England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Wood's pace was not quite up there in that first over though he still was quick. The lengths weren't great. Fine half-century from Khawaja who is closing in on regaining the top-scorer position from Crawley for the series.

Lowlandbrit wrote:Couple of general thoughts on both sides going forward:

Australia
-As mentioned, Carey is a big question mark; best case everything blows over and he resets once he leaves England, worst case it lingers and we look back on this as effectively the end of his career.
-Cummins as captain reminds me of Root. Leading by example, but I'm not sure anyone's really following. Good enough to bail them out nearly enough times, too important to risk chasing away. I'll probably regret this, but if he's still the captain for the next series I feel great about England's chances.

England
-Was getting worried earlier in the series, but (thanks to Carey?) now they're looking in decent shape, although the opposite of what we're used to: batting looking more sorted than the bowling.
-Anderson and Woakes shouldn't be on the plane to Australia, although I wouldn't want England to consider that for at least a year yet. Robinson and Leach seem like locks, fitness permitting, but beyond that it's pretty open.
-Figuring out what the team looks like without Stokes bowling should be a priority, even if he recovers with the time off.

Plane to Australia? Blimey, let's think about India first!

Ideally - Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Stokes, Foakes, Bairstow, Rehan Ahmed, Seamer such as Robinson/Anderson but not Woakes, genuine pace option like Wood or Archer, Leach. That's of course in a happy world where Stokes can bowl.

guildfordbat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:By the way, does anyone know the record test match run chase at The Oval?

Julius - the record successful test match run chase at The Oval goes back as far as 1902 when England beat Australia by 1 wicket scoring 263/9. Jessup the star man with a century.

However, even though that was 120 shy of what Australia needed yesterday, it's very misleading to believe that meant they had no chance. In 1979, considerably founded upon Gavaskar's double ton, India had made 429/8 in the 4th innings chasing a target of 438 when the match ended. No comments about playing on a reserve day then!

Another Oval test also ran out of time when intriguingly poised. In 1947, South Africa were 423/7 in their 4th innings chasing a target of 451 when the match ended.

As mentioned in an earlier post, The Oval outfield is smaller than in the years above which leads to more boundaries and higher scores across all four innings.

All in all, anyone saying England had enough to win yesterday was right but they were wrong if they believed history proved it was going to be the case.

Yes, and those modern scoring rates making such a target possible.

England got two big slices of fortune in their favour. The first was the ball change which enabled them to dominate the first hour. The second was the two rain delays, which gave them greater than expected points to recharge and regroup, at a time when Australia were well on top in both instances.

More on Stokes. IMHO he was worth his place solely as a batsman. 405 runs at an average of 45.00 is quite respectable.

Obviously the side, and the selection process, is better if Ben can bowl. But he should NEVER be regarded as a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. England have included too many of those over the years.

Ideally, a true all-rounder should be able to get into a side because he's good enough as a batsman or a bowler. In reality, one discipline normally overshadows the other.

You wouldn't, for example, have played Richard Hadlee for his batting alone, although he was no mug with the bat. When it comes to the great all-rounders you have to think of Sobers, Imran, Kapil Dev, Botham, Kallis and...Stokes.

Jadeja is averaging 35 with the bat and has taken 268 Test wickets so he also comes into the mix. The "forgotten" all-rounder is Daniel Vettori who scored more than 4,000 Test runs and took 362 wickets. He's the pub quiz question that most people get wrong.

What I've probably got wrong is excluding some of the great all-rounders. Apologies.

Think KC covered the selection conundrum issues rather well a few posts back...

In cricket - especially over five days - there are an enormous number of small events that conspire to decide the eventual outcome.  Change any one and who knows what would happen ?

In terms of selection , surely the most significant was the contentious decision to bring Bairstow back as keeper rather than reshuffle the batting. It didn't work as well as they'd hoped -  largely because , as Olly suggested , Jonny didn't regain his former mobility as quickly as expected (although there were better signs in the later games) : but if most critics had got their way and ditched Crawley , what might that have done to England's batting ?  Would Root , or Brook , have been pushed up the order - and if they were , would they have made the runs they did ?  We will never know...but they would surely have missed Crawley's series-high run tally - and his setting the tone for the innings with his aggression from the very first ball.

I wouldn't have picked Crawley.  I was wrong .  Baz and Ben have the last laugh , eh ?

Don't think there's an argument remaining that bazball is getting more than the sum of its parts. Still needs some refining, England could stand to recognise when they're well on top in the game and stop helping their opponent off the floor. But in general if they're going to be bowled out in 60 overs, might as well have 300 on the board than 150. For the first time in a long time England have positive options on who to leave out of the batting lineup.

Will be interesting to see what teams line up in 2 years for the reverse series. Seam attacks could be mostly all change for both sides.

sirfredperry wrote:More on Stokes. IMHO he was worth his place solely as a batsman. 405 runs at an average of 45.00 is quite respectable.

Obviously the side, and the selection process, is better if Ben can bowl. But he should NEVER be regarded as a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. England have included too many of those over the years.

Ideally, a true all-rounder should be able to get into a side because he's good enough as a batsman or a bowler. In reality, one discipline normally overshadows the either.

You wouldn't, for example, have played Richard Hadlee for his batting alone, although he was no mug with the bat. When it comes to the great all-rounders you have to think of Sobers, Imran, Kapil Dev, Botham, Kallis and...Stokes.

Jadeja is averaging 35 with the bat and has taken 268 Test wickets so he also comes into the mix. The "forgotten" all-rounder is Daniel Vettori who scored more than 4,000 Test runs and took 362 wickets. He's the pub quiz question that most people get wrong.

What I've probably got wrong is excluding some of the great all-rounders. Apologies.

Pretty good list , Sir Fred. Flintoff and Keith Miller say they forgive you

I'm sure we could add a few more...

A series of mixed emotions on both sides - think a drawn series will always throw those up! Aussies undoubtedly proud to win the first two tests, but will surely be hugely disappointed to not then turn that into a series victory in England for the first time in a generation.
England on the other hand, fantastic comeback from 2-0 to draw 2-2...but disappointed to lose that first test, and to be denied by rain in Manchester.

Personally think it's more of a missed opportunity for England - don't think there has ever been a comeback from 2-0 down in an Ashes series before (?), and they were denied by essentially pure bad weather luck. Do think they learnt a bit as the series went on and refined things...and while sure from the Aussies side there will always be a tinge of "what if Lyon had stayed fit?", but similarly I don't think England lose that first test if Leach plays, and he was undoubtedly a miss in those early test matches for us.

As for this game - a truly memorable spell of bowling by Woakes and Moeen post rain break, Woakes in particular was outrageously good and turned the game on its head. Was very surprised how quickly the Aussies folded though, considering they needed 120 runs with 7 wickets in hand with Smith/Head set...again missed opportunity.
Just storybook stuff for Broad. What a performer, I don't think it's truly sunk in that was the last time we will see him, knees pumping, doing all his antics, taking wickets of left handers against the Aussies. Couldn't have scripted a better ending to the test

Will come onto some player by player stuff, and thoughts going forward for the England side in a post to follow...

Oh and to say a bit about the scheduling - I actually think it's worked out quite well having the tests earlier in the summer, from a local cricket point of view we've had much increased interest in people playing, and rather than that happening in August/September when the season is winding down, it's happened in June/July when folk can actually play and get roots into a club for the next season...and I also like that cricket has been able to take centre stage in the sporting calendar in this country, while the Premier League has it's offseason.
I know an Ashes would probably cut through the noise of the start of the PL on some level, I do wonder if going forward having it this way round might increase eyes and interest on other series too.

Then rounding off the summer with ODIs/T20s when the PL has got really going, seems to fit in ok...to this viewer at least

GSC wrote:Don't think there's an argument remaining that bazball is getting more than the sum of its parts. Still needs some refining, England could stand to recognise when they're well on top in the game and stop helping their opponent off the floor. But in general if they're going to be bowled out in 60 overs, might as well have 300 on the board than 150. For the first time in a long time England have positive options on who to leave out of the batting lineup.

Will be interesting to see what teams line up in 2 years for the reverse series. Seam attacks could be mostly all change for both sides.

Yes, the discovery of Brook and Bairstow's return to form, plus Pope's improvement, has left England's batting in a stronger place than it has been for a while. Crawley has also finally had a great series. Remains to be seen if he follows this up with further strong performances in the next 12-18 months, or if it was just an anomaly.

The India series is going to be very interesting because it'll be the first time we see Bazball on sub continental turners. And as we saw in the last trip to India, India won't mind preparing unfit cricket wickets if England go ahead at any point.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Oh and to say a bit about the scheduling - I actually think it's worked out quite well having the tests earlier in the summer, from a local cricket point of view we've had much increased interest in people playing, and rather than that happening in August/September when the season is winding down, it's happened in June/July when folk can actually play and get roots into a club for the next season...and I also like that cricket has been able to take centre stage in the sporting calendar in this country, while the Premier League has it's offseason.
I know an Ashes would probably cut through the noise of the start of the PL on some level, I do wonder if going forward having it this way round might increase eyes and interest on other series too.

Then rounding off the summer with ODIs/T20s when the PL has got really going, seems to fit in ok...to this viewer at least

That's very much been my view as well re playing Tests when the PL isn't on. I think it does help with exposure for the game. I haven't been playing at a club this season so I can't comment on local uptake. Though I bet folk will soon get sick of village bowlers switching the bails every other over.

My initial view of shifting the Tests forward was largely negative but overall it worked from that perspective. Where it didn't work was such a cramped schedule with several bowlers running out of gas. Cummins playing 6 Tests in under 8 weeks worked OK from an England perspective as he looked knackered. Seeing the best seamer on either side fall off like that isn't great for the sport though.

If they could keep the next Ashes in a similar point of the calendar but stretch it a week either side to offer more rest then I'd be extremely happy. Whether there will be room for that come 2027 is a different and worrying question of course.

alfie wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:More on Stokes. IMHO he was worth his place solely as a batsman. 405 runs at an average of 45.00 is quite respectable.

Obviously the side, and the selection process, is better if Ben can bowl. But he should NEVER be regarded as a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. England have included too many of those over the years.

Ideally, a true all-rounder should be able to get into a side because he's good enough as a batsman or a bowler. In reality, one discipline normally overshadows the either.

You wouldn't, for example, have played Richard Hadlee for his batting alone, although he was no mug with the bat. When it comes to the great all-rounders you have to think of Sobers, Imran, Kapil Dev, Botham, Kallis and...Stokes.

Jadeja is averaging 35 with the bat and has taken 268 Test wickets so he also comes into the mix. The "forgotten" all-rounder is Daniel Vettori who scored more than 4,000 Test runs and took 362 wickets. He's the pub quiz question that most people get wrong.

What I've probably got wrong is excluding some of the great all-rounders. Apologies.

Pretty good list , Sir Fred.  Flintoff and Keith Miller say they forgive you

I'm sure we could add a few more...

Ah, Keith Miller. Such a fascinating cricketer.

Aubrey Faulkner could be added to that list. I believe he remains the only cricketer with a decent sample size to have averaged over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball.

Imran Khan had that astonishing 10 year period where he averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Even his overall numbers don't meet that mark from Faulkner though.

If we are mentioning Vettori then Shakib should definitely get added to from the modern all-rounders.

Duty281 wrote:Plane to Australia? Blimey, let's think about India first!

Ideally - Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Stokes, Foakes, Bairstow, Rehan Ahmed, Seamer such as Robinson/Anderson but not Woakes, genuine pace option like Wood or Archer, Leach. That's of course in a happy world where Stokes can bowl.

That's exactly what I'm thinking for India as well presuming we'll see turning tracks.

Rehan and Leach as spinners should be locked in. I'm unsure who the third in the squad will be. Though I think we can guess who Duty wants!

One seamer that can bowl dry. Hopefully we have Jimmy and Robinson available there but closer to their best.

One quick. Wood and Tongue seem likely right now. Maybe Jof or Stone if we're lucky. The coaches rate Carse too.

I'd keep Woakes as a home specialist now and get as many summers from him as possible.

If we see flatter decks such as the final India vs Aus Test then it's far harder for England to balance if Stokes can't bowl properly. Then we're likely into discussions such Sam Curran and Rehan at 7 and 8 to add a 5th bowler whilst keeping some batting depth. In Indian conditions I'd probably lean towards the extra batter and utilising Root in those circumstances.

guildfordbat wrote:All in all, anyone saying England had enough to win yesterday was right but they were wrong if they believed history proved it was going to be the case.

History meant I was very confident of an England win, and not worried about not getting a 400 lead, once we had 365+. That's all I was saying. Obviously it wasn't 100%, even if we'd got a 500 lead, but it seemed reasonable to be very confident.

king_carlos wrote:

alfie wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:More on Stokes. IMHO he was worth his place solely as a batsman. 405 runs at an average of 45.00 is quite respectable.

Obviously the side, and the selection process, is better if Ben can bowl. But he should NEVER be regarded as a bits-and-pieces all-rounder. England have included too many of those over the years.

Ideally, a true all-rounder should be able to get into a side because he's good enough as a batsman or a bowler. In reality, one discipline normally overshadows the either.

You wouldn't, for example, have played Richard Hadlee for his batting alone, although he was no mug with the bat. When it comes to the great all-rounders you have to think of Sobers, Imran, Kapil Dev, Botham, Kallis and...Stokes.

Jadeja is averaging 35 with the bat and has taken 268 Test wickets so he also comes into the mix. The "forgotten" all-rounder is Daniel Vettori who scored more than 4,000 Test runs and took 362 wickets. He's the pub quiz question that most people get wrong.

What I've probably got wrong is excluding some of the great all-rounders. Apologies.

Pretty good list , Sir Fred.  Flintoff and Keith Miller say they forgive you

I'm sure we could add a few more...

Ah, Keith Miller. Such a fascinating cricketer.

Aubrey Faulkner could be added to that list. I believe he remains the only cricketer with a decent sample size to have averaged over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball.

Imran Khan had that astonishing 10 year period where he averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Even his overall numbers don't meet that mark from Faulkner though.

If we are mentioning Vettori then Shakib should definitely get added to from the modern all-rounders.

Ah, Keith Miller. He was before my time as a player - before you too, Alfie, I reckon; how about you Sir Fred? By all accounts, a wonderful performer on and off the field.

I did see him on the Parkinson tv show when he came up with one of my favourite quotes, sporting or otherwise. Parky asked the great Australian how he coped with the pressure of cricket. Now Miller had been an airforce pilot in WWII and firmly alluded to this as he replied, ''Having a Messerschmitt up your arse is pressure. Playing cricket is not.''

Moving on. The one all rounder who too often gets missed off these lists is the late great Tony Greig. 58 Tests. Eight centuries averaging over 40. 141 wickets with a mix of seam and spin giving him 6 fivefers and 2 match tenfers at an average of 32.

England
Zak Crawley - 480 runs at 53.33 - 9/10 - Don't think anybody seriously saw this series coming from Crawley, but he finally delivered on the potential that the leadership of this team have seen in him. Two fifties and that magnificent hundred, as well as some superb slip catching (That drop off Broad late in the day in the final test, a very tough one, his only dropped catch all series). Hopefully he has really turned a corner now, and can become the bat that so many thought he might be, particularly as when he does get going he plays some absolutely sensational shots to watch.
Ben Duckett - 321 runs at 35.67 - 6.5/10 - feels a little bit of a "what if" series for Duckett for me, he looked generally in decent nick, but never really made that truly defining score someone like Crawley did. Still, compared to recent returns from English openers, a perfectly acceptable summer and start to his international opening bat career for sure.
Ollie Pope - 90 runs at 22.50 - N/A - hard to score him properly due to the injury, think he will be very frustrated to not turn that start in the first dig at Edgbaston into something substantial, as he then went onto receive two snorting deliveries in his final three knocks from Cummins/Starc, and obviously was dealing with a pretty severe injury at Lords. Going to be a big winter series for him, to prove he has improved against spin, obviously assuming he is fit to tour India.
Joe Root - 412 runs at 51.50, and 6 wickets at 26.50 - 9/10 - he's rather good ain't he this Joe Root chap? Cruelly denied two more almost nailed on hundreds with two truly horrendous grubbers one at Old Trafford, and one at The Oval...but batted magnificently in both instances, alongside that first innings hundred to kick off the summer. As ever, some very handy spin overs when required too, particularly to the lefties. Hope he plays for many a year to come!
Harry Brook - 363 runs at 40.33 - 7.5/10 - bumped him up half a point, as actually his best knock of the summer was the Headingley one and maybe the most crucial from an England point of view in that run chase... outside that think a little bit of a summer of "what if" for him though. Solid stats, did fine...but feels like he left some runs out there in the first and second tests in particular. Obviously an unbelievable talent though, and should be a mainstay of this side for hopefully the next decade to come.
Ben Stokes - 405 runs at 45, 3 wickets at 29 - 8/10 - obviously two unbelievable knocks in the series, that Lords one albeit in a losing cause, one of the greatest I've seen considering he looked like he had one functioning leg! Think and hope he learned captaincy wise from Edgbaston, and after that generally did fine on the field as skipper. Bowling wise, couldn't contribute much and think that is key for him going forward but will cover later on...
Jonny Bairstow - 322 runs at 40.25 - 6/10 - he's knocked down a point because of his keeping unfortunately...albeit I do think some blame lies at Stokes/McCullum door for that as he clearly hasn't recovered to previous levels and as such his keeping has fallen off...albeit he got better as the series went on. Batted generally fine I think, bookended with two crucial knocks of 78...but feels a bit harsh to judge his batting massively as he was out of position from where he flourished last summer, and we all know how much tougher batting is after you've kept for long periods of time. Again will add some more thoughts in going forward...
Moeen Ali - 180 runs at 25, 9 wickets at 53 - 5/10 - a tough one to score really, as he basically had zero preparation and was thrown in last minute after the Leach injury...and did get better as the series went on, but ultimately I think a tad disappointing as a Moeen fan. Given a slight bump, as I do think he should get some credit for almost volunteering to go and bat at 3 to allow others to flourish, and did play a good hand with Crawley at Old Trafford. Glad he ended on that lovely final spell at The Oval...think he will be a cricketer where his final stats don't quite reflect his talent, but one of only four England cricketers to score 3000 test runs and take 200 wickets. Thank you Mo  
Chris Woakes - 79 runs at 19.75, 19 wickets at 18.16 - 10/10 - Sir Christopher of Woakes. What a beautiful, beautiful man! Not sure what words are needed here, he was absolutely sensational with the ball when he came in, and saw us home with the bat at Headingley with aplomb. Now time to go win us another World Cup you hero.
Mark Wood - 83 runs at 20.75, 14 wickets at 20.21 - 9/10 - finally turned his home record around, and his introduction with Woakes really turned the series for England. Some handy lower order biffage too. Obviously though (and we saw it in the final test), going to need to be managed properly going forward and missed the first two tests with injury too...so could do with one of his other fast bowling pals staying fit with him to allow proper rest/rotation throughout the latter years of his career.
Stuart Broad 78 runs at 13, 22 wickets at 28.41 - 9/10 - thought he was brilliant pretty much all summer, albeit results tailed off a touch in the final two tests maybe understandably considering he played in all tests. 6 of those 22 wickets were "the bowlers", so really did take some crucial poles throughout, particularly in the first few games. Going to be massively missed in these contests
James Anderson - 28 runs at 9.33, 5 wickets at 85.40 - 1/10 - love Jimmy, and while he was unlucky at Old Trafford...I don't think you can really give him any other score. 5 wickets across 8 bowling innings, is just a horrendous return for one of your premier players and ultimately a thoroughly sour personal note to go out on against Australia. However, very glad he will continue, as one poor series does not a player make!
Josh Tongue 5 wickets at 30.20 - N/A - again only played one game, so hard to properly give a score but bowled well in that game and think he can go into the seam bowler pot for future selection alongside someone like Matthew Potts...who can be a performer if the main guys are broken. Needs to take a leap to be a first team regular.

Thoughts going forward
Batting - think we finally have an opening partnership set for the foreseeable future for the first time post Cook/Strauss. Might be some dips in form, but both have shown they can perform to the highest level, and should get plenty of rope. Also generally, can we ever remember the batting being in such a good spot? Openers look fairly set for a while, Root/Brook looks like it could be the 4/5 middle order of our dreams for the next 3-4 years...and we have some youngsters/reserves pushing for places too. Definitely the biggest success of "Bazball" to date.
Ollie Pope - now, to say I think he has done very well since his move to number 3 and was made vice captain...but whenever you get injured and others do well, there will be a spotlight on you when you return, and I do wonder with the next series being in India...and his previous struggles against spin, if he might just come under a little pressure and/or potentially be the one to miss out with the likely structure of the side there.
Bairstow/Foakes - I think and hope that Stokes/McCullum do some reflection on this and recognise they probably made the incorrect choice at the start of the summer and rectify it going forward. I do think Foakes will come in for the India series, and I hope that Bairstow is not cast aside and given reassurance as he is clearly thriving with the bat under this regime. Now, how do you fit them all into the same XI...well that's what they get paid the big bucks for, and to be honest, being in the position where we are leaving out a truly class batsman from the XI is not a bad spot to be in. I would also note, it is important for Foakes when he inevitably comes in to demonstrate his ability, because I have generally been underwhelmed by his keeping when he has played, and he hasn't exactly blown the door down through weight of runs since he got dropped. He's very much benefitted from the "you're better when you're out the side" wisdom I think...
Stokes - he has to play, whatever form he takes going forward, I will make that clear. But boy, if he can actually go away and fix that knee to a point where he can bowl lets say two spells a day, is absolute crucial for this side going forward, because it really becomes tough to balance things if he's playing as a pure bat. Especially in India! His knee is the biggest issue for this side at the moment in my opinion.
Bowlers - it's tough to see where we are going to find the spinners to really compete in India (Leach should be back, but outside that...oof), and obviously losing Broad going forward is going to hurt...but generally don't think we're in a terrible spot. Woakes should be an exclusively home series player, and I do not want to see him go to India after the World Cup...give him time off and let him play 5/6 home tests a summer. Jimmy still crucial in all conditions, and without white ball commitments should be included for the time being. Will be interesting to see which of the younger options step up, or get a tour during the winter.


Aussies
Usman Khawaja 496 runs at 49.60 - 8.5/10 - certainly rid the previous horror tours of England, and was a great performer at the top of the order for the Aussies. Knocked off half a point for his ridiculous usage of DRS (Shane Watson would be proud) and also for his ludicrous stance on over rates and subsequent whinge to the ICC...be a better ambassador for the game/fans Usman.
David Warner - 285 runs at 28.50 - 5/10 - Probably about as good as the Aussies could have hoped for from him? But not good nonetheless. Really felt to me like we were watching a once great on his farewell tour, although I do hope he gets that in the Aussie summer...but definitely a conversation to be had there.
Marnus Labuschagne 328 runs at 32.80 - 6.5/10 - gets a little bump for his work at Old Trafford, but has to go down as a disappointing effort overall for Marnus I think. Just never seemed properly comfortable at the crease, looked bloomin horrendous in that first dig at The Oval...a very weird series for him
Steve Smith 373 runs at 37.30 - 7/10 - a decent series, albeit by his previous other worldly standards a disappointment. Again, similar to Marnus a weird one...you'd have thought after Lords he'd really have kicked on but just, didn't. Feels like he missed a huge opportunity on day 5 at The Oval to rectify his (rather poor) 4th innings record and truly cement his legacy...but fell short.
Travis Head 362 runs at 36.20 - 6.5/10 - can't really work him out. Was kinda just there really
Cameron Green 103 runs at 20.60, 5 wickets at 47 - 3/10 - I thought he would be player of the series, in fact he was the biggest disappointment of the series for me on the Aussie side of things. Looked a bit out of his depth across both bat and ball. Will need to learn for future tours!
Mitchell Marsh 250 runs at 50.00, 3 wickets at 55.67 - 8/10 - bloody Mitchell Marsh! Made a huge impact with the bat, fantastic knock at Headingley and good work at Old Trafford in the 2nd dig too with Labuschagne. Bowling was absolute tripe though, hence the slightly lower score.
Alex Carey 200 runs at 22.22 - 3/10 - honestly thought he was crap outside of the first test. He ended with a worse catch/chance percentage taken than Bairstow, some truly horrendous drops in there including a massively crucial one of Brook on day one at The Oval and his batting was very poor. Least he added two other things he'll be remembered for outside of walking into a pool.
Mitchell Starc 82 runs at 16.40, 23 wickets at 27.09 - 8/10 - thought we saw a quintessentially Mitchell Starc series with the ball, many wicket taking deliveries interspersed with some proper dross spells, but think he deserves huge credit for going four tests despite clearly nursing some niggles, and did very well.
Pat Cummins 162 runs at 23.14, 18 wickets at 37.72 - 6/10 - his playing score would be a 7/10, but I have knocked a point off for his "captaincy", which I thought was pretty poor throughout the series. Obviously struggled playing six tests on the spin and captaining, and to be honest I think the Aussies need to look at this going forward...because he's far far more valuable as a bowler than he is as a captain, and they really need to make sure they're getting the best out of that. Batted well!
Todd Murphy 76 runs at 19, 7 wickets at 25.86 - 6/10 - a bit tough to judge, as I think his figures flatter him a fair bit. Obviously very young in his career and will benefit for the experience, but not being trusted to bowl at Headingley really cost the side and just looked a bit below the level for me.
Nathan Lyon - 28 runs at 9.33, 9 wickets at 29.33 - N/A - going to give him an incomplete grade, but he deserves massive credit for his batting at Edgbaston.
Scott Boland - 20 runs at 10, 2 wickets at 115.50 - 0/10 - thank god he got Bazballed into oblivion and we can stop the nonsense of pretending he's a test level bowler. Abysmal beyond even my best hopes, which had a huge huge impact for Australia as it meant they then couldn't properly rotate their seam options.
Josh Hazlewood - 20 runs at 6.67, 16 wickets at 31.69 - 6.5/10 - thought he was ok, but just couldn't help feel that we were watching someone where it was evident that injuries have sapped his powers a bit, and is on the latter end of his career.

Thoughts going forward
Davey Warner - a more imminent question...does Warner get his Aussie summer swansong that he has angled for? PJ can probably give us more insight into how that is viewed down under, but for me I think it is a legitimate question and think he should go and make some Sheffield Shield runs to prove form/earn his place in the side. I would hope he can get a proper send off from his home crowd...but I really don't think his series here has helped his cause.
Cam Green/Mitch Marsh - disappointing series for Green, and a good one for Marsh. Who gets that all rounder spot going forward...? Think it is a question. Also, pretty clear that boths bowling needs to be better to allow for proper rest for seamers in game, neither could really be trusted here.
Captaincy - Maybe the biggest question facing the side for me. Cummins looked a little bit of a puppet captain to me on the field, but lets push that to one side...are you really getting the best out of Pat Cummins by having him captain the side, play every single game, be involved in all facets and do all media and everything which comes with captaincy? He looked half the bowler he usually is by the third test of this series. Generally not a fan of having a bowling captain for this reason...and I do think there needs to be a mature conversation had in the Aussie camp about whether they continue with him, or just hand it back to Smith, who essentially is still captaining on field anyways.
Seam options - Not imminent, because Cummins/Starc/Hazlewood clearly have years left yet...but do think some thought needs to be given to developing trusted options who they can rotate with during series. We've seen now in that India home series, and this series that they need to have some proper rotation through the series before tiring and the Aussies don't really have anyone they trust to come in.
Upcoming schedule - Australia currently have the following overseas tests planned; two tests in New Zealand (Feb/March 24), two tests in Sri Lanka (Jan/Feb 25), two tests in West Indies (Jun/Jul 25) scheduled until the end of the British summer of 2026. That is a total of six overseas tests scheduled within the next three years. This needs to be rectified, surely? If test cricket is to truly survive, one of the premier cricketing nations in the world has to be playing abroad more often than this.

Umpires
An absolute shambles of a series from all involved, to be honest. Even at the end, working out the wrong amount of overs left in the day, rather summed it up didn't it? If you have an elite panel, then surely we saw over Covid when home umpires were used, that they can be trusted to do series such as this one, so you have the highest level of officiating for the highest level of the sport. Something the ICC needs to rectify.

Oh dear! To think I missed Freddie Flintoff off my list of all-rounders. No, I'm not old enough to have seen Keith Miller but he, clearly, should have been included.

Also forgot to mention, G'bat, Tony Greig whose figures were very respectable. Aubrey Faulkner's stats are terrific but I see he only played 25 Tests.

Shakib should also have been mentioned by me. Ashwin would not get in for his batting alone, but his handy average of nearly 27 and more than 3,000 Test runs sit happily beside his 486-wicket haul.

Dread to think what score Carey gets if England held their catches against him

sirfredperry wrote:Also forgot to mention, G'bat, Tony Greig whose figures were very respectable. Aubrey Faulkner's stats are terrific but I see he only played 25 Tests.

Considering being South African in that era it's not a bad haul but of course lower than modern players. He's a fascinating and ultimately tragic figure given he committed suicide at a young ago. It's believed he was probably bipolar in modern parlance. In my nerdy teenage years of reading my grandfathers cricketing library it was amazing how often Faulkner popped up in stories from peers in books about the Test games beginnings.

He served in WW1 on Western Front earning a Distinguished Service Order but also contracting malaria and returning a shadow of his pre war days physically. Despite this and being in a severe depressive episode after the war he played against a very strong Aussie touring side in 1921 and scored an imperious 153 and took 6/64 despite most contemporaries feeling he was a fraction of what he once was. Perhaps as good as summation of his abilities as his many feats before the war, at his peak.

No doubt it's difficult to compare across eras. In fact it's something I usually stray away from. In discussions of great all-rounders I think Faulkner deserves mention though. An early big hitter, early exponent of both the googly and bowling quicker for his time as a leg spinner and incredible stats paint a picture of an extraordinarily talented cricketer.

Now we are really getting into the weeds with Ashwin and hence where the all-rounder line is drawn it's mandatory that I force Mike Procter into a 606v2 discussion. I have to make my quota of doing so every quarter after all. He didn't play many Tests due to apartheid but took 1417 F-C wickets at under 20 and scored 46 F-C centuries. An astonishing cricketer. In the often had, "former players who would make a fortune in the T20 circuit", discussion Procter is my trump card. Rapid, unusual action and a brutal yorker with the ball whilst he could hit it a long way with the bat.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:All in all, anyone saying England had enough to win yesterday was right but they were wrong if they believed history proved it was going to be the case.

History meant I was very confident of an England win, and not worried about not getting a 400 lead, once we had 365+. That's all I was saying. Obviously it wasn't 100%, even if we'd got a 500 lead, but it seemed reasonable to be very confident.

Yep, I also thought (and said) England had enough and would win but one of the joys of our game is that you never can tell.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:England
...

Thoughts going forward
...

Aussies
...

Thoughts going forward
[...
Umpires
...

This looks a masterpiece, Olly. Wonderful! Really going to enjoy it and will respond properly later.

guildfordbat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:All in all, anyone saying England had enough to win yesterday was right but they were wrong if they believed history proved it was going to be the case.

History meant I was very confident of an England win, and not worried about not getting a 400 lead, once we had 365+. That's all I was saying. Obviously it wasn't 100%, even if we'd got a 500 lead, but it seemed reasonable to be very confident.

Yep, I also thought (and said) England had enough and would win but one of the joys of our game is that you never can tell.

I've become quite superstitious so try to avoid commenting in game for fear of it coming back to bite me as Todd Murphy did for instance. Even at three wickets down yesterday it didn't feel as though Australia were really in the game because of how attacking fields tend to be in these chases, easy runs make it look closer than it actually is. Smith and Head didn't look particularly secure and it felt as though one wicket would open the door as it did and history shows usually happens eventually.

A chase of 350+ requires one player to play a world class innings and none of the Aussies looked capable of doing that; Smith's fourth innings stats couldn't be ignored.

king_carlos wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Also forgot to mention, G'bat, Tony Greig whose figures were very respectable. Aubrey Faulkner's stats are terrific but I see he only played 25 Tests.

Considering being South African in that era it's not a bad haul but of course lower than modern players. He's a fascinating and ultimately tragic figure given he committed suicide at a young ago. It's believed he was probably bipolar in modern parlance. In my nerdy teenage years of reading my grandfathers cricketing library it was amazing how often Faulkner popped up in stories from peers in books about the Test games beginnings.

He served in WW1 on Western Front earning a Distinguished Service Order but also contracting malaria and returning a shadow of his pre war days physically. Despite this and being in a severe depressive episode after the war he played against a very strong Aussie touring side in 1921 and scored an imperious 153 and took 6/64 despite most contemporaries feeling he was a fraction of what he once was. Perhaps as good as summation of his abilities as his many feats before the war, at his peak.

No doubt it's difficult to compare across eras. In fact it's something I usually stray away from. In discussions of great all-rounders I think Faulkner deserves mention though. An early big hitter, early exponent of both the googly and bowling quicker for his time as a leg spinner and incredible stats paint a picture of an extraordinarily talented cricketer.

Now we are really getting into the weeds with Ashwin and hence where the all-rounder line is drawn it's mandatory that I force Mike Procter into a 606v2 discussion. I have to make my quota of doing so every quarter after all. He didn't play many Tests due to apartheid but took 1417 F-C wickets at under 20 and scored 46 F-C centuries. An astonishing cricketer. In the often had, "former players who would make a fortune in the T20 circuit", discussion Procter is my trump card. Rapid, unusual action and a brutal yorker with the ball whilst he could hit it a long way with the bat.

Mike Procter was a magnificent cricketer.

In the far off days when the BBC properly covered cricket in its news reporting, I remember Procter taking a hat-trick for Gloucs, all lbw, being reported on tv on the evening news.

The only reason you wouldn't have the Procter trump card, Carlos, is that I may have stolen it years ago from your Grandad.

Great post by Olly, I'll take a further point of Khawaja for moaning about the ball change. He seems to think it was a new ball that then never aged. Maybe complain to your team mates about losing 4 for 11 when the game looked all but won. Sour stuff up there with Ponting and the Gary Pratt run out

GSC wrote:Dread to think what score Carey gets if England held their catches against him

Or if England had planned better to him. I mentioned it a lot during T1 but England's plans to their lefties were odd if being kind. Khawaja, Head and Carey are all left-handers who are now weaker to right-arm seamers over the wicket rather than around. Yet England bowled round the wicket to all three and too full to Head. Those lefties were Australia's run scorers in T1.

Similar when Marsh came in. He averages basically nothing against all other Test sides because they know to bowl seamers full and straight to him. He's been like out of form Bairstow or late career, DRS plagued Shane Watson to those deliveries. Just bowl full and straight, he'll ping a couple of on drives, then miss one. So what do England do? They bowl too much short stuff to a fantastic puller and hooker who smashes a great ton. Most of that coming after he'd been dropped by Root when he nicked a drive to a fuller straighter one. Rather infuriating.

Plans for individual players are an area England are usually very good indeed. Smith and Marnus in this series they bowled very smartly to. So it was frustrating to see some odder plans to other batters. As those plans to the lefties improved we saw Head and Carey's returns fall away.

Bowling round the wicket might have just been the seamers backing their best skills to lefties rather than not knowing the stats of course. That does happen all the time. Players just back what they're best at. Sometimes it pays off.

I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

VTR wrote:Great post by Olly, I'll take a further point of Khawaja for moaning about the ball change. He seems to think it was a new ball that then never aged. Maybe complain to your team mates about losing 4 for 11 when the game looked all but won. Sour stuff up there with Ponting and the Gary Pratt run out

In fairness, something needs to be done with the ball changes. Trading a dud ball that England had opted to wear down from the start to try to get reverse for what looked like about a 10 over old ball with a shiny side and visible writing still on it is ludicrous. We saw both sides get favourable changes in the series. It's something that needs addressing.

As said at the time during D5, if a batting side have blunted the ball either through England's methods of smashing boundaries to soften it quickly or the Aussie method of playing time to do it more slowly then they should get the rewards from that skill.

When England finally got the ball changed during T4 D4 just before the rain returned the new one they got was again so much newer that Marnus asked for a look at it. Some raised eyebrows at that but I was just thinking that if I was out there I'd probably have asked for the previous ball it replaced to be brought back out then held them up for the camera side by side just to prove a point.

When we're at a stage where the ball's doing nothing and fans of the bowling side are sitting at home thinking, "hopefully a few boundaries get whacked into the pointy bits of the advertising hoardings soon to get a new ball", then there's a clear issue.

Had we seen England on the wrong end of such a ball change in the same circumstances then I think there'd have been significant anger on this thread yesterday from several of us. Myself certainly included!

Agree on the overall farce that is ball changes, but ball change or not, Smith and Head weathered the storm and the new/old ball then had plenty of overs of wear on it. Some good bowling from England but Australia folded, including key wickets to spin, so the ball had barely anything to do with that

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

I see Moeen Ali has gone up in your estimation

Ball change is a nonsense but also why did England get a dud that did nothing for near 40 overs then a similarly aged ball that moved everywhere for 50 more overs. Risks turning tests into a bit of lottery if you happen to pick the right ball to bowl with

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote: Bairstow/Foakes - I think and hope that Stokes/McCullum do some reflection on this and recognise they probably made the incorrect choice at the start of the summer and rectify it going forward.

My gut feeling on that is that they'll back Bairstow, perhaps thinking the time before India will help him rehab and/or practice.

Don't want to quote the whole thing, but to some of Olly's points:

Agree about England's batting. It's got a solid core to it with the discovery of Brook, Pope's improvement, Bairstow's return to form and the continued skill of Root and Stokes. That's a great improvement on previous years, especially if Crawley and Duckett can continually generate something at the top. How they all fare against Ashwin and Jadeja is another matter, however.

If Stokes can get back to bowling, and I think it's a big if, then England are transformed because they can have an extra batter, rather than needing an all-rounder at 7. It becomes an extraordinarily well balanced side if Stokes can be a genuine all rounder.

With regards to spin, a lot depends on how good Rehan Ahmed will turn out to be. For India I think the duo of Leach + Ahmed, with the back up of Root, isn't too bad, although it's obviously not Swann/Panesar from 2012! Would take Dawson as back-up (you were right, Carlos!). Worth noting that India have a fair few vulnerabilities of their own in their batting. Agree that Woakes should be an exclusively home player, but I think they'll take him to India and it would be tough to leave him out.

Last time I think England took 5 seam/pace bowlers to India, with a couple of reserves. So this time they might take Anderson, Robinson, Woakes, Wood and Archer (fitness permitting!), with perhaps Tongue and Stone in reserve. Not sure if Potts is entirely out of contention now. Unsure if there'll be any one we've overlooked, like when Fisher got into the West Indies tour!

On Australia's schedule, yes disappointing they're playing so few away tests, but I think it's a common theme with them, bar the away visits to India and England. Frustrating thing is they are going on lots more tours that are strictly limited-overs. They're going to South Africa soon for some limited overs games, touring Ireland and England next year for limited overs games, and visiting NZ, Pakistan and Bangladesh in 25/26 without playing a test!

And, yes, the umpiring has been terrible. Thank goodness for DRS, eh? There need to be greater opportunities for umpires outside the test nations. The ICC also have to do something about the ball changing malarkey. I'd be very aggrieved if I were Australian, and I imagine it's something their board will be bringing up at the next meeting. The redness of that second ball after about 65/70 overs of the Australian innings was farcical.

VTR wrote:Agree on the overall farce that is ball changes, but ball change or not, Smith and Head weathered the storm and the new/old ball then had plenty of overs of wear on it. Some good bowling from England but Australia folded, including key wickets to spin, so the ball had barely anything to do with that

The ball change came at 36 overs and was shortly followed by the Aussie top 3 falling to a now moving ball. Then it was still swinging after 70 overs when the next collapse came. It unavoidably had a big impact regardless of the Smith and Head partnership. That previous ball which England had unsuccessfully tried to wear for reverse would still have spun for Moeen. It simply wasn't offering that sort of threat for the seamers though.

That doesn't mean England didn't bowl well to take advantage of the change. Woakes was absolutely fantastic on D5 and Wood wound up for a final burst despite his heel to get Marnus by again marrying good control of swing to his pace.

I don't think it's realistic to say the ball had barely anything to do with two collapses that happened in large part due to a swinging ball though. It was a big slice of fortune for England at a vital time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

I see Moeen Ali has gone up in your estimation

Yeah, yesterday's finish bumped him up from a 2 to a 3.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/01/the-ashes-2023-fifth-test-australia-vs-england-aus-v-eng-day-five-team-drinks-locked-out-snubbed

Apparently: 'But when England handed over a ball that was well-worn on one side and largely unthreatening, they were given a shinier Dukes ball that still had writing visible on it.

The issue was summed up in the 10 overs afterwards, where 38% of balls beat the edge or caused a misleading shot compared to the 16% with the old ball.'

There's a lot of other variables in that stat though. Different day, bowlers might have found their groove, batsmen didn't get going again etc

To clarify, I'm not saying it didn't help England, but am saying that regardless of if it had an impact or not Australia still moved themselves into a winning position and were at least partly responsible for throwing it away. The bookies odds on England winning before the collapse of 4 for 11 had drifted out to around 5-1 and I'm sure I'm not the only one who had more or less given up hope at that point

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

I see Moeen Ali has gone up in your estimation

Yeah, yesterday's finish bumped him up from a 2 to a 3.

Interesting that you give the highest mark to the 'antithesis of Bazball'.
Without Bazball, or rather, without the approach that Stokes and McCullum have brought to England, a 2-2 draw with a 'winning draw' would not have been possible. To come back from 2-0 down to level the series would have been unthinkable. England had been in the doldrums for way too long and they have brought an energy and excitement to the team in a way seldom, if ever, seen before. Did they make a few mistakes along the way? Yes, because they are only human, and are only starting out, but the best is probably yet to come. It's a shame you don't seem to enjoy it, given how joyous the approach is.

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

Agree with much of this, Duty. With there not being a space between - and Green's score I thought you'd given him -1.5 which felt harsh for a second!

My main contention would be Ducket with a 5 but Warner at a 7. Ducky (not sure how I feel about that nickname to be honest but I'll run with what the players are saying to see if it grows on me) actually scored more runs at a higher average. He didn't go on much but did play a key role in England's much improved opening partnership. Whilst Warner ate up more balls. I'd have both at a 6.

I'd also go slightly higher for Bairstow and Mo. YJB started so poorly with the gloves but did have vital contributions with the bat at Edgbaston and The Oval. Whilst his glovework improved.

On the Aussie side of things that's fairly spot on for me. I'd maybe bump Smudge just ahead of Head due to that faultless century. Maybe a 7.5 to Head's 7. I'd probably have Cummins at a 8 too. He was brilliant for three Tests, massacred with his attack at OT but even looking tired there were times in T5 where he felt like the Aussies best threat to me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

I see Moeen Ali has gone up in your estimation

Yeah, yesterday's finish bumped him up from a 2 to a 3.

Interesting that you give the highest mark to the 'antithesis of Bazball'.
Without Bazball, or rather, without the approach that Stokes and McCullum have brought to England, a 2-2 draw with a 'winning draw' would not have been possible. To come back from 2-0 down to level the series would have been unthinkable. England had been in the doldrums for way too long and they have brought an energy and excitement to the team in a way seldom, if ever, seen before. Did they make a few mistakes along the way? Yes, because they are only human, and are only starting out, but the best is probably yet to come. It's a shame you don't seem to enjoy it, given how joyous the approach is.

The highest Australian mark, yes. But I'd say Khawaja's fairly deserving, wouldn't you? Top scored for Australia in both innings of the Edgbaston test, scoring 206 of his team's 668 runs, and then followed up with the top score in Australia's second innings at Lord's which put the game beyond England's reach. Also got a 72 in the most recent innings and ended up as the highest overall series run scorer.

The antithesis of Bazball was tongue-in-cheek, because he and Crawley were 1 and 2 in the overall series run scoring charts, with Khawaja going at a strike rate of 39 and Crawley nearly 89!

I disagree that 2-2 wouldn't have been possible without Bazball. Maybe without Bazball England wouldn't have been two down in the first instance? England appear to have done alright in home Ashes series before Bazball, winning four out of the previous five series.

Not sure about England being in the doldrums for way too long. There was an evil run of fixtures for about a year (Feb 2021-Mar 2022) where they struggled, true enough, but a year's not too long is it? Had to go to India, play the world champions and India again, then go to Australia, before visiting the West Indies on the tailend of that exhausting Australia tour. And they've never done well in the Caribbean. Not sure if I can ever recall England having such a tough, unforgiving run of games. The closest might be 2005 when England hosted Australia, then made back to back visits against Pakistan and India?

Prior to that year of fixtures England were on a superb run, winning seven out of 10 test series and winning six overseas tests in a row, including one in India. Under Bazball it looks as though England are going on a similar run - they've won three out of five test series so far, that'll probably be three out of six after India, but the fixture list is a little more downhill after that and England should be looking to beat the West Indies and Sri Lanka at home.

Not sure why you keep thinking I'm not enjoying things. As I wrote yesterday 'That was another thrilling test in a great series' and ranking the series as the second best Ashes I've seen, behind 2005.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I've got some series ratings on my own, but I see Olly's beaten me to the punch!

Spoiler:

Agree with much of this, Duty. With there not being a space between - and Green's score I thought you'd given him -1.5 which felt harsh for a second!

My main contention would be Ducket with a 5 but Warner at a 7. Ducky (not sure how I feel about that nickname to be honest but I'll run with what the players are saying to see if it grows on me) actually scored more runs at a higher average. He didn't go on much but did play a key role in England's much improved opening partnership. Whilst Warner ate up more balls. I'd have both at a 6.

I'd also go slightly higher for Bairstow and Mo. YJB started so poorly with the gloves but did have vital contributions with the bat at Edgbaston and The Oval. Whilst his glovework improved.

On the Aussie side of things that's fairly spot on for me. I'd maybe bump Smudge just ahead of Head due to that faultless century. Maybe a 7.5 to Head's 7. I'd probably have Cummins at a 8 too. He was brilliant for three Tests, massacred with his attack at OT but even looking tired there were times in T5 where he felt like the Aussies best threat to me.

Fair comments. I might have been a bit harsh on Bairstow.

People often get excited about good starts in long 4th innings chases without looking at the history.

Yes, England were helped by the weather breaks/ball change but Aus were always going to struggle to reach 380-odd even given a good start. Why? Simply because such a total has rarely been achieved.

Stokes said last year that he'd hoped that Eng would be set 450 against India in that 5th Test so they could have got it. But would they? OK, they incredibly got 378 with only three down. But going for 450 would have meant making history and with more than 2,000 tests played no one had done it.

A couple of examples of sides appearing to be close to pulling off amazing 4th innings run chases - but failing. At Nottingham in 1973 NZ, needing 480, were actually 402-5 but still lost. Then at The Oval in 1979, India needing 438, reached 366-1 only to finish eight down and nine runs short.

Some times even the shorter 4th innings targets are not met by sides seemingly well placed. Earlier this year in Wellington England were 201-5 needing only another 57 to win but lost, agonisingly, by one run.

Back in December Pakistan, needing 355 to beat England, were 290 for five but lost by 26 runs.

In Benaud's famous Ashes match at Manchester in 1961, England needed 256 and were storming home at 150-1 before Dexter's fall led to an famous collapse and the match and the series to Australia by 54 runs.

More recently in 2009 Australia were going well in pursuit of 4th innings scores of more than 500 at Lord's, where they were 313-5, and at The Oval, where they were 217-2, only to fall well short.

There's a good reason why no one has scored more than 418 to win in the 4th innings. It's really difficult.

sirfredperry wrote:People often get excited about good starts in long 4th innings chases without looking at the history.

Yes, England were helped by the weather breaks/ball change but Aus were always going to struggle to reach 380-odd even given a good start. Why? Simply because such a total has rarely been achieved.

Stokes said last year that he'd hoped that Eng would be set 450 against India in that 5th Test so they could have got it. But would they? OK, they incredibly got 378 with only three down. But going for 450 would have meant making history and with more than 2,000 tests played no one had done it.

A couple of examples of sides appearing to be close to pulling off amazing 4th innings run chases - but failing. At Nottingham in 1973 NZ, needing 480, were actually 402-5 but still lost. Then at The Oval in 1979, India needing 438, reached 366-1 only to finish eight down and nine runs short.

Some times even the shorter 4th innings targets are not met by sides seemingly well placed. Earlier this year in Wellington England were 201-5 needing only another 57 to win but lost, agonisingly, by one run.

Back in December Pakistan, needing 355 to beat England, were 290 for five but lost by 26 runs.

In Benaud's famous Ashes match at Manchester in 1961, England needed 256 and were storming home at 150-1 before Dexter's fall led to an famous collapse and the match and the series to Australia by 54 runs.

More recently in 2009 Australia were going well in pursuit of 4th innings scores of more than 500 at Lord's, where they were 313-5, and at The Oval, where they were 217-2, only to fall well short.

There's a good reason why no one has scored more than 418 to win in the 4th innings. It's really difficult.

I expect the 4th innings record chase to be broken sooner rather than later. As I said on another day, there were 26 successful 300+ chases in test cricket in the first 136 years of the game (1877-2012), but there have been 10 successful run chases of 300+ in the last ten and a bit years.

The modern scoring rates, greater innovation and variety of shots, and simply belief and experience fueled by limited-overs cricket makes higher chases far more likely to happen. For most of test history a team needing 270 off the final 80 overs, say, would defend and aim for the draw. These days teams will almost always go for it in that scenario.

In the 2020s, we've already seen successful chases of 395, 378, 344 and 329, as well as seven successful chases of 250-299. For comparison, in the entirety of the 1990s, there were six successful chases of 300+* (the highest being 369), and only two in the 250-299 bracket.

It's also why I think looking at historically big chases is an empty exercise. The game has changed so much in the last 20 years. No denying it's difficult, but we're going to see that world record broken soon.

*Including England! England of the 90s, VTR, chased down 305 to beat NZ! With Knight and Atherton opening, Stewart at 3, Caddick at 4 (either a daring tactical gamble or he was simply nightwatchman), followed by Hussain, Thorpe, Crawley and Cork.

sirfredperry wrote:People often get excited about good starts in long 4th innings chases without looking at the history.

Yes, England were helped by the weather breaks/ball change but Aus were always going to struggle to reach 380-odd even given a good start. Why? Simply because such a total has rarely been achieved.

Stokes said last year that he'd hoped that Eng would be set 450 against India in that 5th Test so they could have got it. But would they? OK, they incredibly got 378 with only three down. But going for 450 would have meant making history and with more than 2,000 tests played no one had done it.

A couple of examples of sides appearing to be close to pulling off amazing 4th innings run chases - but failing. At Nottingham in 1973 NZ, needing 480, were actually 402-5 but still lost. Then at The Oval in 1979, India needing 438, reached 366-1 only to finish eight down and nine runs short.

Some times even the shorter 4th innings targets are not met by sides seemingly well placed. Earlier this year in Wellington England were 201-5 needing only another 57 to win but lost, agonisingly, by one run.

Back in December Pakistan, needing 355 to beat England, were 290 for five but lost by 26 runs.

In Benaud's famous Ashes match at Manchester in 1961, England needed 256 and were storming home at 150-1 before Dexter's fall led to an famous collapse and the match and the series to Australia by 54 runs.

More recently in 2009 Australia were going well in pursuit of 4th innings scores of more than 500 at Lord's, where they were 313-5, and at The Oval, where they were 217-2, only to fall well short.

There's a good reason why no one has scored more than 418 to win in the 4th innings. It's really difficult.

SFP, the cricket guys frown on us tennis chaps in this section

*Including England! England of the 90s, VTR, chased down 305 to beat NZ! With Knight and Atherton opening, Stewart at 3, Caddick at 4 (either a daring tactical gamble or he was simply nightwatchman), followed by Hussain, Thorpe, Crawley and Cork.

That's a great find, vaguely remember it! It's not the worst top 6 to be fair, and we have to believe that Caddick was the original nighthawk there.

The problem in the 90s really was we had Athers, Stewart, Hussain and Thorpe, all decent but not always available. Then the likes of Hick, Ramps, Knight and Crawley in and out of the side before some poor unfortunate would be plucked from the county game to have their career ruined, or someone decided that Craig White was the new Botham and could bat at 6. Really was self defeating until central contracts came in

VTR wrote:

*Including England! England of the 90s, VTR, chased down 305 to beat NZ! With Knight and Atherton opening, Stewart at 3, Caddick at 4 (either a daring tactical gamble or he was simply nightwatchman), followed by Hussain, Thorpe, Crawley and Cork.

That's a great find, vaguely remember it! It's not the worst top 6 to be fair, and we have to believe that Caddick was the original nighthawk there.

The problem in the 90s really was we had Athers, Stewart, Hussain and Thorpe, all decent but not always available. Then the likes of Hick, Ramps, Knight and Crawley in and out of the side before some poor unfortunate would be plucked from the county game to have their career ruined, or someone decided that Craig White was the new Botham and could bat at 6. Really was self defeating until central contracts came in

And selectors who jettisoned Robin Smith much too early - probably for reasons not relating to cricket.

The bowling line up though through that era was often a bit patchy, and selection looked a bit like 'draw names out of a hat.

How could if forget The Judge, cracking player! Dropped I think because he was poor at playing spin away from home, so let's have Aftab Habib in the middle order instead. It really was total rubbish

Duty281
What I failed to take into account with my piece about historic 4th innings run chases was the covered pitches scenario.

Also, I should perhaps have looked into other factors - such as the shorter boundaries, heavier bats and the limited-over mentality of batsmen of the modern game.

I agree, too, that the 418 4th-innings-to-win record could go soon. Once it does there will be more belief that the sky really is the limit when it comes to last-innings achievable totals.

It could lead to the question of just how many you should set a side if, in the third innings, you have the luxury of being able to declare. Will a team playing England under Stokes dare set them less than 450? At present, you feel that if any side could get such a total it would be England.

[quote="king_carlos"]

msp83 wrote:
Do you know anything about Pants recovery? He's one of my favourite cricketers to watch. Just so much fun and ridiculous ability. Everything crossed we see him again.

Pant is progressing well at the National Cricket Academy. He has started doing weight training, and has started batting and keeping in the nets on a small scale. Reports are that his recovery is progressing faster than expected. Unlikely to be ready for the WC, but be back in action by the end of the year.

As for Leach, I may be remembering the summer before, wherein they went in with all kinds of combinations without a frontline spinner. In the India tour, I haven't checked the data, but what I can remember is a clear difference between him in the first and the 2nd innings. And he was really poor in general bowling to left-handers. Of course now that Mo has clearly moved on, and he seems to be the only spinner who is selectable, hope Stokes and McCullum will give him good support, and give him a good run enabling him to grow into a more mature role within the bowling unit.

guildfordbat wrote:

VTR wrote:I'd never have believed you back in 2001 when I was watching the likes of Ward, Afzaal and Ormond that Australia would still not have won here again by 2023

 Ha! No problem, VTR - these guys still get mentioned 20 years on at the Oval and not always in the most positive terms. Disrespectful of you though to just use Ormond's surname - it's always his full name which is Fat Jimmy Ormond.

Pretty sure as well that Tudor was also bowling in the 2001 Ashes. If he wasn't the worst of our bowlers then, he made up for it by defying stiff competition to become Sky's worst ever commentator.

It could though have been even worse. Salisbury didn't get binned by England for the last time until 2000.

Hi again VTR - almost forgot! One other Surrey man who played a small number of Tests for England around the turn of this century although fortunately (especially for you) not the 2001 Ashes was Ed Giddins. An interesting character (as Carlos might charitably say) with a history including cocaine use and betting against one of his own teams reading like a charge sheet.

Ha, another name you'd rather forget than remember. I actually do have very clear memories of him doing very well against Zimbabwe, and of course he's a part of the most infamous tail in English cricket history. I think I need a long lie down though because recalling that Zimbabwe series also brings to mind the English Shane Warne that was Chris Schofield! This was in 2000 so the 90s did take a bit of shaking off

guildfordbat wrote:Mike Procter was a magnificent cricketer.

I always thought picking Procter was a gamble.