does look like we're seeing the end of Anderson's career.

Oh dear, Broad pins Labuschagne LBW, but not out from the umpire and no review on field. One of those days.

Still two hours left, so that lead will be close to 300 if they play to stumps.

Broad’s compulsion to play The Boy Who Cried Wolf hindering him and England.

Labuschagne struggling against Broad for a while, and lucky to survive because of an umpiring error. England making matters worse by not going for the review, perhaps because of Broad's reputation?

After that lucky escape, Labuschagne getting a move on. Quickly on to 30.

Marnus' luck ran out at last...survived an lbw that was plumb , because not given on field and Stokes wouldn't take the review : but then dollied one to point . 219 ahead now so don't think Australia will be too rattled

It really has been a poor innings from Labuschagne, and a very poor end to it. Anderson has something to show for turning up at last.

Have to respect the bowling effort here. OK conditions are quite nice ; but they've been dragged back out pretty quickly after the first innings - and surely feeling a bit low after that batting collapse. But they really have pressured the Australian bats consistently. And with an ounce of luck they'd have been better rewarded than 2/130.

Question being can they keep it up ? Because tiring bowlers are a gift to the likes of Travis's Head...

Usman Khawaja has really rewrote a lot of perceptions about him in the last couple of years. He has become one of their better players of spin, and he very well can play in England!

Probably it for the day. Forecast dry for the weekend, so very little doubt about a result happening, but Australia will be a bit more aggressive tomorrow.

Have to agree with msp : Labuschagne really didn't play well. Wasn't too impressed with his first innings effort either. He's been prolific for a long time ; but the stats show he has tended to enjoy a quite generous amount of luck with dropped chances etc. May be the law of averages catching up ?

Though he had plenty of luck even today so more likely just a glitch.

Rain and off we go. Happy Aussies I think...sitting pretty with two days to go. Main problem for Cummins will be when to declare tomorrow...

Set in for the day , the rain ? OK , so early night for me.

Lead is what , 220 ? Wonder how many they will want and how quickly they can get them ? I'd imagine Cummins will err on the cautious side , especially missing Lyon's skills. But should have plenty of time to either bowl England out - or more likely see them self-destruct

At least we can be sure they will chase whatever is offered so might be lively viewing...

It is always the close ones that bring hope and with hope stress. This test looks now to be a foregone conclusion, so no stress for those wanting something from England. With the first test it got away from England in the last two hours of play. Here it got away from England in the morning session of day three.

England have Australia right where they want them, thinking they have a comfortable lead and can bounce them out in the 2nd innings given a remotely chaseable target. Or so we can hope at least, until they find new and more exciting ways to collapse and lose than they did pre-Bazball.

On the face of things it might look like a A Wheels-Came-off day for Eng....but not so bad in big scheme of things.

Bazballing eventually was found out by fast short bowling & a leg trap field.
The pitch has to have juice, bounce and bowling fast to subjugate bazballing.
But fast bowlers on placid, Patta pitches ( Faislabad, Multan etc) is not good enuf.
Nor is fast medium bowing on juicy pitches is full adequate.....so bazballing can still thrive on a range of mediocre conditions / attack.


Is Eng gonna stop Bazballing?
No...No Way

Should Eng Stop Bazballing?
No. Not in my Opinion.

Eng has only one batsman(Root)n ...maybe one and a half including Stokes who can build and inning in difficult conditions....but looks like he is declining.

Rest like Burns, Sibley, Pope, Jennings, Hameed, Crawley are all type who on a good days will "eat" 75 balls with the get set approach....and succumb for a 25 to 30 odd.

It's this category of batters when bazballing are getting Eng 50 to 90 odd the days they are able to last 75 balls.
And there is no reason to tinker this. Root & Stokes should not throw their wicket bazballing but play "proper" build the  test innings...because they are the only two capable of going on after after "eating" balls to build.

A word on Harry Brooks...whose average & Strike Rate are amazing and had my close view of him in this series.
He has no defense , does not get in the line of ball nor has he any reasonable backfoot play.
His game is built on get besides the line of ball almost always on front foot or standing in his place and whack it.
He is an excellent "whacker" of the ball....but a sophisticated Shahid Afridi in the end in my observation.

Fast Short-into-the-body and he is tied in a knot, cannot defend , cannot hook or pull getting over the bounce.....impulsively backs off from the line of ball, trying to hit over off ( cover to midoff arch) or in the air sq-leg to fine-leg arch.
Also stands risk of getting his head blown off on quicker pitches as he is so much on front foot that he is devoid of both time and space to avoid ball getting into his throat / helmet.
He is another one who can never build and inning. His averages will drop but even if he can hold on to a 42ish he will hold his place.

And inspite of failing to short stuf...Eng's batting delivered a par score of 325.
The pitch and overhead offered plenty of assistance.....the failure still is of bowlers who let Aus get to 415....100 runs too many.

Aus will set a  400+ run chase in 100 overs.....and Eng will undoubtedly go for them
Who knows they might still pull it off and rekindle the aura of bazballing

guildfordbat wrote:Been out for a couple of hours. Sorry if it's already been covered on comms - although Morgan has just raised it, so probably not - but why was Pope fielding when he was clearly incapacitated?

Apparently the umpires told England that Pope had to field or he couldn't bat at 3 in the next innings.

Spoiler:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Really does look like we're seeing the end of Anderson's career.

Oh dear, Broad pins Labuschagne LBW, but not out from the umpire and no review on field. One of those days.

Still two hours left, so that lead will be close to 300 if they play to stumps.

Broad’s compulsion to play The Boy Who Cried Wolf hindering him and England.

i came on here at the time to say the exact same thing, you beat me too it. appeals everything like its stone wall so no one listens anymore

I've posted before that I was interested to see how many hypocrites would come out of the woodwork when Bazball started failing against the top-level teams.

Michael Vaughan is one such person. Before the Ashes, he lauded England as the most exciting team in test history, he loved England's expansive game, and should England go 1-0 down v Australia then England must not doubt Bazball...instead they should just go harder. That was the view of Vaughan.

Now reality is setting in with England likely to go two down. How is Vaughan feeling? Well apparently England are now the team that keeps on giving, they're not going to win the Ashes if they carry on like this, and England should have played smarter, ducked a few bouncers and tried to wear Australia down in the field and put 120 overs into their bowlers' legs. How interesting.

There'll be a lot of this in the media over the next few months as England are put to the sword by Australia and India. Those that lauded Bazball as the new dawn will be eager to tear it down first chance they get.

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Been out for a couple of hours. Sorry if it's already been covered on comms - although Morgan has just raised it, so probably not - but why was Pope fielding when he was clearly incapacitated?

Apparently the umpires told England that Pope had to field or he couldn't bat at 3 in the next innings.

Spoiler:

Many thanks, Duty.

Patel refers to the decision and the communication of it as ''a bit messy''. Based on what is reported above, my description would be a complete mess.

I also feel McCullum needed to take a personal and early involvement rather than allowing an unclear and potentially damaging situation - to England's chances and Pope's fitness - to continue.

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Been out for a couple of hours. Sorry if it's already been covered on comms - although Morgan has just raised it, so probably not - but why was Pope fielding when he was clearly incapacitated?

Apparently the umpires told England that Pope had to field or he couldn't bat at 3 in the next innings.

Spoiler:

Many thanks, Duty.

Patel refers to the decision and the communication of it as ''a bit messy''. Based on what is reported above, my description would be a complete mess.

I also feel McCullum needed to take a personal and early involvement rather than allowing an unclear and potentially damaging situation - to England's chances and Pope's fitness - to continue.

McCullum is far too casual, sitting there with the soles of his feet usually pointing towards the camera.

Makes things difficult for the tipping comp too - is he in or out? Will he bat or take the field?

And from your perspective, Guildford, the Surrey establishment will be looking on all of this with considerable fear of Pope doing further damage.

A word on Olly Stone - he made his comeback from injury in a T20 game on Friday evening...and he limped off after bowling three balls. Oh dear.

Pal Joey wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Been out for a couple of hours. Sorry if it's already been covered on comms - although Morgan has just raised it, so probably not - but why was Pope fielding when he was clearly incapacitated?

Apparently the umpires told England that Pope had to field or he couldn't bat at 3 in the next innings.

Spoiler:

Many thanks, Duty.

Patel refers to the decision and the communication of it as ''a bit messy''. Based on what is reported above, my description would be a complete mess.

I also feel McCullum needed to take a personal and early involvement rather than allowing an unclear and potentially damaging situation - to England's chances and Pope's fitness - to continue.

McCullum is far too casual, sitting there with the soles of his feet usually pointing towards the camera.

Makes things difficult for the tipping comp too - is he in or out? Will he bat or take the field?  

And from your perspective, Guildford, the Surrey establishment will be looking on all of this with considerable fear of Pope doing further damage.

Hi Joey - I thought I would leave McCullum's too casual attitude to Duty but, yes, you're right.

I like to think I would have voiced the same concerns about any injured player fielding but, yes again, you're right about fears Surrey will have for Pope's injury being worsened.

15 overs it took this morning

Starc 5 overs - 2 wickets
Cummins 4 overs - 0 wickets
Hazelwood 2 overs - 1 wicket
Green 2 overs - 1 wicket
Head 2 overs 2 wickets

Given how few overs Cummins had given his bowlers he thinks he has to bowl at the last player to also have a wicket on the board.
Between Green and Head they could have easily got Tongue out.

As one who has consistently admired the refreshing approach of McCullum and Stokes I am not going to turn around and rubbish the concept of (Bazball if we have to call it that !). I like the idea of taking the opponents on : as KP_fan says , the previous approach generally failed this team against decent opposition. And even against this strong Australian attack , the plan works - see 393/8 at Edgbaston in less than a day ; and 180/1 here before the wheels came off.

Trouble is that a big part of making this method pay off is knowing when to double down and when to back off temporarily with a view to cashing in later. Which these same players have done in previous games (SA last year the classic example ; but there have been others if you study the game flows - just a bit lost in all the excitement of spectacular finishes.)

So they can play the game situation. Actually they even did so on day one at Edgbaston - when Pope and Crawley took advantage of Cummins' sending his fielders to patrol the boundary by scoring risk free singles at five per over. Why then did they lose their heads this time ?

I generally ignore the sound bites fed to media - but I am starting to worry that the excitement of an Ashes Series , added to the sometimes bombastic public statements of "going harder" has caused some players to lock themselves in to a state of mind that eliminates all nuance from their play. I hope McCullum - who won't criticize in public , for which I respect him  - has a quiet word because it may not be too late to arrest this seeming slide into full on craziness.

I don't agree with KP_fan that the short pitched attack is "the answer to Bazball".  There really wasn't anything too threatening about the bouncer attack on Thursday : some good ones , sure ; but nothing like the old West Indies or the best of Australian pace attacks. With a bit of discretion all it would have done is slowed the scoring for half an hour and left the bowlers exhausted. But England chose to flap at everything...

I see Scyld Berry has had a real pop at Pope for sparking the mayhem...even suggesting he might not have the cricket brain to really be a prospective captain. Suppose it isn't totally unfair : even I thought Pope (and Duckett) were flirting with disaster for some little time before the inevitable happened. But as neither had actually got out I have some sympathy for Pope in trying one too many big shots - he just made a total mess of the shot.

It was what followed that bemused me. Root of all people , reprieved once and still falling for the sucker punch - even after losing Duckett. And Brook - whose fifty was a mix of great (conventional) shots and daft flaps that really should have seen him out much earlier. He for one is certain to be peppered with short stuff from now on , I am sure . He had better work out a more sensible way of dealing with it because at this stage of his career he is good - but not Kevin Pietersen.

Actually felt Australia got lucky on Thursday - common sense from England would have left them in a real hole. But I thought they were brilliant yesterday. Getting Stokes first up was huge - excellent ball , great catch ; but then Starc and Cummins continued to bowl really well for the next half hour or so , giving nothing for Brook and Bairstow to go after. With the knowledge that a weak tail was all that was left , the batsmen had to just hang in while the scoreboard went nowhere...and the situation got to Brook to the extent that he played the silliest shot imaginable. They just kept to good tight Test Match bowling thereafter - and Bairstow played a loose shot after drinks which meant the game was basically up. Or at least the innings. Full credit to Australia for the morning's work

Australia massive favourites from here. Two days left , 220 ahead. Might have to time a declaration but reckon they are sleeping well overnight. England - not so much...

The business of Pope being forced to field is a messy one. I get that we don't want teams able to just rotate players off the pitch - rest someone before they bat etc. But when a player has obviously suffered a significant injury which is going to handicap their fielding - and maybe pose further injury risks - it seems at odds with the very supportive attitude now adopted to concussion victims that said player is either forced to risk himself in the field or be prohibited from playing his normal role with the bat.
I don't think allowing a sub for Pope would have been a case of England gaming the system. Reckon he was probably already at least a little affected even while batting - although he seemed to bat OK on Thursday until his
rush of blood. He is a very good fielder normally anyway so reckon the team was already disadvantaged enough by the injury - getting him to risk another knock seems a touch of official overkill.
May have been justified on a strict interpretation of the rules. But then maybe the rules need a bit of a modification ?

I've only followed this from afar being away this past week - but Alfie your post above seems to summarise what I've observed from afar.

Since the Pakistan tour finished the bats seem to have brought into the hype/media a bit too much from my standpoint - last summer, while they were aggressive, they were giving themselves much more of a platform before "going for it", as well as going for it with a bit more finesse and thought. Yesterday they just seemed to want to play ego cricket with the bat, a "you can't bowl there to us" approach which really wasn't prevalent last summer...much to the Aussies delight.

They are well on top today - but it's not out of the realms of possibility to restrict them to a lead under 350 if we get a couple of early wickets in the first hour today. I'd imagine the Aussies will bat on till tea/just after for a lead of 400-450 runs though, and look to give themselves what 120 overs to bowl us out?

alfie wrote:The business of Pope being forced to field is a messy one. I get that we don't want teams able to just rotate players off the pitch - rest someone before they bat etc. But when a player has obviously suffered a significant injury which is going to handicap their fielding - and maybe pose further injury risks - it seems at odds with the very supportive attitude now adopted to concussion victims that said player is either forced to risk himself in the field or be prohibited from playing his normal role with the bat.
I don't think allowing a sub for Pope would have been a case of England gaming the system. Reckon he was probably already at least a little affected even while batting - although he seemed to  bat OK on Thursday until his
rush of blood. He is a very good fielder normally anyway so reckon the team was already disadvantaged enough by the injury - getting him to risk another knock seems a touch of official overkill.
May have been justified on a strict interpretation of the rules. But then maybe the rules need a bit of a modification ?

Seems poor umpiring to me Alfie - very much in keeping with what we have seen the first two tests of this series...
Bring back the covid umpires rules and allow home umps. My kingdom for Michael Gough

The umpiring has left a lot to be desired so far in this series; there was a noticeable upturn in the quality when home umpiring was allowed. Why not just use Tucker, Reiffel and the English trio?

Raza, Menon and Wilson just aren't good enough at this level and it appears that Erasmus's eyes and ears have gone. The only non Aussie/English umpire that is actually nowadays is Kumar Dharmasena.

Batting looking easy this morning. Smith putting Jimmy to the sword that last over. Not much movement so pitched up deliveries are at risk against a player of his quality.

Ominous start.

Tongue with the short ball attack. Fair enough. Khawaja just ducks and leaves six balls. Predictable.

Tortoise has plenty of time up his sleeve so not expecting any sacrifices to be offered. But we will see if they can resist it indefinitely...or if the bowlers will run out of petrol.

Lead nearly 250. Patience...

Incredibly half-arsed effort from England this morning. I suppose they're not really bothered about Australia's lead, they just want to crack on with the entertainment later.

For those unfamiliar with England and their "bazzball" Test match tactics, what Test 1 and Test 2 has provided is more data.  

It seems to me that the temporary conclusion is that not everyone needs to follow it if they are quality test match cricketers and that it could be better for the purpose of winning (or not losing) if it were modified to take into account the particular conditions and state of play within the match.

Short ball thing has drawn a couple of batting errors . But no joy for England yet. Technically a chance to Bairstow when Khawaja looped one over his head .: got a touch on it at full stretch leaping backwards but don't think he was ever catching that...

Robinson has been better this morning but Tongue , while quite rapid , hasn't got enough on the right line. That's a good one just then though : Khawaja did well to avoid it.

Drinks. 53 added ...no wickets. Long day looming for England...

Broad snares Khawaja for 77...one for the short ball tactic

Easy catch fine leg for Potts. Unsettled by bouncers and drink break I guess. But he's done a great job for Australia - again

Excellent work there by alfie, getting rid of Khawaja.

I see England have come out to bat after the drinks break.

When they've gone full it's looked very easy batting indeed. Lords can keep flattening out for seamers sometimes...

I almost feel going short here is about dot balls and building pressure more than actually trying to, "bounce them out", in the familiar sense of it.

The attack just looks limp to me.

Alfie, on your response to my post about the seamers yesterday. On D1 I agreed that I thought Anderson in particular actually bowled really well with the new ball just without luck. The rate we are seeing the seamers paces drop across both Tests is alarming though. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason we are seeing so many play and misses, edges dropping short, etc without fortune is that when there's less pace and a good batting surface the best batters can react, play with soft hands, etc. Whereas against Australia's far quicker attack that just isn't an option.

Tongue isn't a better bowler than Anderson, Broad and Robinson at their best but has frequently looked it here. I'm usually one to argue the speed gun gets too much attention too. I just can't get away from the attack looking so slow and tired though. Bottom line, we have three seamers bowling closer in pace to the Ireland attack at Lords earlier in the summer than this Australia attack at Lords currently.

Hey, it looks like typing that did the trick! 

Khawaja goes, Jimmy shells one, Smith goes. It's all happening!

Oh dear .. crazy stuff this morning !

Anderson drops Head on 0 ... groan. But that gets Smith on strike and he holes out to square leg ...cheers

This madness is evidently contagious...

KC : will respond to your post re pace etc at lunch I think

Travis Head has to be the worst player of the short ball of any Australian bastman i've ever seen play.

Makes it even more baffling that England gave Head so many full balls during the 1st innings.

No lucky wicket that...excellent bowling Stuart Broad , and a wonderful catch by Joe ...England's top catcher ever now

Game on , possibly ?

Can't get too excited though. 200 up . lead 293 ... Australia still well in front.

But at least a bit of tension back in the game.

I'm a big fan of Rehan Ahmed's running style. Chases the ball like he's fleeing from a velociraptor.

OK , KC : I take your point about the respective average pace of the two sides - and yes it does give Australia an advantage especially on a pitch that isn't particularly quick itself : the slower bowlers would , you'd think , need a bit more assistance.

The counterpoint though is that , just looking at these two games , it hasn't really translated into any big difference in effectiveness. Setting aside the "bouncer war" both sides have apparently adopted , I've been looking at the wickets - how and to whom they have fallen so far.

At Edgbaston (where strangely virtually nothing went to slip for either side) there were 10 English bats dismissed , over the two innings , by fast bowlers in classical (bowled , lbw , caught behind the wicket) style. For Australia , the corresponding figure was 11.

Then here we saw six Australian bats dismissed like that in the first innings - England lost two. And I think without adding them up that England have also missed a number more chances than Australia off the pace men.

Now obviously this isn't definitive proof that pace doesn't matter ! Lots of other factors at work of course : varying conditions , state of game and tactics etc . But it does suggest we maybe shouldn't overstate the merits of sheer speed against other skills.

At Edgbaston - on a very slow pitch , Lyon was the difference (and it was actually only a very small difference anyway ) rather than some massive pace bowling advantage. No Lyon here (now) ; but again : so far the faster Aussie bowlers have only got results via the short ball route. Apart from that excellent and very important Starc effort to get Stokes yesterday morning !

If this pitch maintains a bit of the extra life we seem to be seeing today it may well be that the pace of the Aussie quartet will prove decisive - we will see. And yes , I'd love another really fast bowler in the England outfit (though I think Tongue is acquitting himself well) But I am not that bothered by the fact that the main seamers are not as rapid as they were. When they are on song I reckon they can still do the job. Think Jimmy has been a bit underdone coming in after his injury break ; and somehow Robinson doesn't have the life he showed in the winter tours so they've struggled a bit.

But so have the Aussies - so far at least.

Wood will play at Headingly , I think ...

''Australia, 313 to the good, well ahead but not out of sight, yet'' - Atherton at start of this session.

Agreed.

guildfordbat wrote:''Australia, 313 to the good, well ahead but not out of sight, yet'' -  Atherton at start of this session.

Agreed.

Not out of sight , no. But still have plenty of time to set an "unassailable" target and have England batting tonight. And can't see this England side batting even three sessions for a draw so unless they can have a magic innings...

This short ball business both sides have adopted may be effective on this sort of pitch - at least in slowing the scoring. But not great watching

Hope it isn't going to be the theme of the series.

alfie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:''Australia, 313 to the good, well ahead but not out of sight, yet'' -  Atherton at start of this session.

Agreed.

Not out of sight , no.  But still have plenty of time to set an "unassailable" target and have England batting tonight.  And can't see this England side batting even three sessions for a draw so unless they can have a magic innings...

This short ball business both sides have adopted may be effective on this sort of pitch - at least in slowing the scoring.  But not great watching

Hope it isn't going to be the theme of the series.

Hi Alfie - I regard ''yet'' as fundamental to what Atherton said.

I still think Lyon will be a huge loss to Australia in England's second innings. So often the glue that holds their pace attack together. Doesn't mean I reckon we'll win but keeps us in the game for now, just about.

Surprised Cummins was in casual sports clothing on the balcony a few minutes ago. With him due in upon the fall of 2 more wickets, I expected him to be in whites if not padded up. Probably just confident in these two at the crease and our man Starc (see you've muscled in in on him too for PJ's comp ) in next rather than contemplating the unthinkable at this stage!

Yes they'll miss Lyon. Which I suppose means if England do get some solid stands going they'll be treating us to a lot more of this short stuff with the boundary riders...

I don't always just want to see fast scoring . But this tactic is a bit too one dimensional for my taste. Too much of it is just tedious.

12 overs for 16 runs

A bit of a stalemate. Not much of a spectacle quite frankly. I might pop out for a run when I get a break from work rather than watching even more cricket! 

It's a two paced pitch when they're banged in but if anything seems to be playing flatter when pitched up. It's very odd. I do fear we might see a refreshed Aussie attack get a bit more zip off it though.

I agree with Guildford that Lyon's absence means it's somewhat alive but Australia are well in front.

after all the excitement leading into this series and a great first test. this could be one of the most boring series in recent memory