Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2025
Comments
-
Fantastic analysis by Agnew and sums up my thoughts. If you are going to lose the ashes at least go out know you’ve given it your all.
This lot have treated it like a holiday so far. No practice, turn up for 2 days, play like headless chickens, now an extra three days off.
Pure arrogance. Let’s just hope this knocks it out of them.7 -
I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.5 -
I don’t subscribe to the view the batsmen didn’t give the bowlers a chance to rest.They bowled fuck all overs in the first innings to be tired.5
-
Yeah agreed.MrOneLung said:I don’t subscribe to the view the batsmen didn’t give the bowlers a chance to rest.They bowled fuck all overs in the first innings to be tired.
Batsmen didn't give them enough runs to defend, simple as that.1 -
Stokes is just in total denial. Whether that is pure arrogance or whether that is something they will address behind closed doors I don't know. Smith summed the pitch up perfectly - once you got to 30-40 overs it got easier. We were all out in both innings inside 35 overs playing rash shots rather than digging in.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.
Crawley's drive, in the first over of the Ashes, could almost be as defining as Harmison's wide. It's the way we play.5 -
Justin Langer is talking so much sense. Funnily a top batsman from Western Australia knows how to bat here in Western Australia.1
-
This was one thing I was sure I would be right about.golfaddick said:At least it will go into a 3rd day. Aussies will have around 30 overs to bat today. No way will they get 200 in the final session.1 -
It wasn't hindsight though. Everyone before the test knew that at this ground the best times to bat are late on day 2 and day 3.Addick Addict said:
And we had the benefit of winning the toss although, as things turned out, we might have done better to put them in. That's hindsight but the fact remains we've been seriously found out and the result would probably have been the same.raytreacy said:
I would say probable not possible. Let us not try to dress this defeat up. It has been humbling. A real lesson. This, let us not forget. Is without Cummins and Hazlewood.killerandflash said:The Glenn McGrath 5-0 now looks very possible.2 -
Sometimes the positive option is to wait. With their weakened bowling we could have put a couple of shots away (the cover drive - looking at you Root, Pope, Brook, Crawley) until the ball is softer and then you go for it when their bowlers are in their third spell and the ball is softer. You can really put them to the sword in that situation. Just have to get through the first 30 overs.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.0 -
Wife has just come in with today's paper.
Good to see that we've got the Aussies rattled and that the game is there for England's taking and to shape it to their will.
Must catch up with the score and see how we shaped it today. :-)3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Imagine Root and Brook making hay against a soft 50 over old ball, with Starc down on pace having bowled 20 overs...cantersaddick said:
Sometimes the positive option is to wait. With their weakened bowling we could have put a couple of shots away (the cover drive - looking at you Root, Pope, Brook, Crawley) until the ball is softer and then you go for it when their bowlers are in their third spell and the ball is softer. You can really put them to the sword in that situation. Just have to get through the first 30 overs.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.1 -
With Smith and Stokes still to come...killerandflash said:
Imagine Root and Brook making hay against a soft 50 over old ball, with Starc down on pace having bowled 20 overs...cantersaddick said:
Sometimes the positive option is to wait. With their weakened bowling we could have put a couple of shots away (the cover drive - looking at you Root, Pope, Brook, Crawley) until the ball is softer and then you go for it when their bowlers are in their third spell and the ball is softer. You can really put them to the sword in that situation. Just have to get through the first 30 overs.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.0 -
I'd written off the 2nd test as the Gabba/day night/pink ball we ain't winning that anyway. So 2-0 down after 2. Don't think we are gonna win a game after that.1
-
I meant hindsight in the sense that we opted to bat but then decided to put bat to ball from ball one. We might have been the ones to have bowled them out cheaply twice before the deck flattened out.cantersaddick said:
It wasn't hindsight though. Everyone before the test knew that at this ground the best times to bat are late on day 2 and day 3.Addick Addict said:
And we had the benefit of winning the toss although, as things turned out, we might have done better to put them in. That's hindsight but the fact remains we've been seriously found out and the result would probably have been the same.raytreacy said:
I would say probable not possible. Let us not try to dress this defeat up. It has been humbling. A real lesson. This, let us not forget. Is without Cummins and Hazlewood.killerandflash said:The Glenn McGrath 5-0 now looks very possible.
Having elected to bat, though, it makes it even more inexplicable that so many of our batters decided that the best way forward was for us to throw our hands at everything especially at wide ones. Everyone remembers how Crawley drove for four that first ball of the last home Ashes series but he and the rest failed to consider, even though the evidence was all there, that this wasn't the way to play on this pitch.
If we do the same in the pink ball Test then it will be "rinse and repeat".
2 -
Agreed. I was more meaning it shouldn't have needed hindsight for the players to work that out. They should have already known that.Addick Addict said:
I meant hindsight in the sense that we opted to bat but then decided to put bat to ball from ball one. We might have been the ones to have bowled them out cheaply twice before the deck flattened out.cantersaddick said:
It wasn't hindsight though. Everyone before the test knew that at this ground the best times to bat are late on day 2 and day 3.Addick Addict said:
And we had the benefit of winning the toss although, as things turned out, we might have done better to put them in. That's hindsight but the fact remains we've been seriously found out and the result would probably have been the same.raytreacy said:
I would say probable not possible. Let us not try to dress this defeat up. It has been humbling. A real lesson. This, let us not forget. Is without Cummins and Hazlewood.killerandflash said:The Glenn McGrath 5-0 now looks very possible.
Having elected to bat, though, it makes it even more inexplicable that so many of our batters decided that the best way forward was for us to throw our hands at everything especially at wide ones. Everyone remembers how Crawley drove for four that first ball of the last home Ashes series but he and the rest failed to consider, even though the evidence was all there, that this wasn't the way to play on this pitch.
If we do the same in the pink ball Test then it will be "rinse and repeat".
1 -
Still, at least TNT's unique coverage made up for the viewing. Why use a cricket commentator when you can get one from rugby and another from cycling? And them telling us in advance of the pictures what's going to happen meant that we never had to re-wind.
Shame that the reputations of Cook and Finn, who are both excellent, has been tainted by association.5 -
I don’t know how anyone can say this with confidence about this particular pitch given that each innings lasted 32.5, 45.2, 34.4 and 28.2 ovs respectively and the two longest partnerships of the match were between ovs 0.5 & 16.2 (Pope & Duckett) and 11.3 & 26.5 (Head & Labuschagne).Addick Addict said:
Stokes is just in total denial. Whether that is pure arrogance or whether that is something they will address behind closed doors I don't know. Smith summed the pitch up perfectly - once you got to 30-40 overs it got easier. We were all out in both innings inside 35 overs playing rash shots rather than digging in.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.
Crawley's drive, in the first over of the Ashes, could almost be as defining as Harmison's wide. It's the way we play.
Think it was a late Day 2 and the pitch flattening out moreso than it was the ball getting old.
Head won the match for Australia by “bazballing” on a flatter pitch.1 -
I think he's been showing quite a bit of arrogance of late. The comments about the has beens a case in point.Addick Addict said:
Stokes is just in total denial. Whether that is pure arrogance or whether that is something they will address behind closed doors I don't know. Smith summed the pitch up perfectly - once you got to 30-40 overs it got easier. We were all out in both innings inside 35 overs playing rash shots rather than digging in.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.
Crawley's drive, in the first over of the Ashes, could almost be as defining as Harmison's wide. It's the way we play.
There seems to be an aire of just having to turn up and we'll smash it.
Don't be surprised to see him and McCullums arses get completely handed to them in the next couple of months and Baz ball consigned to the dustbin.2 -
Callumcafc said:
I don’t know how anyone can say this with confidence about this particular pitch given that each innings lasted 32.5, 45.2, 34.4 and 28.2 ovs respectively and the two longest partnerships of the match were between ovs 0.5 & 16.2 (Pope & Duckett) and 11.3 & 26.5 (Head & Labuschagne).Addick Addict said:
Stokes is just in total denial. Whether that is pure arrogance or whether that is something they will address behind closed doors I don't know. Smith summed the pitch up perfectly - once you got to 30-40 overs it got easier. We were all out in both innings inside 35 overs playing rash shots rather than digging in.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.
Crawley's drive, in the first over of the Ashes, could almost be as defining as Harmison's wide. It's the way we play.
Think it was a late Day 2 and the pitch flattening out moreso than it was the ball getting old.
Head won the match for Australia by “bazballing” on a flatter pitch.
I'm afraid "Bazballing" has become a bit of a euphemism for "brain dead cricket".
"Bazballing" is trying to drive a wide ball on the up when it simply isn't there to do so on a track you haven't even worked out what the ball is doing in the first over of an Ashes.
"Bazballing" is trying to ramp a first delivery, a la Root, when you are one of the best technical batsman in the world because that is what the coach has told you to go out and do.
"Bazballing" is taking on the short ball as we did at home when Lyon couldn't even stand on one leg only to hole out, one after another - then to repeat the dose time and time again as we did in this first innings when the five man trap.
"Bazballing" is scoring so fast that your bowlers get next to no time to rest in a Test match. It's been pointed out how down our speeds were in that second innings. Even a differential of 5mph, especially when the ball has stopped doing what it was in the first innings, is massive.
"Bazballing" is not learning from one's mistakes or adapting to the circumstances. Against lesser teams you might get away with doing that. A lot of the time you won't against the best which is why, despite all our money and facilities, we are sixth in the current Test standings and finished fifth in the last one.
"Bazballing" is not what Head did. Head had 12 dots in his first 14 balls. He assessed, He then attacked but this still wasn't "must hit every ball" - he had 26 dot balls in his first 44 deliveries, This was selective hitting and respecting the good balls until such time as he was "in". By then, he'd been out there for 16 overs and seen from both ends what the ball and wicket was doing. Then it was all out attack. The damage was done. He knew, at that point, that we couldn't bowl to him on that deck. He then hit 72 off the next 38 balls.
We can argue 'til the cows come home at what point the pitch flattened out or when the ball went soft. What we can't argue is that, until we learn to earn that right to intimidate the opposition then against best in the world we are going to lose from winning positions. And we've done that too often now in what have turned out to be crucial Tests that mean the difference between winning and losing a series. That's "Bazballing". To call what Head did "Bazballing" is somewhat undermining his innings and how he went about it in my opinion.
McCullum and Stokes have brought some real positivity. The trouble is that it becomes a strength overdone when we consistently fail to recognise that line between being positive and becoming reckless. A "leave" to a wide, good length ball moving way can actually be positive. Throwing your hands at it in the hope you find the middle of the bat is reckless.
13 -
At least we’re not waking up to bad news this morning.8
-
Sponsored links:
-
Not read thread but assume you’re talking about Isa Guha asked Stokes twice about should the approach have been different and he was so defensive and trying to say well Head did it and all the best innings were aggressive in the match but our application was pathetic and we never got the chance of seeing anything different apart from waft the bat at everything .
Sometimes it works, against the better teams it’s more likely to fail .
So gutting to lose from that position aaaah1 -
I wonder if this does turn into a trouncing if Rob Key goes too and it's a complete cleaning of house.
I don't especially like the Brook as skipper idea but it feels like it's what the ECB have in mind.1 -
Hopefully India make us all feel better. They've done some magnificent work today to that end0
-
We can analyse the First Test for as long as we like in terms of team changes, playing policy and need for warm up games but it is pointless - the England management team will continue along exactly the same route regardless of results and performances0
-
You mean, there can be a plan B ?🙂Addick Addict said:Callumcafc said:
I don’t know how anyone can say this with confidence about this particular pitch given that each innings lasted 32.5, 45.2, 34.4 and 28.2 ovs respectively and the two longest partnerships of the match were between ovs 0.5 & 16.2 (Pope & Duckett) and 11.3 & 26.5 (Head & Labuschagne).Addick Addict said:
Stokes is just in total denial. Whether that is pure arrogance or whether that is something they will address behind closed doors I don't know. Smith summed the pitch up perfectly - once you got to 30-40 overs it got easier. We were all out in both innings inside 35 overs playing rash shots rather than digging in.killerandflash said:I'm not sure Stokes in the post match interview has entirely learned the right lessons from that defeat.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't be positive, but you also have to leave as well. And work out which shots are too risky to play, and which ones are worth the risk.
Crawley's drive, in the first over of the Ashes, could almost be as defining as Harmison's wide. It's the way we play.
Think it was a late Day 2 and the pitch flattening out moreso than it was the ball getting old.
Head won the match for Australia by “bazballing” on a flatter pitch.
I'm afraid "Bazballing" has become a bit of a euphemism for "brain dead cricket".
"Bazballing" is trying to drive a ball a wide ball on the up when it simply isn't there to do so on a track you haven't even worked out what the ball is doing in the first over of an Ashes.
"Bazballing" is trying to ramp a first delivery, a la Root, when you are one of the best technical batsman in the world because that is what the coach has told you to go out and do.
"Bazballing" is taking on the short ball as we did at home when Lyon couldn't even stand on one leg only to hole out, one after another - then to repeat the dose time and time again as we did in this first innings when the five man trap was set in our first innings.
"Bazballing" is scoring so fast that your bowlers get next to no time to rest in a Test match. It's been pointed out how down our speeds were in that second innings. Even a differential of 5mph, especially when the ball has stopped doing what it was in the first innings, is massive.
"Bazballing" is not learning from one's mistakes or adapting to the circumstances. Against lesser teams you might get away with doing that. A lot of the time you won't against the best which is why, despite all our money and facilities, we are sixth in the current Test standings and finished fifth in the last one.
"Bazballing" is not what Head did. Head had 12 dots in his first 14 balls. He assessed, He then attacked but this still wasn't "must hit every ball" - he had 26 dot balls in his first 44 deliveries, This was selective hitting and respecting the good balls until such time as he was "in". By then, he'd been out there for 16 overs and seen from both ends what the ball and wicket was doing. Then it was all out attack. The damage was done. He knew, at that point, that we couldn't bowl to him on that deck. He then hit 72 off the next 38 balls.
We can argue 'til the cows come home at what point the pitch flattened out or when the ball went soft. What we can't argue is that, until we learn to earn that right to intimidate the opposition then against best in the world we are going to lose from winning positions. And we've done that too often now in what have turned out to be crucial Tests that mean the difference between winning and losing a series. That's "Bazballing". To call what Head did "Bazballing" is somewhat undermining his innings and how he went about it in my opinion.
McCullum and Stokes have brought some real positivity. The trouble is that it becomes a strength overdone when we consistently fail to recognise that line between being positive and becoming reckless. A "leave" to a wide, good length ball moving way can actually be positive. Throwing your hands at it in the hope you find the middle of the bat is reckless.
0 -
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2025/11/23/ashes-series-could-josh-hazlewood-miss-second-test-and-beyond-with-injury
Hazlewood potentially out for the whole series0 -
That's good news but perhaps not as much as we might think it is. We've just lost without them having Hazlewood or Cummins and the three that played in the First Test will now have a 12 day rest so no need for them to rush Cummins back.MarcusH26 said:https://www.sen.com.au/news/2025/11/23/ashes-series-could-josh-hazlewood-miss-second-test-and-beyond-with-injury
Hazlewood potentially out for the whole series
If Cummins is fit for the final three Tests then they can perm any three from four (Cummins/Starc/Doggett/Boland) for all of the remaining matches and that's without taking Neser into consideration or, potentially, a returning Richardson and Abbott. They will also have Green and Webster in the side, in all probability, assuming Head will remain up top in lieu of Kahawaja or Weatherald.
Perhaps we have as many issues on the bowling front? We only took two wickets in their second innings and didn't look like taking any, Bashir is likely to have to play in the final three Tests and unlikely to out-bowl Lyon, Wood is clearly not match fit and hasn't taken a Test wicket in 15 months and Archer will have to miss at least one of the remaining games.1 -
Just can't see us winning one.
This squad of players was never going to progress and Improve as the series ticked on.
With the injury record, it was always going to be a limp to the finish.
That's why starting well was always going to be key1 -
We need a completely different mindset when batting.
In the recent 50 over competition we kept getting bowled out in around 30-35 overs.
This has continued in the Test match.
Swinging wildly at balls you should be leaving is something I expect to see in a Sunday league game.
It's not something I expect to see in an Ashes Test match.
No excuse for some of these shots from experienced batsmen.6 -
They are choosing to go against common sense, in many ways, not just the following: in the Sky podcast, Broad says behind closed doors the response will be to do the same with 'even more conviction' ie double down. Hussein ended the pod basically pleading that England learn from their mistakes. It sounds like they don't really want to.Australia in a pink ball test sounds like a nailed on loss, with Starc being even more of a problem.
1
