Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2025
Comments
-
Today (other than the frazzled Pope) we weren't out playing Bazball shots, flashing at wide ones or getting caught in the deep. Indeed the Aussie batsmen were the ones regularly getting out to loose shots yesterday.
What today showed, is the chasm between the bowling attacks, once Australia are at full strength (I don't consider Boland for Hazlewood a downgrade). They are able to probe away on a length, exploiting any slight technical weaknesses in the batsmen. And in Lyon they have a spinner who brings control and is dangerous, something we've not had since Swann.
We've gone for pace, not considering county stalwart bowlers that are "too slow" for Australian conditions, but in the process lost the control that the likes of Anderson, Broad and Woakes would have previously provided. Especially with the lack of practice games. Watching Boland hit the exact spot, ball after ball, shows up the erratic nature of our bowling. Carse has a FC average of 32.58, perhaps it's not surprising he's gone for a few runs when the pitch isn't offering so much.
Similarly, we didn't consider more experienced spinners like Leach and Dawson, because we wanted the high release of Bashir. And ended up not picking him anyway.
9 -
Baz ball with a brain would be better than Baz ball without a brain.I have no issue with fighting Aussie aggression with aggression, I do have an issue with the stupid application of the aggression4
-
This is the tour that has been in the planning for four years with everything geared so that we peak now. Imagine how bad it would have been if we were not at our peak!DennisBooth said:Crawley and Pope fail what a surprise. We also bowled appallingly, apart from Archer. Too many hit me balls. We have been an absolute disgrace on this tour. I think we need a root and branch change. Time for Bazball and McCullam to go, Key can go as well. At least Stokes is showing a bit of fight. Langer describes this pitch as a road.6 -
And as we were told, in the run-up to the Series, had the Aussies not been in total disarray with their ageing side, their injured bowlers and batters so out of form that they were having to put the names and the order in a hat drawn by Sepp Blatter and Gianni Infantino.Kap10 said:
This is the tour that has been in the planning for four years with everything geared so that we peak now. Imagine how bad it would have been if we were not at our peak!DennisBooth said:Crawley and Pope fail what a surprise. We also bowled appallingly, apart from Archer. Too many hit me balls. We have been an absolute disgrace on this tour. I think we need a root and branch change. Time for Bazball and McCullam to go, Key can go as well. At least Stokes is showing a bit of fight. Langer describes this pitch as a road.
Good sides make it work. Even when they aren't at their peak. They find ways. We are great when we are on top but woeful when the pressure is on.3 -
They've managed to take this squad back by about 30 years.
It reminds me so much of the woeful characters that were in Mike Atherton teams.
A little bit of talent mixed with a lot of complete incompetent dross.2 -
We have been found out big time. Not only batting but fielding and bowling. Australia have given us a salutary lesson.1
-
If we'd lost 15 of 17 since 2011 and Bazball is currently played 2 lost 2 then that suggests that the problem is rather more fundamental than just Bazball.soapboxsam said:Baz ball worked against many sides but in Australia where England had lost 15 and drawn 2 of the last 17 matches since they won at the SCG in January 2011, the Laissez-faire philosophy of Stokes and McCullum was unlikely to stop the rot.
Others have already stated how under prepared this team were and Ben Stokes left his speech too late before the Adelaide test as for years they left it to the batsmen to always take the game to the opposition instead of using some nous and playing the situation. The two day 1st test when England snatched defeat from the jaws of victory was a sorry indictment of the nebulous attitude which has affected this golf loving squad and management.
It's been men against Boys and despite the gamesmanship, Shithousery and aggression from the Aussies the so called average bowlers like Neser in the first test and Boland in all 3 matches hit their mark with great discipline and then let the batsmen fall on their sword.
Starc has been class with bat and ball and the unpopular Carey with England fans have been brilliant with bat and gloves and has shown in this series why he has a master's degree in gamesmanship.
To be able to bring Captain Cummins and Nathan Lyon back for Adelaide was just too much for a shell shocked England team who were suddenly expected to lower the jeopardy on their batting ! Ironically most of the team got out playing defensive shots from some Jaffas (not Pope)
Sorry Ben but perhaps the "Dinosaurs" were correct in saying this squad were undercooked for a 5 match test series down under.
The approach of Bazball has made a difference to England's performance against lower and mid-ranked sides. I don't think there's any denying that. It doesn't work against the very top sides and the team need to be able to play alternative tactics with a view to not getting hammered 5-0. There seem to be signs of that happening in this test, but too late because they've got their bowling attack in gear now.
Fundamentally if we're going to beat the Aussies we need better players, not just better tactics. And, as people keep saying, that means playing red ball cricket in high summer. We're not going to get near the top if we're not willing to do that.3 -
I’ve read on the BBC website that Pope has one innings to save his England career . If by some miracle he manages in the second innings to not throw his wicket away , I still don’t want to see him , or Crawley anywhere near this team ever again .2
-
'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way' .. Roger Waters2
-
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yeah I'm done with Pope at international level. Will probably score runs for fun for Surrey now at county level but he just seems so technically flawed at international level.Bedsaddick said:I’ve read on the BBC website that Pope has one innings to save his England career . If by some miracle he manages in the second innings to not throw his wicket away , I still don’t want to see him , or Crawley anywhere near this team ever again .
3 is an interesting one going forward, obviously this management team love Bethell but he's barely played any meaningful cricket bar the Lions games for months. Jordan Cox will always come up as an option if he can stay fit or they look really to the future and James Rew for next summer.
Still think it's madness not to go to Australia with a senior batter in the squad on standby.2 -
He's a Hick/Ramprakash - good at county cricket, not good enough at Test cricket.MarcusH26 said:
Yeah I'm done with Pope at international level. Will probably score runs for fun for Surrey now at county level but he just seems so technically flawed at international level.Bedsaddick said:I’ve read on the BBC website that Pope has one innings to save his England career . If by some miracle he manages in the second innings to not throw his wicket away , I still don’t want to see him , or Crawley anywhere near this team ever again .
3 is an interesting one going forward, obviously this management team love Bethell but he's barely played any meaningful cricket bar the Lions games for months. Jordan Cox will always come up as an option if he can stay fit or they look really to the future and James Rew for next summer.
Still think it's madness not to go to Australia with a senior batter in the squad on standby.
1 -
killerandflash said:Today (other than the frazzled Pope) we weren't out playing Bazball shots, flashing at wide ones or getting caught in the deep. Indeed the Aussie batsmen were the ones regularly getting out to loose shots yesterday.
What today showed, is the chasm between the bowling attacks, once Australia are at full strength (I don't consider Boland for Hazlewood a downgrade). They are able to probe away on a length, exploiting any slight technical weaknesses in the batsmen. And in Lyon they have a spinner who brings control and is dangerous, something we've not had since Swann.
We've gone for pace, not considering county stalwart bowlers that are "too slow" for Australian conditions, but in the process lost the control that the likes of Anderson, Broad and Woakes would have previously provided. Especially with the lack of practice games. Watching Boland hit the exact spot, ball after ball, shows up the erratic nature of our bowling. Carse has a FC average of 32.58, perhaps it's not surprising he's gone for a few runs when the pitch isn't offering so much.
Similarly, we didn't consider more experienced spinners like Leach and Dawson, because we wanted the high release of Bashir. And ended up not picking him anyway.
This is an oversimplification. Not wrong, but there is much more to it.
The fact is that we cannot bat.
We have a generation now that thinks about run rate ... not runs. You win Test matches by scoring more runs than the opposition ... not by getting your runs more quickly.
Crawley, Duckett and a hundred others think that scoring 28 of 14 balls is better than taking all day to get 100.
Cook last night explained the correct mentality ... "the pitch is like the M25. Hard and true. These are the days that look after your stats. Use the first hour to see off the new ball, then cash in as the ball softens and the bowlers tire. Be there at the close."
We saw Cook at Chelmsford (Essex v Kent) a couple of seasons ago. A bitterly cold April day, some snow, some wind.
He had 17 at Lunch. 17 in two hours. He had a ton at Tea.
We have absolutely no-one with that mentality. We cannot bat even on 'a road'. We don't leave, we play across the line. We are village idiots with the bat.
And we have a generation of younger village idiots coming through.14 -
One of the Aussie podcasts were asking what actually is Bazball?
Is it just a platform where players are allowed to play with freedom and pretty much do what they want without recrimination?
I have to say I think that's primarily what it is.
Then I started to think about Baz as a player. A natural talent that could probably turn up to a test with a pillow under his arm. Wake him up when it's his turn to bat and he'd probably just turn it on. No real effort or need for huge preparation. Just one of those annoying sportsmen that can just turn it on with the flick of a switch.
The problem is not every player has a 'switch'.
Indeed the majority don't. Some need a carrot some need a stick. Some need days in the nets. Some need competitive time at the crease or with ball in hand.
McCullum seems to have thought the unique preparation, or lack of it that allowed him to perform at the highest level could be rolled out to a squad lock and stock.3 -
I've been baffled by our bowing in this series. A massive gap between the 2nd and 3rd Tests, yet our bowlers still aren't able to consistently hit a good length.Billy_Mix said:
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame
Is the coaching wrong? Are the players not good enough? Are the players not practising enough or not well enough?
Hitting a good length is something you can practice until you get better. You can understand bowling getting ragged, if being smacked everywhere by an inspired batsman, but they've been erratic from the start of the day or innings.
For a team that "over practiced" in the nets before the 2nd Test, it sure doesn't show on the field.2 -
Well put Dave Rudd
0 -
Very much appreciated ... but it's not rocket science.Carter said:Well put Dave Rudd
There is always room for improvement and innovation. In fact, I worked in that area, so it's natural for me to think that way. But we have 150+ years of Test cricket experience and for McCullum and others to think that they can blow all that away is not only foolish, but it is also arrogant. The tried and tested methods are tried and tested for a reason.
The football parallel is the Wimbledon and Cambridge teams of the late 1980s/early 1990s. Long ball football up to heavyweight boxers like John Fashanu and Dion Dublin. It works for a while because it is different. But then other teams adapt and the effectiveness disappears.
Those teams who then resort to 'tried and tested' methods generally come good.
Bazball has a place. Or, more exactly, there are times when it is right to pressurise the opposition. Step on the neck when the dragon is flaying around.
But you can't just invoke it as a 'one size fits all' method. Because one size actually fits very few people.
Basic technique ... both batting and bowling ... will bring you success. And practice, practice, practice ... until it becomes second nature.
Fancy a round of golf, Brendan?
2 -
Addick Addict said:
I think that there is a difference between "reckless" and playing strong shots at the right time. Bazball is reckless and it is that which has caused out batters to have such muddled thinking in the middle.Callumcafc said:
At the time this felt rather dismissive so I didn’t follow up but I hope you’ll allow me to revisit this now we’re halfway through the third Test and on the brink of going down 3-0.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 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.
Over the last two days, I think it’s irrefutable, looking at the relative dismissals of both sides, that the Australians were the more reckless of the two sides. Yet they look to be holding a 150+ lead going into their second innings.
I think what is proving to be true is that Australia are better at bowling, they are better at batting to defend, they are better at batting to attack and they are better in the field to top it off.
No amount of philosophy is going to overcome such a significant talent gap.
That's not to say that Australia aren't better than us. The one thing I have stressed on here though for at least the last five years is that there is no substitute for time in the middle and trusting a pathway. I will repeat this once more. Australians do not see it as a downgrade to be playing club cricket let alone the Sheffield Shield. We see central contracts as our "shield" and the excuse for ours to not have to play in the County Championship. Quicks have a modicum of an excuse not to be turning out. Batters don't.
We pick batters because they "look good". The Aussies pick 'em because they've proven themselves.I don’t disagree with the point about time in the middle and proven pedigree. That’s a long standing issue that predates Bazball by a good few years.
That’s also why I struggle with Bazball being framed by some as the root cause of our problems. Lack of time in the middle can limit judgement but not intent. Whether you ask a batting line up to score at three an over or five, the underlying problem is the same if they haven’t been conditioned by volume of cricket.
I’m convinced you could tell this group to bat like Boycott and the talent / conditioning gap would still be exposed on the next Ashes tour.
0 -
Dave Rudd said:killerandflash said:Today (other than the frazzled Pope) we weren't out playing Bazball shots, flashing at wide ones or getting caught in the deep. Indeed the Aussie batsmen were the ones regularly getting out to loose shots yesterday.
What today showed, is the chasm between the bowling attacks, once Australia are at full strength (I don't consider Boland for Hazlewood a downgrade). They are able to probe away on a length, exploiting any slight technical weaknesses in the batsmen. And in Lyon they have a spinner who brings control and is dangerous, something we've not had since Swann.
We've gone for pace, not considering county stalwart bowlers that are "too slow" for Australian conditions, but in the process lost the control that the likes of Anderson, Broad and Woakes would have previously provided. Especially with the lack of practice games. Watching Boland hit the exact spot, ball after ball, shows up the erratic nature of our bowling. Carse has a FC average of 32.58, perhaps it's not surprising he's gone for a few runs when the pitch isn't offering so much.
Similarly, we didn't consider more experienced spinners like Leach and Dawson, because we wanted the high release of Bashir. And ended up not picking him anyway.
This is an oversimplification. Not wrong, but there is much more to it.
The fact is that we cannot bat.
We have a generation now that thinks about run rate ... not runs. You win Test matches by scoring more runs than the opposition ... not by getting your runs more quickly.
Crawley, Duckett and a hundred others think that scoring 28 of 14 balls is better than taking all day to get 100.
Cook last night explained the correct mentality ... "the pitch is like the M25. Hard and true. These are the days that look after your stats. Use the first hour to see off the new ball, then cash in as the ball softens and the bowlers tire. Be there at the close."
We saw Cook at Chelmsford (Essex v Kent) a couple of seasons ago. A bitterly cold April day, some snow, some wind.
He had 17 at Lunch. 17 in two hours. He had a ton at Tea.
We have absolutely no-one with that mentality. We cannot bat even on 'a road'. We don't leave, we play across the line. We are village idiots with the bat.
And we have a generation of younger village idiots coming through.To put that in further context. This is what Stokes said, just before the last Ashes in 2023, about having someone like Cook in the side:“There are players who have played a certain way in their whole careers and that’s them,” said Stokes. “That’s fine. I’m not saying that’s not the way to play. But in this day and age and while I’m captain and Baz is coach that is not something we’re looking for..
“We want players who will go out there and put pressure on the bowlers straightaway. Look at Harry Brook and how he’s taken the world by storm. And he’s not really looked like he’s got out of fourth gear to be honest. Those are the type of players that are going to be noticed while we are in charge. In three or four years time you might have a new captain and coach who want to go back to the other way Test cricket can be played. And maybe those type of players will have an opportunity then. But right here and now it’s pretty obvious the sort of players we want and how they can get noticed."
So there you have it. That is why we have batters doing what they do. Technique, though, is an after thought simply because of T20. It is so difficult, when you do nothing but try and find boundaries in white ball to then switch to playing straight especially when you have in your head the above message coming from the England coach and captain.
The only time our best and most technically sound batsman of all time, Root, tried it was when he first went out and tried to ramp the first ball of an innings and take on every bumper going. But he had the technique to revert to. Someone like Crawley simply doesn't. He invariably either gets out LBW or, more often than not, off the edge of the bat in being caught at slip, gully or by the bowler because of that closed face of his pointing towards midwicket. It has always been the same. As an opener, you're going to get balls like the one he got today but if you compound your dismissals by inviting the bowler to get you out then you have zero chance of having a meaningful career as a Test batsman.
I mentioned a decade ago how county age group coaches were told by the ECB to focus on producing white ball players. What that did was encourage coaches to look for big lads who could hit it miles. It was the football equivalent of the massive U11 footballer at the back pumping the ball to the quick, athletic, strong lad up front. It got results in age group cricket but they were short term ones because the technically sound, but small boys, who couldn't hit the ball off the square were very often discarded.
The impression I get now with age group cricket that this has gone full circle now with the realisation that the talent to play straight and actually time a ball will, in all probability, produce an ultimately better batter for both red and white ball. That will take time though and only work if players are encouraged to play in the county championship in order to hone that technique.2 -
To be fair though, playing “serious test cricket” from the outset got us beat 4-0 and 4-0 on the last two tours.carly burn said:
But Bazball will always be the problem when you've been drilling it into your chosen ones for two years and then ask them to play serious test cricket when the penny finally drops that it will never work against a team with serious nouse.fenaddick said:Bazball wasn’t the problem today, the Aussies were just better
Firmly believe the issues are more deeply rooted than what just a change of coach or philosophy would solve.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
AA I find that a really interesting thing from the ECB about player development. Feels like a really confused strategy that isn't really going to help anyone. Even this winter according to Cricinfo the hierarchy told James Coles off a 1000 run season in the Champ at 21 that he'd be better off playing in the Abu Dhabi T10 and the SA20 than being with the Lions and batting 4 for them.
Doesn't help matters either when a good chunk of the players who spending April and May playing CC would actually benefit them are instead going to be in the IPL.2 -
I don't think they get enough time out in the middle, @killerandflash. To be good at sports, you need hours of practice. It will vary from person to person, but putting in the hours is generally a good starting point. The hours the Aussies have spent on a cricket field compared to the England team in the last year or two must differ by a huge factor. Nets are OK to refine technique, iron out problems, try things out, but getting a ton as a batsman on a proper wicket with real fielders is not the same as a net, or, if you are a bowler, facing batsmen who are trying to score a ton. Even standing in the field for six hours, particularly in hot weather, requires practice. I don't get this central contracts business, with players being released to counties for the odd game at most. It doesn't make sense to me.killerandflash said:
I've been baffled by our bowing in this series. A massive gap between the 2nd and 3rd Tests, yet our bowlers still aren't able to consistently hit a good length.Billy_Mix said:
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame
Is the coaching wrong? Are the players not good enough? Are the players not practising enough or not well enough?
Hitting a good length is something you can practice until you get better. You can understand bowling getting ragged, if being smacked everywhere by an inspired batsman, but they've been erratic from the start of the day or innings.
For a team that "over practiced" in the nets before the 2nd Test, it sure doesn't show on the field.0 -
This.killerandflash said:
I've been baffled by our bowing in this series. A massive gap between the 2nd and 3rd Tests, yet our bowlers still aren't able to consistently hit a good length.Billy_Mix said:
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame
Is the coaching wrong? Are the players not good enough? Are the players not practising enough or not well enough?
Hitting a good length is something you can practice until you get better. You can understand bowling getting ragged, if being smacked everywhere by an inspired batsman, but they've been erratic from the start of the day or innings.
For a team that "over practiced" in the nets before the 2nd Test, it sure doesn't show on the field.
From what I've seen in the 3 Tests is that the Aussie bowlers can put the ball on a sixpence time & time again......whereas we often give them at least one 4-ball an over therefore not building any pressure. A couple of times last night they showed Bowland's "heat map" and said it was like hitting a shoebox size area on the wicket. He consistently was hitting the same spot & not giving any wide balls outside off stump or down leg side. And this is not a world class bowler. Probably wouldn't get in the side if Hazlewood was fit.2 -
Guaranteed rain (almost) at Old Trafford.kinveachyaddick said:
Is this for the Ashes? That's poor if so.North Lower Neil said:
Or Headingley, there was a lot of fuss when announced that there's nothing north of Nottingham.MrOneLung said:Just seen there is no Old Trafford test next time- 1st test - Edgbaston, Birmingham
- 2nd test - Lord’s, London
- 3rd test - Trent Bridge, Nottingham
- 4th test - Ageas Bowl, Southampton
- 5th test - The Oval, London
Not sure Southampton needs one. Should stick with tradition.
And I'm pretty sure as recently as 1997 there were six Tests in the home series?
Likely warm and sunny in Southampton.0 -
Im fine with those venues, the tests are always disrupted by rain in Wales and Manchester0
-
I agree, but Cummins hasn't played for months, yet looks as good as ever.thai malaysia addick said:
I don't think they get enough time out in the middle, @killerandflash. To be good at sports, you need hours of practice. It will vary from person to person, but putting in the hours is generally a good starting point. The hours the Aussies have spent on a cricket field compared to the England team in the last year or two must differ by a huge factor. Nets are OK to refine technique, iron out problems, try things out, but getting a ton as a batsman on a proper wicket with real fielders is not the same as a net, or, if you are a bowler, facing batsmen who are trying to score a ton. Even standing in the field for six hours, particularly in hot weather, requires practice. I don't get this central contracts business, with players being released to counties for the odd game at most. It doesn't make sense to me.killerandflash said:
I've been baffled by our bowing in this series. A massive gap between the 2nd and 3rd Tests, yet our bowlers still aren't able to consistently hit a good length.Billy_Mix said:
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame
Is the coaching wrong? Are the players not good enough? Are the players not practising enough or not well enough?
Hitting a good length is something you can practice until you get better. You can understand bowling getting ragged, if being smacked everywhere by an inspired batsman, but they've been erratic from the start of the day or innings.
For a team that "over practiced" in the nets before the 2nd Test, it sure doesn't show on the field.
For the bowlers, while you can't replicate in he nets being smacked by Head or Smith, you can practice in the nets bowling ball after ball in the corridor, on a good length, to get more consistency.
England of course wanted pace, and left behind the "steady" bowlers, but Boland shows how line and length can still be really effective in Australia, even with the red ball.0 -
It's certainly true that Cummins has come back without time in the middle. However, he is an exceptional talent and has probably worked his socks off the last 6 weeks/2 months,killerandflash said:
I agree, but Cummins hasn't played for months, yet looks as good as ever.thai malaysia addick said:
I don't think they get enough time out in the middle, @killerandflash. To be good at sports, you need hours of practice. It will vary from person to person, but putting in the hours is generally a good starting point. The hours the Aussies have spent on a cricket field compared to the England team in the last year or two must differ by a huge factor. Nets are OK to refine technique, iron out problems, try things out, but getting a ton as a batsman on a proper wicket with real fielders is not the same as a net, or, if you are a bowler, facing batsmen who are trying to score a ton. Even standing in the field for six hours, particularly in hot weather, requires practice. I don't get this central contracts business, with players being released to counties for the odd game at most. It doesn't make sense to me.killerandflash said:
I've been baffled by our bowing in this series. A massive gap between the 2nd and 3rd Tests, yet our bowlers still aren't able to consistently hit a good length.Billy_Mix said:
2nd in an indefinite stream of statistical takedowns of the coaches, captain and senior pros currently robbing a living in this pantomime England testmatch XI:Billy_Mix said:The top half of this aussie batting lineup has an average around 17 against seam up bowlers when the ball is delivered on a line to hit the stumps. If they got to 200/5 they'd be hugely overachieving.
Stats like these are freely available.
England's seam bowlers delivered less than 10% of balls that could hit the stumps.
That is A grade deliberately choosing not to do your job properly.
Not that we need anything like rational analysis to compound the case for the dismissal of Baz and Stokes and for some very uncomfortable questioning of the senior squad members who are silently playing along with the infantile bazball pantomime
The current Aussie tailend batters (8,9,10,11) have a test average around 10 facing seamup bowlers pitching 8metres or closer to the crease - AKA good to full length bowling
Their average is closer to 25 with bowling 8+ metres - AKA hard to short length bowling
- you can all see where this is going right? -
so where did England bowl at the Aussie tail this morning?
8.5+ metres
despite knowing it is less effective they stuck to the "hostile" tactic
they deliberately gave up 45+ runs, burned time and energy using counterintuitive method
This is a must win match, yet the most likely actions for success are dismissed.
That's worse cheating than not walking when you're sure you've feathered a catch
England's opening bowlers took 2-3 overs to get up to speed at the start of play - "looseners" - after a full night's sleep and hours to prepare before start time.
In contrast after a 10 minute interval between innings, Cummins (first game back after injury layoff) and Starc opened up at full pelt and threatened from ball one. Because they spent that 10 minute interval bowling 'looseners' and getting up to speed in readiness for their prime role in the team.
One lot are professional athletes doing what they're paid to do to the best of their abilities, the other lot are paid as athletes.
For shame
Is the coaching wrong? Are the players not good enough? Are the players not practising enough or not well enough?
Hitting a good length is something you can practice until you get better. You can understand bowling getting ragged, if being smacked everywhere by an inspired batsman, but they've been erratic from the start of the day or innings.
For a team that "over practiced" in the nets before the 2nd Test, it sure doesn't show on the field.
For the bowlers, while you can't replicate in he nets being smacked by Head or Smith, you can practice in the nets bowling ball after ball in the corridor, on a good length, to get more consistency.
England of course wanted pace, and left behind the "steady" bowlers, but Boland shows how line and length can still be really effective in Australia, even with the red ball.0 -
We are not good enough against the better opposition, end of story.
The point I think we nearly all agree on is that to improve the situation in Test cricket we need to return to the tried and tested.
We can't produce players good enough to win in Australia if we are not playing enough County Championship cricket and at the right times in the year.
Stating the obvious not playing in August is ridiculous.
We can't train players to throw the bat at every ball and then expect them to be able to defend properly.
We can't have accurate bowlers if we're not getting them to play and practice in the County Championship.
I'd get rid of Strauss, Key, McCallum and if Stokes doesn't want to revert to authentic Test Cricket, then make someone else captain, but keep him in the side.1 -
I'd get an Aussie in.
Darren Lehmann.
You heard it here first 😉
0 -
We can win this...🤦♂️1
