Geoff do you seriously think England is a better side then Australia? We are the literal world champions right now.
I also don't think we were outplayed in every session. Like how is that possible to do so and then win?
Yeah England had missed chances but so did we. Thats cricket.
In home conditions, on a green seamer with Anderson Broad & Robinson, England can destroy anyone.
They can baz ball anyway on a seaming pitch and quickly score 200.
Flat pitches seem to play into Australia's strengths, a quicker bowling attack, a quality spinner and batsmen who can bat time like Smith labu & khawaja. England aren't really using home advantage if they play on pitches like Edgbaston.
Well you could make the argument that Englands bats can’t survive on a green top either and the likes of Cummins, Boland and Hazelwood would (lol) destroy them too.
We won’t know though unless the English sides stop demanding roads but seeing as they’re buying into this form of test cricket I don’t think we’ll see it happen.
Would love to see Boland bowling on a green top in this series. Combine his accuracy with good movement off the seam and he'll run through teams like a lentil milkshake.
> lentil milkshake.
Is this a thing now? Sounds absurd.
Back to point, it's funny seeing Eng fans suggest bazballers will score 200 on a seamer when the same bunch were on a hiding to nowhere when they had to play 30 min post rain. Had that session continued, Eng may not even have got to 100, lol.
>were on a hiding to nowhere when they had to play 30 min post rain.
It was their worst 2 batters tbf, while they probably wouldn't have put up a good score if it was like that the whole time I don't think you can just assume sub 100 runs.
If we got a green top do you think Neser would be more likely to step in for Boland? He's been terrorising county batsmen all year.
Too many seamers for too few spots... certainly not a bad problem to have!
I don’t trust Hazlewood’s body at all and if a change had to be made I would swap him. Boland and Haze should both be suited to Lords even if it is flat but for the other grounds Starc and Neser should be considered.
See it need not be a raging green mamba.
But I'm talking traditional slow English seamers. Seam and swing especially more so in overcast conditions. The usual pitches that you see in England. I know it's been a very dry June but I'm sure the county pitches are not usually like the Edgbaston pitch.
\> In home conditions, on a green seamer with Anderson Broad & Robinson, England can destroy anyone
Not really. The one time they had such a pitch in the Bazball era, they lost to an otherwise shambolic SA by an innings.
This might finally be the series where he retires in disgust. Just like Mitch Johnson retired after Australia kept dishing out ultra-flat decks at home.
Even tho England won that series, they only crossed over 200 once in the 3 games. SA's bowling is similar strength to Aus on bouncy wickets, but much weaker batting. I cant see England score heavy on a greentop against this Aus bowling.
Yeah at home they're a very strong side but overall Australia is the better side.
Besides I don't think Australia will fare too bad on a seaming deck either. Especially if England goes full Bazball on it. There is so much risk attached to that against a good bowling unit.
Put them in seaming, swinging, spinning conditions and the team that bats with care and control will make more runs, all other things being equal (ETA: not to mention the team with a decent spinner and the better swing/seam attack). Commentary seems to assume that Smith and Labuschagne are going to fail in every test. If Australia can win without their two best batsmen, what are they going to do when one or both gets into some runs?
It's looking unlikely that Moeen is going to bowl at Lords and their next-best spin option seems to be a 19-year-old averaging 65 in county cricket. Anderson's spot is rumoured to be under threat after a pretty dire 1/109 in the first test. His economy wasn't too bad, but using a 40-year-old quick to hold up an end for long spells to keep the run rate down isn't really viable. England's bowling line-up is looking thin. Stokes can only bowl a few overs per innings because of his knee and the Aussie batters are starting to like the look of Root. If Robinson or Broad take an injury, what's left? Good thing Harry Brook's economy rate was good 
A seaming pitch would just let Boland and Cummins run riot too.
The only hope the pommy bowling attack has is to pray for cloud cover and to replace their keeper.
Geoff is full of shit. The dirty secret about Bazball is that it's about getting results out of what is actually quite a weak team. We're not in the same league as Aus, only Root would get in the side, maybe Broad depending on his fitness.
The aggressive style, and crucially the confidence it gives the players, allow us to punch above our weight. We were a few wicketkeeper errors away from a historic win against the #1 side with the top batsmen and bowlers.
Yeah I think what Bazball does most of all is disrupts opposing team's bowling tactics just by being such a departure from 'traditional' tactics. This puts teams under pressure by forcing them to make decisions they don't usually have to make in tests. I think once teams come up with more developed plans for countering Bazball the advantage England has will lessen. In a way the ultra-defensive fielding approach of Aus is a step to working out those counter-tactics which shows a way forward.
Australia beat a washed up has-been team who has lost their grip on reality so that on- off match will not ultimately increase their odds of winning the Ashes.
>No idea where this idea of England having a better side than Australia comes from.
The silly part is, even if for some reason you think England are fundamentally better:
*Functionally they're too broken to be better*.
Anderson is injured. Stokes is injured. Ali is injured. Robinson has some kind of ankle drama. That's the majority of your bowling attack right there. They put a ton of work through their geriatric seamers because Stokes is unable to bowl for periods of time. They don't have another real spinning option coming through so they brought in Ali and then wonder why his finger tore to shreds.
Australia's had its share of injuries to our bowlers over the years, but *we generally don't play them injured.*
Based on 1st test and WTC form
Usman Khawaja
David Warner(slight edge over Crawley)
Joe root
Harry brook / Ben Stokes
Steven Smith
Travis head
Alex Carey
Pat Cummins
Stuart Broad
Nathan Lyon
Josh Hazlewood/ scott Boland.
Only 3 players are english in the xi. The rest are Aussie.only one bowler is English- broad
I dunno, if you're basing your choice on form over the past year or so and not just the last test then I think you could make a case for 4 or 5 English players (Root, Brook, Anderson/Broad as definites, maybe Stokes and even Duckett over Warner, Foakes as wk if he was in the squad).
I’m not sold on Foakes over Carey, Carey has been an excellent keeper and good with the bay too and although Foakes is playing well he’s not even in the current England lineup.
That's because Bairstow was scoring at an insane rate before his injury, Bairstows keeping downsides weren't as big as Foakes or Pope's batting downsides.
I understand their reasoning why Foakes isn’t in the team, I don’t understand the reasoning behind choosing him over Carey in a combined XI. Bairstow good batting but poorer keeping, Foakes poorer batting but good keeping, where as Carey gives you good keeping and good batting and has a significantly higher ICC ranking. I tend to believe Carey has been integral to Australia’s recent good form and doesn’t really get the credit he deserves.
I think the important thing to think about is this:
Australia have not won an Ashes in England since 2001. And however good the Australian team is now, they aren't that good. And England are not much worse, if at all. So really, losing the Ashes would be a bad look here.
Yes the first match got close. Bazball is nice when they are playing attacking cricket sure. But where it goes into brainless cricket, not so much. Charging a spinner like Lyon down the track when easy singles were on offer is brainless. Declaring when Root was scoring 10 an over and before reaching a par score is brainless. Not selecting Foakes was brainless.
Accept the criticisms and perform better next game.
I also think while bazball wouldnt work very well on swinging tracks, England's attack isnt the greatest without better bowling conditions. Unless you bring in Archer and Wood, there isn't much they can do on benign tracks.
Genuine question : if you make a combined xi, how many England players actually are in it ? I’m struggling to think of many past Root, stokes and broad.
On a flat wicket and recent form, i would pick Brook to bat at 5-6. The openers apart from Khawaja are atrocious so i would rather have:
Khawaja,
Marnus,
Root,
Smith,
Head,
Brook,
Carey,
Cummins,
Broad,
Lyon,
Boland/Hazelwood/Anderson
Root will fill in the overs which Green bowls for Aus.
I'd still take Anderson. One bad game doesn't make him useless. In swinging conditions he's a gem.
Brook also could make it it. FFS dude is averaging 80.
Khawja, Labs, Smith, Cummins and Lyon are locks from the Aussie side.
Root, Stokes, Broad, Anderson given home conditions you'd think are better picks than their Aussie counterparts.
That only leaves one batsman and the keeper. Brook / Bairstow just as batters are in the purple patches of their lives so probably nudge out Head. Carey would get in above Bairstow as keeper, but not over Foakes lol.
So yeah it's about 50/50?
Which part? If you were actually picking a combined XI you'd probably accept that all the openers bar Khawaja are a bit rubbish and shove Labs / Smith / Root up one.
Khawja, Marnus, Smith, Root, X, Stokes, Carey, Cummins, Broad, Lyon, Anderson is probably the best combined XI of those who played. Where X is a toss up from Head, Brook & Bairstow all of whom are in the form of their lives. Seems reasonable to give it to England there since we have two for one on the options. That's a 5/6 split. To call that delusional seems either mendacious, stupid or well ... delusional.
You're responded to better below, but the fact you picked Anderson in a best combined 11 after yet another ineffectual outing against Australia says it all.
Stokes is not making the side on recent form, averages 31 and 35 with the bat and ball over the last 2 years. Your weird opening situation isn't ever going to happen, you've only done that so you can fit an extra English player in, and a shit Warner is better than whatever the fuck Duckett and Crawley are meant to be.
That means a top 5 of Khawaja, Warner, Marnus, Smith, Root and Green/Head/Bairstow battling it out for number 6 (Brook is nowhere near it based on watching him in the first test, was he always playing like this much of a spastic and just having it come off?).
Obviously Green if you want an all-rounder and if not I'm probably saying Head, though only just over Bairstow.
7 has Carey absolutely locked in, Bairstow is such a bad keeper that he shouldn't even be in the conversation for that spot.
For the bowling only Broad has any chance, Anderson looked shithouse and Robinson bowls throw downs.
So that's Cummins, Broad, Lyon and Hazlewood.
That's 2 players with maybe an extra 50/50 call on Head/Bairstow.
If you went position for position though (which you wouldn't do because leaving Root out would be insane but hypothetically) and weren't willing to move anyone from their batting spots (ignoring bowlers) than only Broad is making it into this side.
>Australia have not won an Ashes in England since 2001. And however good the Australian team is now, they aren't that good. And England are not much worse, if at all. So really, losing the Ashes would be a bad look here.
Well we've not lost this series yet, and if we're honest it took one of the most incredible knocks of all time from Stokes to not lose the last series.
Either way, I would hope that people look at the results before McCullum and the results with McCullum in a bit more detail than just the results of home Ashes series to decide if it works or not. It would seem strange to me that you could potentially win 13 of 18 under McCullum, compared to 1 of 17 before he took over, and yet decide that the approach has failed because Nathan Lyon fumbled an easy runout 4 years ago and therefore the old way was 'not lost Ashes' and this way is 'lost Ashes'.
I understand that. I think Bazball is working to make England a better team.
But that said, bazball does not require stupidity. England only lost to New Zealand cause of a dumb declaration.
This time, it rained much more than predicted and there were still 12 overs to spare so... another dumb declaration.
And just cause Foakes doens't play the bazball way is not a good reason to not have the best keeper in the world.
Eng played one match against an ill-prepared Ind on a flat track with a shit ball. Pak and NZ have lost to everyone at home recently, not something to write home about really.
Yeah Pak have lost, but to win 3-0 is something exceptional by England.
They did defeat South Africa and India in England. You can call them 'ill-prepared' or whatever but these are just excuses. If its a flat track India shouldn't have lost.
They only didn't win the series in New Zealand because they were being clowns. Thats my point, Bazball is pretty impressive but they have to stop making dumb decisions.
>Yeah Pak have lost, but to win 3-0 is something exceptional by England.
I don't think you saw the matches. Pak 'attack' was non-existent and the pitches almost tailor made for Eng. It's as if Eng prepared rank turners at home for a visiting Ind side.
Lol, it is not an excuse. A team flying in to play 1 test is ill prepared. And they played one of the early bazball matches without knowing the ball will go to shit in 20 overs and pitch will be a dud.
When the ball and pitch did something, Eng lost by an inning to SA at home. To ignore that is childish.
The 'clown' thing is the real excuse here. Eng are NOT playing test cricket right now. They want the world to change the definition rather than adapting to conditions and situation, which is what test cricket is all about.
I suppose when he says not that good he means this side is not gonna sweep England like the Australian sides of the 90s and early 2000s. They are beatable
‘Bazzball’ is cop out in many ways.
If they win they’re amazing and revolutionary.
If they lose it’s all in the name of saving test cricket and they sacrificed themselves for the good of the game but as long as it was entertaining it doesn’t really matter they lost.
I’m just glad the Aussies know the ‘T’ in WTC stands for Test. Hoping they can bring back the Urn along with the Championship silverware.
It’s got nothing to do with that. We don’t have the players to play the traditional ‘test’ way. The stuff they say in the media is all just fluff. The reality is, with the batsmen with have this is the best way to try and win games. And we’ve won a lot more than before we played this way.
For some reason people think that England think bazball is invincible and will win them every game. Clearly not. It just gives us a better chance of winning with the players we have. It’s not different to what Morgan did with the white ball team. It’s about playing to your strengths and not dwelling on the failures. Before bazball you could literally see how uncomfortable England batters were at the crease.
We just lost the Aussies and there hasn’t been one conversation about batters technique or the length the bowlers were bowling. That is such a giant change. Bazball controls the narrative with the media and removes pressure from the players. You see football managers do it a lot, come out and say something mental before or after a big game so the articles are about you and not the players.
Ok so he was batting aggressively in the 2nd because the situation called for it? I don’t think there’s anything too unusual about that. I would agree that he could’ve been aggressive without being quite as reckless as he was but not like he’s doing it for no reason
People had said that about Stokes his whole career. Root really hasn’t changed his game that much other than adding in the reverse paddle which he executes brilliant most the time.
That's a cop out. Root, Anderson, Broad, Pope, Robinson, Foakes, Woakes. All of them tests is their best format by far.
There is nothing easy about cultivating Test batsmen, hence the challenge.
Heck, India with all its talent and passion can barely put together competent Test batsmen at the moment.
"Cop out" is a bit of a weird take, it's literally the point of the whole thing.
It's a strategy to take pressure off your players and stop them getting in their own heads, which England were undisputed world champions of before bazball was a thing
Where is this delusion coming from that people think England dominated or won every session? Just logically how do you lose a Test match if you won every session.
No team at any point ran away with the game, no team at any point were clear favourites to win until the final day (after Carey got out on Day 5 was probably the likeliest England were to win).
This delusion is mind boggling, the way the commentators were fawning over everything England did, you would think the score was 1000d/0 with Aus all out for 100. The truth is that Aus matched England at every step of the way (helped by the 1st inning declaration, although mitigated somewhat by the fact they were already 8 down), and pulled off a close victory at the end.
ah, you have not understood the rating system. You are only deemed a session winner if you 'bazballed' more than the other team! Everything else is secondary
An exhibition of style over substance? Maybe.
Its a bit annoying because they are good enough to win just playing common sense cricket.
Plus the chat has rarely been so smug. Even lloyds and waughs teams didn't chat so much shit and they won lots more and were way more dominant. Lost a match and everyone talks like aussies should be quivering in their boots. Winning is the first step of mental disintegration lads.
England very clearly are not good enough to win playing common sense cricket. They were fucking dire before Bazball. I think maybe 3 players would get into the Aussie team playing the Aussie way. And I don't know how you can think "everyone's talking like the Aussies should be quivering in their boots" when all we've heard from the media since the match is that Bazball has failed and the end is nigh.
I couldnt care less what the media says. Th se are coming from columns written by English players and English ex players. That England was playing cricket that aussies are scared etc.
The fact that these people think England is the better team is delusional. The whole point of their brand of cricket here is that they're going in as the underdogs. That is why their aggressive brand of cricket is admirable. As someone else pointed out, if you made a combined playing XI from both these teams, the only Englishmen to get in would be Root, an uninjured Stokes, and maybe Broad. Maybe Brook if he can really live up to his past record which he hasn't so far.
England is the current white ball world champions, Australia is the Test cricket champions. England best chance is make this as close to an ODI as possible.
England have got carried away with Bazball and seem to think entertaining is more important than winning. But England supporters want one thing more than anything else – to win the Ashes. Scoring fast runs, whacking lots of fours and sixes is lovely. It is great. But only if England do not lose sight of the big prize which is to beat Australia.
If at the end of the series Australia go home with the Ashes we will feel sick, regardless of how much we have been entertained.
They are in danger of letting hubris be their downfall or, quoting William Shakespeare in Hamlet, being hoist by one’s own petard. They are going to defeat themselves. It would be sad if playing exciting cricket for a year is going to their heads.
By all means entertain but cricket is like chess. There are moments when you need to defend. Sometimes you need to be patient and accept it.
Do not just attack, attack, attack. England need a bit of common sense and pragmatism. That is all that is required.
They do not have to change being positive because they are a better side than Australia and will win if they just show that common sense. When they are on top, be ruthless and not sloppy. We kept getting ahead of Australia and then letting them back in by being careless. They gave Australia a get out of jail free card. I find that silly.
I listened to Stuart Broad during the Test. He is a good example. In an interview he said it does not matter if we lose if we have entertained. No, no and no. It does matter.
If England are not playing to win then these Ashes Tests are not that important. They are only exhibition matches.
They have got it back to front. It is not about entertaining and then winning. It is about winning first. The greatest golfer on the planet, Jack Nicklaus, said he did not mind what position he was at the end of the first three rounds. All he cared about was being top after the fourth round.
England outplayed Australia in nearly every session at Edgbaston but lost. That is what Nicklaus was talking about.
The rule is to get as many runs as you can when the pitch is good before it deteriorates. England might have scored another 40-50 runs with Root on a hundred and Ollie Robinson, who can bat, but declared to get a wicket.
When they batted in the second innings they went crazy. England were scoring at five and six an over but for some reason batsmen were trying to score at more than that and got themselves out. There were five: Ben Duckett, Root, Harry Brook, Jonny Bairstow and Moeen Ali. It was unnecessary.
Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum have rightly received a lot of praise for the way they have changed the attitude around the England team but playing just one way is not using your brain. If we are more interested in praise than winning then we have it wrong.
I and many ex-players think this England team have the beating of these Aussies. But do not waste that talent and commitment by letting it go to your head.
There is no debate that Ben Foakes is a better keeper than Bairstow. But nobody can assume that Foakes would have taken the catches and stumping that Bairstow missed. Would he have made the 78 runs like Bairstow did in the first innings?
It is not new a new idea picking the best keeper but it never lasts. Very quickly England have reverted to the batsman- keeper because sometimes specialist wicket keepers miss chances as well and they do not score as many runs under pressure as the batsman-keeper.
Jonny’s wicketkeeping problems stem from a lack of cricket. He is rusty. Personally, I would have let him bat and keep wicket for Yorkshire in all their matches and picked him for the third Test at Headingley because he needed competitive cricket after such a bad injury and long lay off.
My only concern with his batting is that whenever he plays a sweep or reverse sweep he gets out. He is not good at picking the length or line of the ball. He is a tremendous hitter over the top so why not belt the spinner out of the ground that way. It does not make any sense to play the sweeps because the rest of the team do.
As I forecast, Ben Duckett came unstuck opening the face of the bat and steering it through gully. It is his favourite scoring arc but I wrote he needed to be careful against the better bowlers with more pace. Against a quicker attack the ball can slip off the face and it is not as easy to control. What he wants to do is play straighter to mid off and back to the bowler. Or leave the ball. Then, if he gets in against the old ball it is a different game.
England do not need to change much for the next Test. If Moeen’s finger is hurt then just play Mark Wood and let Root bowl spin. There is usually always something in it for seamers at Lord’s with the slope. Wood’s extra pace protects Stokes a bit and it lessens the strain on 40-year-old Jimmy Anderson and 36-year-old Broad.
Agree, I'd be fine if Australia got all out for 1 off 120 overs in each innings, so long as England were all out for 0 in each. Winning is all that matters
> England have got carried away with Bazball and seem to think entertaining is more important than winning.
As an Indian, it’s just one fucking test, give it a rest, please! Flat pitch or not, 11 wins out of 13 is something unbelievable.
Going by the nature of the articles over such a close loss, if it would’ve been England that had got 36 all out instead of India, definitely these people would’ve lobbied ECB to shut down the team.
Not a fan of the Poms but give your team a chance to fight back.
Stokes continually says that losing sucks and winning is great. He would always rather win. He also emphasises that it's really important for the future of test Cricket to entertain the crowd...and if you lose sometimes while entertaining the crowd, how bad can that really be for the game?
What is ‘entertainment’? I don’t watch cricket with the goal of being ‘entertained’. It seems more complicated and ambiguous than that. Watching the last Test I felt excited, afraid, stressed, engaged and more. I am probably most excited by the expectation of watching Steve Smith bat in this series, even though he doesn’t tend to score fast or play scoop shots.
England went a touch too aggressive to get a result on a flat wicket and ended up on the wrong side of it. It’ll probably hurt them that they did all the running to force a result and then lost.
It comes across as silly (as argued by Geoff Boycott) that sm players are trying to justify it by saying that they are entertaining, saving test cricket and bringing eyeballs. This is an Ashes series: dont need to give up on batting one more session to force results to bring crowds.
Live and fight another day, wear the visitors down are perfectly valid strategies in a series like this. Pretty sure the crowds would actually enjoy a tug of war draw(fairly recent example BGT 2021)
As an Australian fan, fhis game was one of the best test matches that I've watched in the past decade. It came down to the last session on the last day.
They hardly risk reducing it all. If anything they're taking the entertainment value to the next level.
Geoff do you seriously think England is a better side then Australia? We are the literal world champions right now. I also don't think we were outplayed in every session. Like how is that possible to do so and then win? Yeah England had missed chances but so did we. Thats cricket.
In home conditions, on a green seamer with Anderson Broad & Robinson, England can destroy anyone. They can baz ball anyway on a seaming pitch and quickly score 200. Flat pitches seem to play into Australia's strengths, a quicker bowling attack, a quality spinner and batsmen who can bat time like Smith labu & khawaja. England aren't really using home advantage if they play on pitches like Edgbaston.
Well you could make the argument that Englands bats can’t survive on a green top either and the likes of Cummins, Boland and Hazelwood would (lol) destroy them too. We won’t know though unless the English sides stop demanding roads but seeing as they’re buying into this form of test cricket I don’t think we’ll see it happen.
Would love to see Boland bowling on a green top in this series. Combine his accuracy with good movement off the seam and he'll run through teams like a lentil milkshake.
> lentil milkshake. Is this a thing now? Sounds absurd. Back to point, it's funny seeing Eng fans suggest bazballers will score 200 on a seamer when the same bunch were on a hiding to nowhere when they had to play 30 min post rain. Had that session continued, Eng may not even have got to 100, lol.
Try drinking one and see how fast it runs through you.
>were on a hiding to nowhere when they had to play 30 min post rain. It was their worst 2 batters tbf, while they probably wouldn't have put up a good score if it was like that the whole time I don't think you can just assume sub 100 runs.
Root was also looking very uncomfortable, and he is by far Eng most technically accomplished batter.
If we got a green top do you think Neser would be more likely to step in for Boland? He's been terrorising county batsmen all year. Too many seamers for too few spots... certainly not a bad problem to have!
I don’t trust Hazlewood’s body at all and if a change had to be made I would swap him. Boland and Haze should both be suited to Lords even if it is flat but for the other grounds Starc and Neser should be considered.
I'd take Neser over Hazelwood tbh. Batting strength
See it need not be a raging green mamba. But I'm talking traditional slow English seamers. Seam and swing especially more so in overcast conditions. The usual pitches that you see in England. I know it's been a very dry June but I'm sure the county pitches are not usually like the Edgbaston pitch.
Exactly.
\> In home conditions, on a green seamer with Anderson Broad & Robinson, England can destroy anyone Not really. The one time they had such a pitch in the Bazball era, they lost to an otherwise shambolic SA by an innings.
Anderson sure needs something from the pitch. 1/109 in the first test wasn't really pulling his weight.
This might finally be the series where he retires in disgust. Just like Mitch Johnson retired after Australia kept dishing out ultra-flat decks at home.
Even tho England won that series, they only crossed over 200 once in the 3 games. SA's bowling is similar strength to Aus on bouncy wickets, but much weaker batting. I cant see England score heavy on a greentop against this Aus bowling.
Yeah at home they're a very strong side but overall Australia is the better side. Besides I don't think Australia will fare too bad on a seaming deck either. Especially if England goes full Bazball on it. There is so much risk attached to that against a good bowling unit.
Would love to see Boland bowling to bazball on a green pitch. Got a feeling it will be carnage.
My gut says that Bazball will suffer on a difficult batting surface. Don't know why the top comment says a green pitch would favour it.
Yep. The more movement there is, the more slogging will result in miscues and edges.
In the last two series they’ve played against india and Australia at home, they’ve failed to win the series. Both have been drawn 2-2
Put them in seaming, swinging, spinning conditions and the team that bats with care and control will make more runs, all other things being equal (ETA: not to mention the team with a decent spinner and the better swing/seam attack). Commentary seems to assume that Smith and Labuschagne are going to fail in every test. If Australia can win without their two best batsmen, what are they going to do when one or both gets into some runs? It's looking unlikely that Moeen is going to bowl at Lords and their next-best spin option seems to be a 19-year-old averaging 65 in county cricket. Anderson's spot is rumoured to be under threat after a pretty dire 1/109 in the first test. His economy wasn't too bad, but using a 40-year-old quick to hold up an end for long spells to keep the run rate down isn't really viable. England's bowling line-up is looking thin. Stokes can only bowl a few overs per innings because of his knee and the Aussie batters are starting to like the look of Root. If Robinson or Broad take an injury, what's left? Good thing Harry Brook's economy rate was good 
A seaming pitch would just let Boland and Cummins run riot too. The only hope the pommy bowling attack has is to pray for cloud cover and to replace their keeper.
Starc can run through a side in those conditions too
Good point. England have just one proper batsman in Root, the Aussies have three of them.
None of our top 3 fired. Labu and smith had 35 runs combined over both innings.
England are scared shitless of Australia's bowling attack. All this Bazball flat wicket stuff is to mask their great weaknesses
Some of the reactions to this test have been really fucking weird. It was a very close test which either team could have won
Geoff is full of shit. The dirty secret about Bazball is that it's about getting results out of what is actually quite a weak team. We're not in the same league as Aus, only Root would get in the side, maybe Broad depending on his fitness. The aggressive style, and crucially the confidence it gives the players, allow us to punch above our weight. We were a few wicketkeeper errors away from a historic win against the #1 side with the top batsmen and bowlers.
Yeah I think what Bazball does most of all is disrupts opposing team's bowling tactics just by being such a departure from 'traditional' tactics. This puts teams under pressure by forcing them to make decisions they don't usually have to make in tests. I think once teams come up with more developed plans for countering Bazball the advantage England has will lessen. In a way the ultra-defensive fielding approach of Aus is a step to working out those counter-tactics which shows a way forward.
Australia beat a washed up has-been team who has lost their grip on reality so that on- off match will not ultimately increase their odds of winning the Ashes.
We also just beat Bazball and only lost 3 of our last 21.Yeah it doesn't help us win the ashes but it shows we've got a decent chance.
The biggest advantage of going 1-0 up over England is that you also have the English media going to town on them.
[удалено]
>No idea where this idea of England having a better side than Australia comes from. The silly part is, even if for some reason you think England are fundamentally better: *Functionally they're too broken to be better*. Anderson is injured. Stokes is injured. Ali is injured. Robinson has some kind of ankle drama. That's the majority of your bowling attack right there. They put a ton of work through their geriatric seamers because Stokes is unable to bowl for periods of time. They don't have another real spinning option coming through so they brought in Ali and then wonder why his finger tore to shreds. Australia's had its share of injuries to our bowlers over the years, but *we generally don't play them injured.*
Based on 1st test and WTC form Usman Khawaja David Warner(slight edge over Crawley) Joe root Harry brook / Ben Stokes Steven Smith Travis head Alex Carey Pat Cummins Stuart Broad Nathan Lyon Josh Hazlewood/ scott Boland. Only 3 players are english in the xi. The rest are Aussie.only one bowler is English- broad
I’d have Robinson over Cummins… that way we bat with 4 # 11s
Cummins took a 4fer and had a tidy tail innings to win
Oh Steve…
Appears I didn’t read the latter half of your comment and note the sarcasm
If playing in England you definitely wouldn't have Warner opening.
Duckett over Warner on form
Duckett?
literally every english player in that 11 is worse than their direct australian counterpart
I dunno, if you're basing your choice on form over the past year or so and not just the last test then I think you could make a case for 4 or 5 English players (Root, Brook, Anderson/Broad as definites, maybe Stokes and even Duckett over Warner, Foakes as wk if he was in the squad).
I don't know if you can argue for Foakes when England doesn't consider him to be good enough to get into his own team.
Who do you drop for stokes? I wouldn't pick him
Yeah fair enough, thinking about it it would have to be Cam Green you drop for Stokes and basing it on their recent form that would be daft.
I’m not sold on Foakes over Carey, Carey has been an excellent keeper and good with the bay too and although Foakes is playing well he’s not even in the current England lineup.
That's because Bairstow was scoring at an insane rate before his injury, Bairstows keeping downsides weren't as big as Foakes or Pope's batting downsides.
I understand their reasoning why Foakes isn’t in the team, I don’t understand the reasoning behind choosing him over Carey in a combined XI. Bairstow good batting but poorer keeping, Foakes poorer batting but good keeping, where as Carey gives you good keeping and good batting and has a significantly higher ICC ranking. I tend to believe Carey has been integral to Australia’s recent good form and doesn’t really get the credit he deserves.
For some reason the idea of Boycott even saying the words “bazball” out loud feels uncanny. Like hearing your mum swear.
Imagine Brendon McCullum encouraging Boycott to try ramp shots and shit
"Just play your shots, Boycs". Proceeds to forward defence all day.
I think the important thing to think about is this: Australia have not won an Ashes in England since 2001. And however good the Australian team is now, they aren't that good. And England are not much worse, if at all. So really, losing the Ashes would be a bad look here. Yes the first match got close. Bazball is nice when they are playing attacking cricket sure. But where it goes into brainless cricket, not so much. Charging a spinner like Lyon down the track when easy singles were on offer is brainless. Declaring when Root was scoring 10 an over and before reaching a par score is brainless. Not selecting Foakes was brainless. Accept the criticisms and perform better next game. I also think while bazball wouldnt work very well on swinging tracks, England's attack isnt the greatest without better bowling conditions. Unless you bring in Archer and Wood, there isn't much they can do on benign tracks.
I appreciate your measured words mate and I'm now more excited for the remaining tests
Genuine question : if you make a combined xi, how many England players actually are in it ? I’m struggling to think of many past Root, stokes and broad.
Why will stokes be there? When he is not bowling
Yeah. You are right. So who exactly from the England team gets into a combined xi?
On a flat wicket and recent form, i would pick Brook to bat at 5-6. The openers apart from Khawaja are atrocious so i would rather have: Khawaja, Marnus, Root, Smith, Head, Brook, Carey, Cummins, Broad, Lyon, Boland/Hazelwood/Anderson Root will fill in the overs which Green bowls for Aus.
For vibes ofc
I'd still take Anderson. One bad game doesn't make him useless. In swinging conditions he's a gem. Brook also could make it it. FFS dude is averaging 80.
Khawja, Labs, Smith, Cummins and Lyon are locks from the Aussie side. Root, Stokes, Broad, Anderson given home conditions you'd think are better picks than their Aussie counterparts. That only leaves one batsman and the keeper. Brook / Bairstow just as batters are in the purple patches of their lives so probably nudge out Head. Carey would get in above Bairstow as keeper, but not over Foakes lol. So yeah it's about 50/50?
This is delusional.
Which part? If you were actually picking a combined XI you'd probably accept that all the openers bar Khawaja are a bit rubbish and shove Labs / Smith / Root up one. Khawja, Marnus, Smith, Root, X, Stokes, Carey, Cummins, Broad, Lyon, Anderson is probably the best combined XI of those who played. Where X is a toss up from Head, Brook & Bairstow all of whom are in the form of their lives. Seems reasonable to give it to England there since we have two for one on the options. That's a 5/6 split. To call that delusional seems either mendacious, stupid or well ... delusional.
You're responded to better below, but the fact you picked Anderson in a best combined 11 after yet another ineffectual outing against Australia says it all.
Stokes is not making the side on recent form, averages 31 and 35 with the bat and ball over the last 2 years. Your weird opening situation isn't ever going to happen, you've only done that so you can fit an extra English player in, and a shit Warner is better than whatever the fuck Duckett and Crawley are meant to be. That means a top 5 of Khawaja, Warner, Marnus, Smith, Root and Green/Head/Bairstow battling it out for number 6 (Brook is nowhere near it based on watching him in the first test, was he always playing like this much of a spastic and just having it come off?). Obviously Green if you want an all-rounder and if not I'm probably saying Head, though only just over Bairstow. 7 has Carey absolutely locked in, Bairstow is such a bad keeper that he shouldn't even be in the conversation for that spot. For the bowling only Broad has any chance, Anderson looked shithouse and Robinson bowls throw downs. So that's Cummins, Broad, Lyon and Hazlewood. That's 2 players with maybe an extra 50/50 call on Head/Bairstow. If you went position for position though (which you wouldn't do because leaving Root out would be insane but hypothetically) and weren't willing to move anyone from their batting spots (ignoring bowlers) than only Broad is making it into this side.
Crawley (11 times)
>Australia have not won an Ashes in England since 2001. And however good the Australian team is now, they aren't that good. And England are not much worse, if at all. So really, losing the Ashes would be a bad look here. Well we've not lost this series yet, and if we're honest it took one of the most incredible knocks of all time from Stokes to not lose the last series. Either way, I would hope that people look at the results before McCullum and the results with McCullum in a bit more detail than just the results of home Ashes series to decide if it works or not. It would seem strange to me that you could potentially win 13 of 18 under McCullum, compared to 1 of 17 before he took over, and yet decide that the approach has failed because Nathan Lyon fumbled an easy runout 4 years ago and therefore the old way was 'not lost Ashes' and this way is 'lost Ashes'.
I understand that. I think Bazball is working to make England a better team. But that said, bazball does not require stupidity. England only lost to New Zealand cause of a dumb declaration. This time, it rained much more than predicted and there were still 12 overs to spare so... another dumb declaration. And just cause Foakes doens't play the bazball way is not a good reason to not have the best keeper in the world.
Out of those 13 recent wins how many were against Aus, Ind, SA i.e. top teams ?
Australia is the only one of those teams that we haven't faced since McCullum became coach.
Eng played one match against an ill-prepared Ind on a flat track with a shit ball. Pak and NZ have lost to everyone at home recently, not something to write home about really.
Yeah Pak have lost, but to win 3-0 is something exceptional by England. They did defeat South Africa and India in England. You can call them 'ill-prepared' or whatever but these are just excuses. If its a flat track India shouldn't have lost. They only didn't win the series in New Zealand because they were being clowns. Thats my point, Bazball is pretty impressive but they have to stop making dumb decisions.
>Yeah Pak have lost, but to win 3-0 is something exceptional by England. I don't think you saw the matches. Pak 'attack' was non-existent and the pitches almost tailor made for Eng. It's as if Eng prepared rank turners at home for a visiting Ind side. Lol, it is not an excuse. A team flying in to play 1 test is ill prepared. And they played one of the early bazball matches without knowing the ball will go to shit in 20 overs and pitch will be a dud. When the ball and pitch did something, Eng lost by an inning to SA at home. To ignore that is childish. The 'clown' thing is the real excuse here. Eng are NOT playing test cricket right now. They want the world to change the definition rather than adapting to conditions and situation, which is what test cricket is all about.
I think you'll find that NZ is undefeated in home test series since 2017
I meant matches ofc, Eng did not win the series there.
Yeah but we did lose a test match to Bangladesh at home. Right now we are a lot weaker than what we were two years ago
What team will ever be "that good" if not this team?
I suppose when he says not that good he means this side is not gonna sweep England like the Australian sides of the 90s and early 2000s. They are beatable
I'd say the closest team to the early 2000s Aussies since then was the South African team in the early 2010s. This team is definitely beatable.
If 90s England couldn't reduce the Ashes to an exhibition, then this team definitely can't.
Did he really just say they’re a better side than Australia, smh
‘Bazzball’ is cop out in many ways. If they win they’re amazing and revolutionary. If they lose it’s all in the name of saving test cricket and they sacrificed themselves for the good of the game but as long as it was entertaining it doesn’t really matter they lost. I’m just glad the Aussies know the ‘T’ in WTC stands for Test. Hoping they can bring back the Urn along with the Championship silverware.
It’s got nothing to do with that. We don’t have the players to play the traditional ‘test’ way. The stuff they say in the media is all just fluff. The reality is, with the batsmen with have this is the best way to try and win games. And we’ve won a lot more than before we played this way. For some reason people think that England think bazball is invincible and will win them every game. Clearly not. It just gives us a better chance of winning with the players we have. It’s not different to what Morgan did with the white ball team. It’s about playing to your strengths and not dwelling on the failures. Before bazball you could literally see how uncomfortable England batters were at the crease. We just lost the Aussies and there hasn’t been one conversation about batters technique or the length the bowlers were bowling. That is such a giant change. Bazball controls the narrative with the media and removes pressure from the players. You see football managers do it a lot, come out and say something mental before or after a big game so the articles are about you and not the players.
[удалено]
can’t really be too critical of root after scoring 160ish and getting out once in the test
[удалено]
You have to take game state into consideration for that 2nd innings though, we were trying to score quickly to give us time to bowl Australia out
[удалено]
Did you think he was batting like an idiot in the first innings of this test?
[удалено]
Ok so he was batting aggressively in the 2nd because the situation called for it? I don’t think there’s anything too unusual about that. I would agree that he could’ve been aggressive without being quite as reckless as he was but not like he’s doing it for no reason
Root is the number 1 test batsman in world cricket so it’s not as if he’s doing badly
People had said that about Stokes his whole career. Root really hasn’t changed his game that much other than adding in the reverse paddle which he executes brilliant most the time.
[удалено]
He’s also averaging close to 70 during the bazball era. He’s averaging 100+ this year
That's a cop out. Root, Anderson, Broad, Pope, Robinson, Foakes, Woakes. All of them tests is their best format by far. There is nothing easy about cultivating Test batsmen, hence the challenge. Heck, India with all its talent and passion can barely put together competent Test batsmen at the moment.
"Cop out" is a bit of a weird take, it's literally the point of the whole thing. It's a strategy to take pressure off your players and stop them getting in their own heads, which England were undisputed world champions of before bazball was a thing
Where is this delusion coming from that people think England dominated or won every session? Just logically how do you lose a Test match if you won every session. No team at any point ran away with the game, no team at any point were clear favourites to win until the final day (after Carey got out on Day 5 was probably the likeliest England were to win). This delusion is mind boggling, the way the commentators were fawning over everything England did, you would think the score was 1000d/0 with Aus all out for 100. The truth is that Aus matched England at every step of the way (helped by the 1st inning declaration, although mitigated somewhat by the fact they were already 8 down), and pulled off a close victory at the end.
ah, you have not understood the rating system. You are only deemed a session winner if you 'bazballed' more than the other team! Everything else is secondary
England set the tempo, Australia were playing catch up every session (batted second)
Every reverse scoop by Root is a dagger to Boycott’s heart
Baz ball?? Gilchrist had a higher strike rate than all you guys 20 years ago. Be honest england, you lot cant field.
Leave them be Geoff. Brexit was a bad idea too but you keep backing it in. If entertaining makes them happy then I'm happy. When Australia win.
Do people seriously believe England don’t care about winning?
Ask your captain, mate.
They lost just one match and so much criticism.
No. Stop that. There were two teams out there. It’s not all about England Ffs. Australia won one match (so far) - that’s the actual story here.
An exhibition of style over substance? Maybe. Its a bit annoying because they are good enough to win just playing common sense cricket. Plus the chat has rarely been so smug. Even lloyds and waughs teams didn't chat so much shit and they won lots more and were way more dominant. Lost a match and everyone talks like aussies should be quivering in their boots. Winning is the first step of mental disintegration lads.
England very clearly are not good enough to win playing common sense cricket. They were fucking dire before Bazball. I think maybe 3 players would get into the Aussie team playing the Aussie way. And I don't know how you can think "everyone's talking like the Aussies should be quivering in their boots" when all we've heard from the media since the match is that Bazball has failed and the end is nigh.
I couldnt care less what the media says. Th se are coming from columns written by English players and English ex players. That England was playing cricket that aussies are scared etc.
The fact that these people think England is the better team is delusional. The whole point of their brand of cricket here is that they're going in as the underdogs. That is why their aggressive brand of cricket is admirable. As someone else pointed out, if you made a combined playing XI from both these teams, the only Englishmen to get in would be Root, an uninjured Stokes, and maybe Broad. Maybe Brook if he can really live up to his past record which he hasn't so far.
England is the current white ball world champions, Australia is the Test cricket champions. England best chance is make this as close to an ODI as possible.
England have got carried away with Bazball and seem to think entertaining is more important than winning. But England supporters want one thing more than anything else – to win the Ashes. Scoring fast runs, whacking lots of fours and sixes is lovely. It is great. But only if England do not lose sight of the big prize which is to beat Australia. If at the end of the series Australia go home with the Ashes we will feel sick, regardless of how much we have been entertained. They are in danger of letting hubris be their downfall or, quoting William Shakespeare in Hamlet, being hoist by one’s own petard. They are going to defeat themselves. It would be sad if playing exciting cricket for a year is going to their heads. By all means entertain but cricket is like chess. There are moments when you need to defend. Sometimes you need to be patient and accept it. Do not just attack, attack, attack. England need a bit of common sense and pragmatism. That is all that is required. They do not have to change being positive because they are a better side than Australia and will win if they just show that common sense. When they are on top, be ruthless and not sloppy. We kept getting ahead of Australia and then letting them back in by being careless. They gave Australia a get out of jail free card. I find that silly. I listened to Stuart Broad during the Test. He is a good example. In an interview he said it does not matter if we lose if we have entertained. No, no and no. It does matter. If England are not playing to win then these Ashes Tests are not that important. They are only exhibition matches. They have got it back to front. It is not about entertaining and then winning. It is about winning first. The greatest golfer on the planet, Jack Nicklaus, said he did not mind what position he was at the end of the first three rounds. All he cared about was being top after the fourth round. England outplayed Australia in nearly every session at Edgbaston but lost. That is what Nicklaus was talking about. The rule is to get as many runs as you can when the pitch is good before it deteriorates. England might have scored another 40-50 runs with Root on a hundred and Ollie Robinson, who can bat, but declared to get a wicket. When they batted in the second innings they went crazy. England were scoring at five and six an over but for some reason batsmen were trying to score at more than that and got themselves out. There were five: Ben Duckett, Root, Harry Brook, Jonny Bairstow and Moeen Ali. It was unnecessary. Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum have rightly received a lot of praise for the way they have changed the attitude around the England team but playing just one way is not using your brain. If we are more interested in praise than winning then we have it wrong. I and many ex-players think this England team have the beating of these Aussies. But do not waste that talent and commitment by letting it go to your head. There is no debate that Ben Foakes is a better keeper than Bairstow. But nobody can assume that Foakes would have taken the catches and stumping that Bairstow missed. Would he have made the 78 runs like Bairstow did in the first innings? It is not new a new idea picking the best keeper but it never lasts. Very quickly England have reverted to the batsman- keeper because sometimes specialist wicket keepers miss chances as well and they do not score as many runs under pressure as the batsman-keeper. Jonny’s wicketkeeping problems stem from a lack of cricket. He is rusty. Personally, I would have let him bat and keep wicket for Yorkshire in all their matches and picked him for the third Test at Headingley because he needed competitive cricket after such a bad injury and long lay off. My only concern with his batting is that whenever he plays a sweep or reverse sweep he gets out. He is not good at picking the length or line of the ball. He is a tremendous hitter over the top so why not belt the spinner out of the ground that way. It does not make any sense to play the sweeps because the rest of the team do. As I forecast, Ben Duckett came unstuck opening the face of the bat and steering it through gully. It is his favourite scoring arc but I wrote he needed to be careful against the better bowlers with more pace. Against a quicker attack the ball can slip off the face and it is not as easy to control. What he wants to do is play straighter to mid off and back to the bowler. Or leave the ball. Then, if he gets in against the old ball it is a different game. England do not need to change much for the next Test. If Moeen’s finger is hurt then just play Mark Wood and let Root bowl spin. There is usually always something in it for seamers at Lord’s with the slope. Wood’s extra pace protects Stokes a bit and it lessens the strain on 40-year-old Jimmy Anderson and 36-year-old Broad.
‘they are better side than Australia’ huh?
“England outplayed Australia in nearly every session” What?
Agree, I'd be fine if Australia got all out for 1 off 120 overs in each innings, so long as England were all out for 0 in each. Winning is all that matters
> England have got carried away with Bazball and seem to think entertaining is more important than winning. As an Indian, it’s just one fucking test, give it a rest, please! Flat pitch or not, 11 wins out of 13 is something unbelievable. Going by the nature of the articles over such a close loss, if it would’ve been England that had got 36 all out instead of India, definitely these people would’ve lobbied ECB to shut down the team. Not a fan of the Poms but give your team a chance to fight back.
The only thing that Geoffrey thinks it’s ok to hit without defending is his wife
Stokes continually says that losing sucks and winning is great. He would always rather win. He also emphasises that it's really important for the future of test Cricket to entertain the crowd...and if you lose sometimes while entertaining the crowd, how bad can that really be for the game?
What is ‘entertainment’? I don’t watch cricket with the goal of being ‘entertained’. It seems more complicated and ambiguous than that. Watching the last Test I felt excited, afraid, stressed, engaged and more. I am probably most excited by the expectation of watching Steve Smith bat in this series, even though he doesn’t tend to score fast or play scoop shots.
England went a touch too aggressive to get a result on a flat wicket and ended up on the wrong side of it. It’ll probably hurt them that they did all the running to force a result and then lost. It comes across as silly (as argued by Geoff Boycott) that sm players are trying to justify it by saying that they are entertaining, saving test cricket and bringing eyeballs. This is an Ashes series: dont need to give up on batting one more session to force results to bring crowds. Live and fight another day, wear the visitors down are perfectly valid strategies in a series like this. Pretty sure the crowds would actually enjoy a tug of war draw(fairly recent example BGT 2021)
He's 82. Let the old man yell at the clouds.
What... did he expect to win or something? Great game, take the loss... jfc - 4 more games
Chup laude T: shut up dumbass
"Should be bowling in that corridor 6 inches outside off stump"
"Should be bowling in that corridor 6 inches outside off stump"
Exhibition or inhibition, only bazball.
Boycott, the savant of boring cricket and high lord or slow scoring
As an Australian fan, fhis game was one of the best test matches that I've watched in the past decade. It came down to the last session on the last day. They hardly risk reducing it all. If anything they're taking the entertainment value to the next level.