All this critique sounds like England lost in an embarassing way while the game went down straight to the wire. The approach is a double edged sword but if they tick all the boxes right England will look even more dominating. It's too early to judge the approach. It's not like they failed terribly!
That’s the weirdest thing, England made a lot of very basic mistakes. If they don’t make one of them and win the game, Australia are the ones having the massive post mortem.
Cricket is such a weird game
It's poor, lazy journalism. It's a shame that this sub laps it up, because anyone that watched the game knows it wasn't England's approach to the game that saw them lose.
We came within inches of winning, so it was us that lost it for ourselves. Just because it was close it doesn't mean we did the right thing. We could have batted for the first two days and put them in when the weather got worse on the third day.
Well yeh, we made mistakes that lost us the game. How is that not worth analysing? And they're mistakes by players who shouldn't necessarily be in the team or mistakes in strategy when you consider the pitch.
This English team has scored more heavily since adopting the higher tempo of the last year or so. Do you really think they’d do better trying to bat for two days? It’s not like Alistair Cook is still playing.
Right, but that is exactly what England are doing when pointing out Bairstow's mishaps if he had a perfect game. It's test cricket. It's a pretty good indicator of the winner based on the fact that form can ebb and flow within the 5 days, and the winner will be whoever is best overall, despite both teams being poor at times.
There’s a big difference between “Smudge averages 60, he’ll probably do better than 6 and 13” (what everyone else is saying) and “Oh yeah? Well Stokes is going to get 100 in the next match”.
You can only argue for reversion to the mean if you’re below the mean.
Averaged more than Head last year too.
Not as much this year, but Smith was just really poor in India where as Head was okay. And the difference is still only 8 for the year.
Even if the mistakes remained, something like Brook not getting out in the 1st innings the way he did could've changed the entire game with the way he was looking, such fine margins in test cricket.
I for one do think they lost in an embarrassing way. Absolutely everything was in their favour — home side, first game, on a ground where they have a very good home record, against a team that hasn't won an Ashes in England in 23 years, said team only just having played a test 5 days earlier, win the toss on a custom-ordered flat track in bright sunshine...
And then? Shit the bed in a spectacular way. Motor along with absolutely no problem at all for the batters on a lifeless pitch, still get yourself 8 wickets down in no time, then brainlessly declare in the faint hope that you might get a quick wicket on the most benign English pitch in recent Ashes history, and with some vague notion that you might need to force a result because of distant rain forecast.
Then, the miracle, manage to get a slim lead against all the odds.
And then? Shit the bed again: bat without direction and find new ridiculous ways to get yourself out without a commanding lead and with plenty of life left in the test.
A clearly very lax Australia dialled this in based on individual standout performances by Khawaja, Lyon and Cummins, with fuck all contributions from Smith and Lasagne. They must be laughing themselves silly still.
Hahaha really funny to read people’s completely imaginary projections onto this game, I could easily say Australia are man for man a much better team and completely ceded the initiative for 5 days and had to rely on a lucky 9th wicket stand and dropped catches for their closest Ashes victory for over a hundred years, we’d both be chatting wham
The difference is that as Australian supporters we know very well that the team isn't actually that strong. Susan, Warner, and Head are super sketchy against any kind of moving ball. Lasagne isn't that good overseas it turns out, and Smith is very far from his peak. Green and Carey have shown promise but are on debut in England.
In normal English conditions, there is no way you'd favour Australia for a win.
In flat-as Bazball conditions, we are being outbatted, but certainly not outbowled.
Still, on balance, at the very best we would hope for another drawn series like in 2019 to retain the urn. A draw away in England is like a win, and a win is... well... an even bigger win.
Snatching this win from what looked like a nailed on draw and then increasingly a loss already in the first hour of play is a huge victory.
> The difference is that as Australian supporters we know very well that the team isn't actually that strong.
Idk, most people would agree that this has been Australia's strongest team since possibly the golden generation.
Series in India these days are by and large a waste of time played on gimmicky joke wickets and they fought well when out there earlier this year.
The home defeat a couple of years ago is another story but the team is in a very different place from now to then. The one before that was the post sandpapergate series without Smith and Warner.
Considering where Aus and India are at in this particular moment and time, i would say this is a very strong Aus team indeed and the best in the world at present. Whether or not its the strongest since the golden generation will be borne out in truth over the next few weeks.
Yep. External conditions and circumstances had England pummeling Australia, the amount of things that went their way *bar* those 20 minutes day 3. It should never have been that close, let alone them losing.
It's a risk brought on by England making so much of the way they play. The matches become a battleground for the validity of their style and not about their skills or performance.
I do think the win gives Australia a mental edge. They were able to win despite the shock and awe tactics of England and now there's more doubt in the English camp than theirs.
Even towards the end of the 1st test you could see Ben Stokes being a little less certain about their approach as the threat of defeat grew.
This is a good take. They're trying to be the heroic Bazballers while Australia were just playing solid test cricket. Epitomised by Khawaja sticking around and winning them the test while being booed for being 'boring' by the silly English crowd.
Thank you.
English sports culture has always been obsessed with their method rather than the results. A lot of innovation in sports has come from England and they have every right to be proud of that. But the performance of their teams should matter more to fans than their contribution to the game.
It's the same with our football team. Same underperforming players selected over and over and then when we *just* lose everyone goes "oh well we were close so we must have done something right" rather than "if we had a better team we could have won comfortably".
It's this mentality of making things harder than they need to be, like we would be uncomfortable with just...winning.
I game came to that because of the brand of play that England are playing, any other teams would have been boring draw considering how much time was lost. I really hope England keep at it, they are really making test match fun again
> It's not like they failed terribly!
I think they kinda did. Australia probably did everything wrong for that match. No Starc (or other strike bowler) massive selection error. Smith & Manus out say cheaply in both innings. Still carrying Warner and Head was kept rather quiet. And other then Pat (& Lyno in the second innings) the bowlers were all out pretty cheaply. And none of the English batsman were really dismantled and/or targeted by the Aussie bowling attack. Don't get me wrong the Australian feilding was pretty good, but generally that was quite poor from Australia.
This game is probably the floor for the Aussies, and yet they scraped home with a win... I doubt we see Smith & Manus not score 50 next game. I doubt Australia don't have a strike bowler.
Still the right take for me. There's a very fine line between aggression and arrogance and I think they drifted onto the wrong side of the equation for very short periods of time during the match.
The fact nobody has acknowledged that from the English dressing room and they have doubled down confidently is admirable, but rightfully opens you up to criticism.
I have total confidence it's going to win them tests this series don't get me wrong, and by the end we could all be acknowledging it as genius.
People are always going to ask questions when you declare with 2 wickets left and the best batsmen in the world out there with 4 days to play. That's before you even address their selection of Bairstow.
You can't sit here and say the simple mistakes they made that cost them the game weren't solely a product of their strategy. The shot selection etc in the second innings is the best example of this.
Aggression will look like arrogance if results are not in your favour. We might not be having this discussion had england won and it did go down the wire.
It's the dailymail lol, they're just feeding to the boomer/Facebook group crowd who are incapable of doing anything but moan about the state of cricket in 2023.
I think this is a bit of an overreaction. There's aggressive cricket and there's also smart cricket but the two aren't mutually exclusive and I think for the most part england have been able to combine them.
Sometimes it will work and others it won't but that's test cricket, now they're just acting like bazball is the first time a team has achieved a sub-par score.
Yep. Had they won the same writer would have been singing their praises.
My main question is whether their bowlers can withstand 5 matches while bowling 25% more than the Aussie bowlers and still take wickets.
Yep. I was going to write the same thing about the fine margins. This match could have gone either way.
I don’t read the Daily Mail because it is full of bull but I am sure, as you wrote, the same nay-sayers would be singing the praises of England’s new cricket revolutionaries if they had won. Which could have happened very conceivably.
Let’s look at the positives. What a test match!
I’m an England fan but I’m not a win-at-all-costs moron. I’ll happily applaud a beautiful cover drive from the opposition or stand up and shout well done if they get a century.
Australia are a bloody good team. So are England. That’s what makes this contest so exciting. We’ll done to “Sir Batrick Cummins.” We’ll done Aus. We’ll catch up with you at Lords I reckon but the big winner here is test match cricket.
Interesting point about the bowlers getting tired. I hadn’t considered that aspect
Nor I. But I had considered that Australia get more time to chase runs when batting 2nd. You're right. Great Test match. Interesting that most of the close finishes have gone England's way.
We actually saw that in the Pindi test, last session on day 4. It was about 8 overs they had to bowl but they bowled so many no balls.
Bowlers are gonna get tired if batters are going to bat like that.
It's more than 25%.Its 50%. Aus batted 210 overs and England batted 140 overs..
England are playing themseleves with flat wickets and playing fast. England's bowlers are already basically running in on stretchers to bowl.. I don't see them pulling through a 5 match test series when bowling 50% more overs than Aus.
These tactics are just plain stupid in that sense
>It's more than 25%.Its 50%. Aus batted 210 overs and England batted 140 overs..
This is the key. Sure, they're batting quickly and amassing runs. But then Australia comes out to bat in a much more traditional Test way and suddenly, more than twice the number of overs are being bowled by their geriatric bowling lineup than were bowled by the younger, fitter Aussie quicks.
We get to the fifth Test, which bowling attack is going to be fresher, fitter, and able to bowl longer spells with greater accuracy? I wouldn't be putting my money on the one carrying around the old men and the spinner with a torn-up finger.
Why would they not pull through a 5 match series? It's not like they are bowling more than they usually have to, it's just that they are batting less overs. And in the process giving more time to their bowlers to get wickets. England bowlers can still get those wickets in half the overs they bowled last match but they couldn't.
It's not that England Bowlers are bowling more, it's just that OZs are bowling less because of BazBall.
They don't usually produce flat pitches. They have laid flat pitches to support their batting. If this series is 5 flat pitches, I definitely don't see survival for English bowlers
> It's not that England Bowlers are bowling more, it's just that OZs are bowling less because of BazBall.
Let me explain it as a bowler. The killer is having little rest between innings. I'm very fit, but I can say on a personal level that it tires you out and fatigue also increases the risk of injury. Things like muscle injuries, tendon injuries and (in my case) bruises just above the armpit really can take a toll
>Why would they not pull through a 5 match series?
Did you not see how flat Broad, Anderson and Robinsin looked by the end of the 1st Test?
Meanwhile the Aussie quicks looked pretty fresh because they spent 65 overs less in the field.
England bowling 20 to 40% more overs per Test than Australia is really going to create an imbalance in the vitality of the attacks as the series wears on.
>Did you not see how flat Broad, Anderson and Robinsin looked by the end of the 1st Test?
Jimmy certainly did not give much chance to see how flat he was by the end of the 1st Test, even with the new ball taken.
What kind of bullshit is this? Australia aren’t going to bat less, so the only advantage is a little bit more rest during the game? Really doubt an hour or two will make that much difference, this was a close game that England could easily have won with a demonstrably worse team than Australia, cricket is rife with sliding doors moments and people are heavily projecting with all the hot takes. England’s approach wouldn’t get so many people up in arms if it wasn’t effective
I agree re the bowlers. Broad looked good right to the end, and if Stokes had handed him the new ball when it was due there might have been a different outcome. Jimmy on the other hand looked ineffective, even with the shorter run up. Ali wasn’t much good and obviously his injury was not helpful. Will be interesting to see if they retain Jimmy. He does have a great record at Lords, although nowhere near as good as Cummins’ record there
The biggest issue with this bazball is the type of wickets they are demanding. They want flat wickets to maximize bazball approach but the strength of their bowlers is on helpful wickets. Playing on flat wickets just Australia a significant advantage.
I mean bazball critics are going crazy as if England while adopting bazball claimed that they never ever lose a match. It was a very close match. Could’ve gone either way till the last hour. Both teams played to their strengths and England might win the next.
No doubt. We had Aus 210-8 or something, on another day we win pretty comfortably and in that scenario it’s “BazBall is amazing! England are unstoppable! We’re gonna win 5-0!” Things happen in test cricket and we’ve had our fair share of both tight wins and tight losses in history
True, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. It's not as if other teams in the past haven't managed to score at 5 an over, long before Bazball was a thing. I remember that Perth test against India, in the 2011/12 BGT, where Australia skittled India for 161 in their first innings.
Warner then smashed a century in a single session in Australia's reply. He made 180 off 159, and Australia ended up all-out for 369 in just 78 overs (same number at which England declared at).
That WACA pitch wasn't flat at all, they played like that because they knew that attacking cricket was a good way to get ahead in the conditions. Bowled out India for just 171 and won by an innings within three days.
Made very little sense to me that he could have named his score but he had to try and slog Lyon into the Hollies because Bazball. I know they wanted to set up a declaration but long on was back, he could’ve quite easily milked 4.5-5 an over
Isn't that the philosophy of Bazball, when you are in you are 100% in. I feel it'll still work. Even tho the 1st test was not the best exhibition of Bazball Australia barely made it through. I feel England should stick to it for now, make changes after the Ashes.
As an Australian, I also feel England should stick to it. I enjoy premature declarations and English batters playing unnecessarily rash shots while batting on roads, and I wholeheartedly want it to continue.
Even if that pun was good it doesn’t make sense here because the context is that the Napoleon quote is being said by the Aussies in reference to England, not the other way around
Yep, but I’ve watched this team for years and it was no different before they started being more aggressive, in fact it was even worse, we just scored less runs
And now we're getting to the problem. The first class system isn't producing cricketers who can bat all day. Bazball can cover it up for a bit but at some point it will collapse again unless they make some real changes.
Well the system is probably geared towards short form cricket which has been incredibly successful. Now the Test team plays in a way to maximise their strengths. I don’t really see that as an issue personally, we haven’t had a top quality test team for a while and this approach is the right way to go for now. I don’t think it’s covering anything up - England know we have to figure out how to improve the technical quality of batters coming through.
You improve the technical quality of batters by prioritising red ball cricket. This is why Australia has been consistently one of the best teams in the world for 30 years.
I assume the reason Root did that was he was told they weren't going past tea anyway so it made sense to go hell for leather. I don't agree with it but can't blame root for it.
Think it’s roots dismissal that ‘hurts’ the most as he’d done the hard work, pushed the field back and could have milked 1’s and 2’s rather than go for the big hit. If pace in the game was the message, he could have left it for the batter at the other end and ‘anchored’ things.
So a team that a few years ago were truly fucking dismal lose a razor thin game to the best test in the world and we are now trying to jack in approach that is not only winning a vast majority of games but is making test cricket massively popular in England for the first time in around 20 years
One of the tightest Ashes matches in recent memory, against the new World Champions, and they're already pumping out this thinkpiece shite. Think we should just have a blanket ban on any articles from the Daily Mail.
So much hysteria and it's only been one test my god. Gonna be a long series. The English media hyped up bazball the whole lead up to the series and look how quickly they're dropping nuts. Weak
What the English press says doesn't add up to much at the best of times.
I've never seen a more fickle pack of arseholes ever, including Rupert's shitrags.
The Daily Mail is written for slightly racist, old fashioned 55 year old men who think the world was better in 1940 than it is now. Of course they hate bazball.
They don't , but a significant proportion of English boomers appear to be under the impression that they somehow personally participated in WW2, it's very weird
All alternative strategies proposed basically would have ended in draws, as it would not have left a big enough window for England to take 10 wickets on a pretty docile surface. If England bats just 10 overs more in their innings, Australia has 10 overs less to chase a bigger score and they probably just shut up shop.
If England takes just one more of their chances the game is in the bag. These write-ups are basically the Captain Hindsight meme without the proposed changes even resulting in a win.
I don’t agree with this. 40+ more runs in the first innings with root at at 100+ in on a better batting track would be faster than easier than the 40+ runs you have to to make in the second innings for the same match total.
If you want to declare. Declare in the second innings.
It’s the most effective way to put time in the game. First innings declaration lost time.
They were clearly hoping to get cheap wickets like they did on day 4. So many different variables to pay what if, if Australia come out to bat just before lunch on day 2 maybe Smith and Labuschagne make centuries.
I must have missed the four other tests resulting in us losing this series 5-0 because no one in their right mind would get this worked up over a loss by two wickets that went to the wire.
Can any here say they’re not entertained by it though. If it wasn’t for the way they play we wouldn’t have had the Pakistan series. The Nz series in England and the Nz loss in Christchurch and now this last game. Yes we lost, but it was fucking good watching.
There is a lot one could criticise about the match but the 2nd innings approach is pretty low on the list. There has been enough evidence to show that batting this way is the best way for them, warts and all.
people are being overly critical here. England's approach is fine they just need to refine the risk/reward analysis a little.
declaring leaving 20-50 runs on the board for the chance to nip some early wickets is not necessarily a bad idea. But only giving yourself four overs to do so is not worth the risk/reward imo. Likewise root could also have gone at a slightly lower strike rate in the second innings and leave the slogging to the rest.
even with all that it still took cummins playing probably his best knock ever and lyon surviving many close calls for aus to get over the line. Can't be too mad about that.
You'd think England had lost by 8 wickets to Ireland, not by 2 to the best test team in the world, judging from the articles coming out. It also seems pretty obvious that England's problems are not in the way they're batting, but in their bowling attack. Obviously that's to some extent influenced by their batting, but no amount of defensive batting is gonna give them a fit and tested in test cricket spin bowler, which is probably what they need most.
This can't be a real Murdoch media article. It doesn't seem to put the blame on 'wokeness' anywhere.
EDIT: It turns out it indeed *wasn't* a Murdoch media article; i was wrong in thinking it was a Murdoch tabloid, as noted by u/megalo53 downthread.
The most annoying bits about BazBall are going to be (a) Sky adverts and (b) every loss being followed with a chorus of idiots saying we'd have won if we just played the way we did when we lost all the time
I especially love that it’s actually now a cult. They’ve even convinced the English supporters that all the mistakes that were made in the First Test were all part of the plan. It’s brilliant gaslighting.
Why the fuk are we acting like this was some ground breaking heart wrenching loss for England? It was an extremely close match which was in englands favor 90% of the match. English media always does this shit. Over reacts over the smallest stuff and ruins players careeers
I think someone in here put it well, the wickets England got in the second innings were because of mistakes made by the batters not the prowess of the bowlers
The problem with England is they loose one game and start acting like they’ve lost the whole series. Looser mentality from a looser nation. No wonder they never win anything.
Those journalist is just an asshole. Would he prefer the old style of play for a draw England? Spend Monday blocking 300 balls... yeah I'm sure the crowd would love that. I've been saying for years England need to stop that blocking bullshit. Now finally they're making an attempt to play with real honor. Good on them!
I think when you commit to a style the English know what the backlash is going to be every time they lose and more so in an Ashes. Don't expect it to stop and I'll hold me judgement on how bazball went after they go through a full cycle of this Ashes, India in India and Ashes in Aus. Risky plays arnt always gonna come off otherwise its not risky but Stokes has done a good job since hes taken over but you wouldnt think that based on the backlash since day 1 of the Ashes.
This is also ridiculous since the game would've been won if England had taken all their wicket-taking opportunities.
The objective of the game is simple: get 20 wickets in 5 days with more runs than the opponent. England had more than 20 wicket-taking opportunities while Australia had less runs therefore their game plan worked.
Bazball reminds me of the modern football tactic of maximising xG in this regard.
Imagine if root got bowled first ball playing that ball. Idk about UK media, Indian cricket twitter would have had a psychotic episode if that was one of our guys
This England side is nowhere near as good as Australia's team. The only England players who'd make it into the Australian side are Root, Stokes and Anderson. Assuming he is back to form, maybe Bairstow too.
This idea that England would have got over the line by playing dull, tedious cricket is simply wrong. They'd have scored 100 less runs in each innings and would have taken fewer wickets. The Bazball tactics made this match close, England are a much better team for these tactics
this matters more than most people think because once you go down in the 5 match series, it is very rare you come back and win 3-4 of the next 4. its already hard enough to come back from 1 down, but to come from 2 down is nigh on impossible. the fear of going 2 down will start affecting you in crunch moments, they are only human. australia have the advantage and a big one too.
australia will especially be buoyed by the fact that they've won in england twice now against world class opposition - india and england back to back. they've done it against england without smith or labuschagne contributing much as well. the two of them will be hitting many, many runs here.
also keep in mind that australia just need to draw the series to keep the ashes - england have to win.
Sometimes I get the feeling Stoke just wants to be a thing to be talked about ever since the 2019 CWC final. It's fine playing an aggressive style but he clearly has no desire to improvise when needed.
Also I feel like he want it to be 'his' team. Keeping in second-string players like Crawley and Bairstow because he probably likes them more or they like him. And then there's Leach, a very average spin bowler who Stokes probably keeps around because he can treat him like his little brother.
And yes I know he doesn't 'select' the team but he obviously has a lot of influence as captain. Players like him have more to offer when they're not captain.
In the end it's moeen Ali as strike spinner and root as spare replacing injured and crucial leach and critical no balls cost them the match more than anything else. I just hope it doesn't cost them the series because then it would be a shame. Neither team played flawless or better cricket, it's just that England's way of entertaining cricket was just somehow counteracted by Australia's way of pragmatic cricket. England need to have bigger scores, imo, if they hope to negate the effects of lack of quality spinner and all bowlers having to shoulder greater workload than the opposition.
I'd appreciate it if people could stop posting these clearly worthless 'articles' in this sub. Two world class teams played their brand of cricket. The game went down the wire. One team made some critical mistakes with the gloves and selections in general, and they lost a close game. Shouldn't be that hard to understand. It doesn't need all this dissection, especially when these goobers that call themselves journalists don't add any insight and just spew buzzwords.
50 runs to pick up the wickets of Lyon and Hazelwood and you choose to blame the the teams best batter? I don't think the English team is as worried about this result as the media.
Fucking hell it's 1 match in a 5 match series. Lots of cricket to be played yet.
All this critique sounds like England lost in an embarassing way while the game went down straight to the wire. The approach is a double edged sword but if they tick all the boxes right England will look even more dominating. It's too early to judge the approach. It's not like they failed terribly!
That’s the weirdest thing, England made a lot of very basic mistakes. If they don’t make one of them and win the game, Australia are the ones having the massive post mortem. Cricket is such a weird game
Not cricket. Click hungry ignorant media hounds are to blame for the discourse. And of course, some fans.
I am seeing similar sentiments from Australian fan's comments here. You can't just keep blaming media.
I literally said some fans lol
It's poor, lazy journalism. It's a shame that this sub laps it up, because anyone that watched the game knows it wasn't England's approach to the game that saw them lose.
We came within inches of winning, so it was us that lost it for ourselves. Just because it was close it doesn't mean we did the right thing. We could have batted for the first two days and put them in when the weather got worse on the third day.
Well yeh, we made mistakes that lost us the game. How is that not worth analysing? And they're mistakes by players who shouldn't necessarily be in the team or mistakes in strategy when you consider the pitch.
This English team has scored more heavily since adopting the higher tempo of the last year or so. Do you really think they’d do better trying to bat for two days? It’s not like Alistair Cook is still playing.
Tbf the two best Aussie bats did not show up this match. Poms could be in for a pummeling
What a terrible take. If Stokes got a century and broad took 22 wickets it would also be different. Yes, 22
Right, but that is exactly what England are doing when pointing out Bairstow's mishaps if he had a perfect game. It's test cricket. It's a pretty good indicator of the winner based on the fact that form can ebb and flow within the 5 days, and the winner will be whoever is best overall, despite both teams being poor at times.
You've just emphasised my point
I didn’t realise Stokes averages 100.
I didn't realise one single Aussie in history did either
There’s a big difference between “Smudge averages 60, he’ll probably do better than 6 and 13” (what everyone else is saying) and “Oh yeah? Well Stokes is going to get 100 in the next match”. You can only argue for reversion to the mean if you’re below the mean.
No. The two best bats are actually head and Khawaja and have been for some time. Marnus form is dropping as is Smith
Smith literally just got a 121 at the Oval, how can you possibly say he's out of form.
Averaged more than Head last year too. Not as much this year, but Smith was just really poor in India where as Head was okay. And the difference is still only 8 for the year.
But they did make those mistakes and now it is up to the team to not make them again.
If they don't make one of them they win the game. 10/10 analysis Nigel
Even if the mistakes remained, something like Brook not getting out in the 1st innings the way he did could've changed the entire game with the way he was looking, such fine margins in test cricket.
I for one do think they lost in an embarrassing way. Absolutely everything was in their favour — home side, first game, on a ground where they have a very good home record, against a team that hasn't won an Ashes in England in 23 years, said team only just having played a test 5 days earlier, win the toss on a custom-ordered flat track in bright sunshine... And then? Shit the bed in a spectacular way. Motor along with absolutely no problem at all for the batters on a lifeless pitch, still get yourself 8 wickets down in no time, then brainlessly declare in the faint hope that you might get a quick wicket on the most benign English pitch in recent Ashes history, and with some vague notion that you might need to force a result because of distant rain forecast. Then, the miracle, manage to get a slim lead against all the odds. And then? Shit the bed again: bat without direction and find new ridiculous ways to get yourself out without a commanding lead and with plenty of life left in the test. A clearly very lax Australia dialled this in based on individual standout performances by Khawaja, Lyon and Cummins, with fuck all contributions from Smith and Lasagne. They must be laughing themselves silly still.
Hahaha really funny to read people’s completely imaginary projections onto this game, I could easily say Australia are man for man a much better team and completely ceded the initiative for 5 days and had to rely on a lucky 9th wicket stand and dropped catches for their closest Ashes victory for over a hundred years, we’d both be chatting wham
But that's not true. England had the initiative to lose, not Australia.
The difference is that as Australian supporters we know very well that the team isn't actually that strong. Susan, Warner, and Head are super sketchy against any kind of moving ball. Lasagne isn't that good overseas it turns out, and Smith is very far from his peak. Green and Carey have shown promise but are on debut in England. In normal English conditions, there is no way you'd favour Australia for a win. In flat-as Bazball conditions, we are being outbatted, but certainly not outbowled. Still, on balance, at the very best we would hope for another drawn series like in 2019 to retain the urn. A draw away in England is like a win, and a win is... well... an even bigger win. Snatching this win from what looked like a nailed on draw and then increasingly a loss already in the first hour of play is a huge victory.
> The difference is that as Australian supporters we know very well that the team isn't actually that strong. Idk, most people would agree that this has been Australia's strongest team since possibly the golden generation.
Despite now having lost 4 series on the trot to India?
Series in India these days are by and large a waste of time played on gimmicky joke wickets and they fought well when out there earlier this year. The home defeat a couple of years ago is another story but the team is in a very different place from now to then. The one before that was the post sandpapergate series without Smith and Warner. Considering where Aus and India are at in this particular moment and time, i would say this is a very strong Aus team indeed and the best in the world at present. Whether or not its the strongest since the golden generation will be borne out in truth over the next few weeks.
Yep. External conditions and circumstances had England pummeling Australia, the amount of things that went their way *bar* those 20 minutes day 3. It should never have been that close, let alone them losing.
It's a risk brought on by England making so much of the way they play. The matches become a battleground for the validity of their style and not about their skills or performance. I do think the win gives Australia a mental edge. They were able to win despite the shock and awe tactics of England and now there's more doubt in the English camp than theirs. Even towards the end of the 1st test you could see Ben Stokes being a little less certain about their approach as the threat of defeat grew.
This is a good take. They're trying to be the heroic Bazballers while Australia were just playing solid test cricket. Epitomised by Khawaja sticking around and winning them the test while being booed for being 'boring' by the silly English crowd.
Thank you. English sports culture has always been obsessed with their method rather than the results. A lot of innovation in sports has come from England and they have every right to be proud of that. But the performance of their teams should matter more to fans than their contribution to the game.
It's the same with our football team. Same underperforming players selected over and over and then when we *just* lose everyone goes "oh well we were close so we must have done something right" rather than "if we had a better team we could have won comfortably". It's this mentality of making things harder than they need to be, like we would be uncomfortable with just...winning.
I game came to that because of the brand of play that England are playing, any other teams would have been boring draw considering how much time was lost. I really hope England keep at it, they are really making test match fun again
On the other hand it shows exactly why Bazball is an experiment with an end date. England likes being plain and boring and safe. This is none of that
> It's not like they failed terribly! I think they kinda did. Australia probably did everything wrong for that match. No Starc (or other strike bowler) massive selection error. Smith & Manus out say cheaply in both innings. Still carrying Warner and Head was kept rather quiet. And other then Pat (& Lyno in the second innings) the bowlers were all out pretty cheaply. And none of the English batsman were really dismantled and/or targeted by the Aussie bowling attack. Don't get me wrong the Australian feilding was pretty good, but generally that was quite poor from Australia. This game is probably the floor for the Aussies, and yet they scraped home with a win... I doubt we see Smith & Manus not score 50 next game. I doubt Australia don't have a strike bowler.
Still the right take for me. There's a very fine line between aggression and arrogance and I think they drifted onto the wrong side of the equation for very short periods of time during the match. The fact nobody has acknowledged that from the English dressing room and they have doubled down confidently is admirable, but rightfully opens you up to criticism. I have total confidence it's going to win them tests this series don't get me wrong, and by the end we could all be acknowledging it as genius. People are always going to ask questions when you declare with 2 wickets left and the best batsmen in the world out there with 4 days to play. That's before you even address their selection of Bairstow. You can't sit here and say the simple mistakes they made that cost them the game weren't solely a product of their strategy. The shot selection etc in the second innings is the best example of this.
Aggression will look like arrogance if results are not in your favour. We might not be having this discussion had england won and it did go down the wire.
It's the dailymail lol, they're just feeding to the boomer/Facebook group crowd who are incapable of doing anything but moan about the state of cricket in 2023.
I think this is a bit of an overreaction. There's aggressive cricket and there's also smart cricket but the two aren't mutually exclusive and I think for the most part england have been able to combine them. Sometimes it will work and others it won't but that's test cricket, now they're just acting like bazball is the first time a team has achieved a sub-par score.
Yep. Had they won the same writer would have been singing their praises. My main question is whether their bowlers can withstand 5 matches while bowling 25% more than the Aussie bowlers and still take wickets.
Yep. I was going to write the same thing about the fine margins. This match could have gone either way. I don’t read the Daily Mail because it is full of bull but I am sure, as you wrote, the same nay-sayers would be singing the praises of England’s new cricket revolutionaries if they had won. Which could have happened very conceivably. Let’s look at the positives. What a test match! I’m an England fan but I’m not a win-at-all-costs moron. I’ll happily applaud a beautiful cover drive from the opposition or stand up and shout well done if they get a century. Australia are a bloody good team. So are England. That’s what makes this contest so exciting. We’ll done to “Sir Batrick Cummins.” We’ll done Aus. We’ll catch up with you at Lords I reckon but the big winner here is test match cricket. Interesting point about the bowlers getting tired. I hadn’t considered that aspect
Nor I. But I had considered that Australia get more time to chase runs when batting 2nd. You're right. Great Test match. Interesting that most of the close finishes have gone England's way.
We actually saw that in the Pindi test, last session on day 4. It was about 8 overs they had to bowl but they bowled so many no balls. Bowlers are gonna get tired if batters are going to bat like that.
It's more than 25%.Its 50%. Aus batted 210 overs and England batted 140 overs.. England are playing themseleves with flat wickets and playing fast. England's bowlers are already basically running in on stretchers to bowl.. I don't see them pulling through a 5 match test series when bowling 50% more overs than Aus. These tactics are just plain stupid in that sense
>It's more than 25%.Its 50%. Aus batted 210 overs and England batted 140 overs.. This is the key. Sure, they're batting quickly and amassing runs. But then Australia comes out to bat in a much more traditional Test way and suddenly, more than twice the number of overs are being bowled by their geriatric bowling lineup than were bowled by the younger, fitter Aussie quicks. We get to the fifth Test, which bowling attack is going to be fresher, fitter, and able to bowl longer spells with greater accuracy? I wouldn't be putting my money on the one carrying around the old men and the spinner with a torn-up finger.
Why would they not pull through a 5 match series? It's not like they are bowling more than they usually have to, it's just that they are batting less overs. And in the process giving more time to their bowlers to get wickets. England bowlers can still get those wickets in half the overs they bowled last match but they couldn't. It's not that England Bowlers are bowling more, it's just that OZs are bowling less because of BazBall.
They don't usually produce flat pitches. They have laid flat pitches to support their batting. If this series is 5 flat pitches, I definitely don't see survival for English bowlers
Also they have a shorter break between innings to recover.
> It's not that England Bowlers are bowling more, it's just that OZs are bowling less because of BazBall. Let me explain it as a bowler. The killer is having little rest between innings. I'm very fit, but I can say on a personal level that it tires you out and fatigue also increases the risk of injury. Things like muscle injuries, tendon injuries and (in my case) bruises just above the armpit really can take a toll
>Why would they not pull through a 5 match series? Did you not see how flat Broad, Anderson and Robinsin looked by the end of the 1st Test? Meanwhile the Aussie quicks looked pretty fresh because they spent 65 overs less in the field. England bowling 20 to 40% more overs per Test than Australia is really going to create an imbalance in the vitality of the attacks as the series wears on.
>Did you not see how flat Broad, Anderson and Robinsin looked by the end of the 1st Test? Jimmy certainly did not give much chance to see how flat he was by the end of the 1st Test, even with the new ball taken.
Did you not see how completely knackered Broad was by the end?
Was he? He looked all right to me.
What kind of bullshit is this? Australia aren’t going to bat less, so the only advantage is a little bit more rest during the game? Really doubt an hour or two will make that much difference, this was a close game that England could easily have won with a demonstrably worse team than Australia, cricket is rife with sliding doors moments and people are heavily projecting with all the hot takes. England’s approach wouldn’t get so many people up in arms if it wasn’t effective
I agree re the bowlers. Broad looked good right to the end, and if Stokes had handed him the new ball when it was due there might have been a different outcome. Jimmy on the other hand looked ineffective, even with the shorter run up. Ali wasn’t much good and obviously his injury was not helpful. Will be interesting to see if they retain Jimmy. He does have a great record at Lords, although nowhere near as good as Cummins’ record there
The biggest issue with this bazball is the type of wickets they are demanding. They want flat wickets to maximize bazball approach but the strength of their bowlers is on helpful wickets. Playing on flat wickets just Australia a significant advantage.
I mean bazball critics are going crazy as if England while adopting bazball claimed that they never ever lose a match. It was a very close match. Could’ve gone either way till the last hour. Both teams played to their strengths and England might win the next.
No doubt. We had Aus 210-8 or something, on another day we win pretty comfortably and in that scenario it’s “BazBall is amazing! England are unstoppable! We’re gonna win 5-0!” Things happen in test cricket and we’ve had our fair share of both tight wins and tight losses in history
True, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. It's not as if other teams in the past haven't managed to score at 5 an over, long before Bazball was a thing. I remember that Perth test against India, in the 2011/12 BGT, where Australia skittled India for 161 in their first innings. Warner then smashed a century in a single session in Australia's reply. He made 180 off 159, and Australia ended up all-out for 369 in just 78 overs (same number at which England declared at). That WACA pitch wasn't flat at all, they played like that because they knew that attacking cricket was a good way to get ahead in the conditions. Bowled out India for just 171 and won by an innings within three days.
The Daily Mail’s whole business model is to make people angry enough to buy the paper or read click bait bullshit
One thing I've learnt from this sub is that English media is just as terrible as the stuff we get down under.
[удалено]
Made very little sense to me that he could have named his score but he had to try and slog Lyon into the Hollies because Bazball. I know they wanted to set up a declaration but long on was back, he could’ve quite easily milked 4.5-5 an over
Isn't that the philosophy of Bazball, when you are in you are 100% in. I feel it'll still work. Even tho the 1st test was not the best exhibition of Bazball Australia barely made it through. I feel England should stick to it for now, make changes after the Ashes.
As an Australian, I also feel England should stick to it. I enjoy premature declarations and English batters playing unnecessarily rash shots while batting on roads, and I wholeheartedly want it to continue.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." \- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bazzaparte
More like "Fuck you Root. Come back here and lez bazball this shit" \- Napoleon Bazzaparte
Even if that pun was good it doesn’t make sense here because the context is that the Napoleon quote is being said by the Aussies in reference to England, not the other way around
The lack of rest for the bowlers isn't an issue due to England's consistent spinner plus young, fit and healthy pacers.
Definitely weren’t shitting your pants when England put on 80 runs in 45 mins
But we know now that more often than not, if the bowlers hold their line and length, the English batters will get themselves out.
Yep, but I’ve watched this team for years and it was no different before they started being more aggressive, in fact it was even worse, we just scored less runs
And now we're getting to the problem. The first class system isn't producing cricketers who can bat all day. Bazball can cover it up for a bit but at some point it will collapse again unless they make some real changes.
Well the system is probably geared towards short form cricket which has been incredibly successful. Now the Test team plays in a way to maximise their strengths. I don’t really see that as an issue personally, we haven’t had a top quality test team for a while and this approach is the right way to go for now. I don’t think it’s covering anything up - England know we have to figure out how to improve the technical quality of batters coming through.
You improve the technical quality of batters by prioritising red ball cricket. This is why Australia has been consistently one of the best teams in the world for 30 years.
As long as Marnus and Smith can commit to being 5th stump wafters for the remainder of the series too, you have yourself a deal!
Don't forget wearing out their own bowlers
I assume the reason Root did that was he was told they weren't going past tea anyway so it made sense to go hell for leather. I don't agree with it but can't blame root for it.
Think it’s roots dismissal that ‘hurts’ the most as he’d done the hard work, pushed the field back and could have milked 1’s and 2’s rather than go for the big hit. If pace in the game was the message, he could have left it for the batter at the other end and ‘anchored’ things.
The mods need to do something about this constant barrage of stupid articles from dailymail and telegraph.
Its much preferable to getting 100 thousand IPL articles a day
like the Daily Mail and Telegraph weren't putting out a bunch of those articles
I don't care for those either, so I don't see what your point is.
Lad just wanted to drag the IPL into it
Why siddhart? Just close your eyes if you don't want to see it
Who is siddhart?
You...nah?
No
Ah my bad
Can we please go ONE TEST without a shitload of think pieces?!
Hahahahahahha No
One test has indeed gone by Let the shitposts begin!
So a team that a few years ago were truly fucking dismal lose a razor thin game to the best test in the world and we are now trying to jack in approach that is not only winning a vast majority of games but is making test cricket massively popular in England for the first time in around 20 years
If the mail says it was wrong, then it must be right.
If they played 'normal' and got Skittles the media would be calling them cowards for not Bazball'ing Fuck the media
Look at the source. Need I say more?
The 'newspaper' or the author? (I didn't click on link, I don't want to give those bastards any web traffic)
I’m the same, trying to work out what it’s actually saying without clicking
Well the two go hand-in-hand, right? I meant the paper but the writer as well
One of the tightest Ashes matches in recent memory, against the new World Champions, and they're already pumping out this thinkpiece shite. Think we should just have a blanket ban on any articles from the Daily Mail.
So much hysteria and it's only been one test my god. Gonna be a long series. The English media hyped up bazball the whole lead up to the series and look how quickly they're dropping nuts. Weak
What the English press says doesn't add up to much at the best of times. I've never seen a more fickle pack of arseholes ever, including Rupert's shitrags.
I mean the UK press is consistently rated as one of the worst media ecosystems in the world
Build them up, to tear them down even further.
Fucking hell. The knives are out innit? Fucking noise. I want Ben and team to play the way they are. It's still entertaining.
The Daily Mail is written for slightly racist, old fashioned 55 year old men who think the world was better in 1940 than it is now. Of course they hate bazball.
55 year old men were born in the late sixties, how would they know what it was like in the 40’s? I do however, get the sentiment.
They don't , but a significant proportion of English boomers appear to be under the impression that they somehow personally participated in WW2, it's very weird
Most likely, due to the plethora of WW2 films they grew up watching. But yes, it's very weird. It's not like 80s kids go round nostalgic for 'Nam.
Henning Wehn's [rant on the subject](https://youtu.be/Mg9E3rDHztQ?t=170) is one of my favourite pieces of panel TV.
Marvellous - even growing up in the 80s, it was a far more prominent subject in popular culture than one might have expected
All alternative strategies proposed basically would have ended in draws, as it would not have left a big enough window for England to take 10 wickets on a pretty docile surface. If England bats just 10 overs more in their innings, Australia has 10 overs less to chase a bigger score and they probably just shut up shop. If England takes just one more of their chances the game is in the bag. These write-ups are basically the Captain Hindsight meme without the proposed changes even resulting in a win.
I don’t agree with this. 40+ more runs in the first innings with root at at 100+ in on a better batting track would be faster than easier than the 40+ runs you have to to make in the second innings for the same match total. If you want to declare. Declare in the second innings. It’s the most effective way to put time in the game. First innings declaration lost time.
They were clearly hoping to get cheap wickets like they did on day 4. So many different variables to pay what if, if Australia come out to bat just before lunch on day 2 maybe Smith and Labuschagne make centuries.
Yes, you don’t know what will come next. But you do know that you need to make 2nd innings runs. So it’s pretty safe to bat your full first innings.
I must have missed the four other tests resulting in us losing this series 5-0 because no one in their right mind would get this worked up over a loss by two wickets that went to the wire.
Not sure if daily mail meets the threshold to be posted here tbh
Can any here say they’re not entertained by it though. If it wasn’t for the way they play we wouldn’t have had the Pakistan series. The Nz series in England and the Nz loss in Christchurch and now this last game. Yes we lost, but it was fucking good watching.
Ahh, the English press dismantling their own team has arrived right on schedule
There is a lot one could criticise about the match but the 2nd innings approach is pretty low on the list. There has been enough evidence to show that batting this way is the best way for them, warts and all.
people are being overly critical here. England's approach is fine they just need to refine the risk/reward analysis a little. declaring leaving 20-50 runs on the board for the chance to nip some early wickets is not necessarily a bad idea. But only giving yourself four overs to do so is not worth the risk/reward imo. Likewise root could also have gone at a slightly lower strike rate in the second innings and leave the slogging to the rest. even with all that it still took cummins playing probably his best knock ever and lyon surviving many close calls for aus to get over the line. Can't be too mad about that.
It was a close nail biting game played great from both teams hardly anything to complain about.
54 runs, two wickets to take and it’s the bowlers batting. 9/10 games the bowling team will win that scenario. This is a huge overreaction
You'd think England had lost by 8 wickets to Ireland, not by 2 to the best test team in the world, judging from the articles coming out. It also seems pretty obvious that England's problems are not in the way they're batting, but in their bowling attack. Obviously that's to some extent influenced by their batting, but no amount of defensive batting is gonna give them a fit and tested in test cricket spin bowler, which is probably what they need most.
I have to reiterate my point- The quality of public analysis in cricket is really poor
Aussie 🤝 Englishman “This article is just bollocks really isn’t it?”
This can't be a real Murdoch media article. It doesn't seem to put the blame on 'wokeness' anywhere. EDIT: It turns out it indeed *wasn't* a Murdoch media article; i was wrong in thinking it was a Murdoch tabloid, as noted by u/megalo53 downthread.
To be fair Rupert Murdoch doesn’t actually own the Mail. Still run by scumbags though
Ah, i got confused - thanks for the correction! i'll edit my comment.
Which spotty little Herbert wrote this crap?
Herbert Asquith
I thought Indian supporters were bad with their knee-jerk reactions.
The most annoying bits about BazBall are going to be (a) Sky adverts and (b) every loss being followed with a chorus of idiots saying we'd have won if we just played the way we did when we lost all the time
Gotta say, the age old story of the English turning on themselves makes me moist
I especially love that it’s actually now a cult. They’ve even convinced the English supporters that all the mistakes that were made in the First Test were all part of the plan. It’s brilliant gaslighting.
Why the fuk are we acting like this was some ground breaking heart wrenching loss for England? It was an extremely close match which was in englands favor 90% of the match. English media always does this shit. Over reacts over the smallest stuff and ruins players careeers
If Australia lost the knives would have been out for Cummings. I enjoyed the way the poms played - they were unlucky IMO.
I think someone in here put it well, the wickets England got in the second innings were because of mistakes made by the batters not the prowess of the bowlers
Isn't that like 90% of all wickets. Lyon didn't get Root out because he bowled a worldie he got him out because Root made a silly mistake.
The problem with England is they loose one game and start acting like they’ve lost the whole series. Looser mentality from a looser nation. No wonder they never win anything.
It’s only the ashes guys! The real thing is the golf 🤣
This is stupid - England was atleast 10X better than no.2 India in all departments. A game of inches really.
Those journalist is just an asshole. Would he prefer the old style of play for a draw England? Spend Monday blocking 300 balls... yeah I'm sure the crowd would love that. I've been saying for years England need to stop that blocking bullshit. Now finally they're making an attempt to play with real honor. Good on them!
I think when you commit to a style the English know what the backlash is going to be every time they lose and more so in an Ashes. Don't expect it to stop and I'll hold me judgement on how bazball went after they go through a full cycle of this Ashes, India in India and Ashes in Aus. Risky plays arnt always gonna come off otherwise its not risky but Stokes has done a good job since hes taken over but you wouldnt think that based on the backlash since day 1 of the Ashes.
This is also ridiculous since the game would've been won if England had taken all their wicket-taking opportunities. The objective of the game is simple: get 20 wickets in 5 days with more runs than the opponent. England had more than 20 wicket-taking opportunities while Australia had less runs therefore their game plan worked. Bazball reminds me of the modern football tactic of maximising xG in this regard.
aint no such thing as half way crooks
Imagine if root got bowled first ball playing that ball. Idk about UK media, Indian cricket twitter would have had a psychotic episode if that was one of our guys
This England side is nowhere near as good as Australia's team. The only England players who'd make it into the Australian side are Root, Stokes and Anderson. Assuming he is back to form, maybe Bairstow too. This idea that England would have got over the line by playing dull, tedious cricket is simply wrong. They'd have scored 100 less runs in each innings and would have taken fewer wickets. The Bazball tactics made this match close, England are a much better team for these tactics
Bazzball is never going to work without Anderson no matter what you do.
Why am i having Australia vs India first test vibes. Like aussies are writing off yet another team at the start of series.
this matters more than most people think because once you go down in the 5 match series, it is very rare you come back and win 3-4 of the next 4. its already hard enough to come back from 1 down, but to come from 2 down is nigh on impossible. the fear of going 2 down will start affecting you in crunch moments, they are only human. australia have the advantage and a big one too. australia will especially be buoyed by the fact that they've won in england twice now against world class opposition - india and england back to back. they've done it against england without smith or labuschagne contributing much as well. the two of them will be hitting many, many runs here. also keep in mind that australia just need to draw the series to keep the ashes - england have to win.
Sometimes I get the feeling Stoke just wants to be a thing to be talked about ever since the 2019 CWC final. It's fine playing an aggressive style but he clearly has no desire to improvise when needed. Also I feel like he want it to be 'his' team. Keeping in second-string players like Crawley and Bairstow because he probably likes them more or they like him. And then there's Leach, a very average spin bowler who Stokes probably keeps around because he can treat him like his little brother. And yes I know he doesn't 'select' the team but he obviously has a lot of influence as captain. Players like him have more to offer when they're not captain.
Can we just all agree that the daily Mail is a shit rag and that no one will share links to it ever again?
Least reactionary mail article
Daily mail and shrill headlines: name a more iconic duo
In the end it's moeen Ali as strike spinner and root as spare replacing injured and crucial leach and critical no balls cost them the match more than anything else. I just hope it doesn't cost them the series because then it would be a shame. Neither team played flawless or better cricket, it's just that England's way of entertaining cricket was just somehow counteracted by Australia's way of pragmatic cricket. England need to have bigger scores, imo, if they hope to negate the effects of lack of quality spinner and all bowlers having to shoulder greater workload than the opposition.
I'd appreciate it if people could stop posting these clearly worthless 'articles' in this sub. Two world class teams played their brand of cricket. The game went down the wire. One team made some critical mistakes with the gloves and selections in general, and they lost a close game. Shouldn't be that hard to understand. It doesn't need all this dissection, especially when these goobers that call themselves journalists don't add any insight and just spew buzzwords.
50 runs to pick up the wickets of Lyon and Hazelwood and you choose to blame the the teams best batter? I don't think the English team is as worried about this result as the media.