*Official* First Test (Edgbaston, Birmingham) 16–20 June

[Molehill]

No. I'd rather my boys back themselves to be able to play at different tempos according to the state of the conditions, the game and the opposition. Because that's how you become then remain a really good side.

Yeah, I don't quite get Woodster's opinion.

I have no doubt that 'Bazball' can be successful, and it has, but it needs to be played according to the situation. The declaration was ridiculous, the batting against Lyon naive.

But they made mistakes and still should've won the game. For all the talk about Aus being underdone etc (they literally played a competitive game last week), England seem like the team who can improve more on what they've done here. They can bring in Wood who can make a big difference to the bowling line up, and maybe also a spinner who can bowl without getting injured.

Aus look utterly reliant on Cummins, if England can see him off and gradually make him bowl more overs than he wants to, then by the end of the series he could be on his knees.

 

[Molehill]

Haha yeah I totally get this. Following England has been great fun over the last year and I am generally all for it but I would absolutely hate the whole 'saving test cricket' thing if I was a neutral.

I agree, it's an arrogant attitude, and I think most proper English cricket fans don't like it. Like when Australia decided where the 'line' was that couldn't be crossed, even though they'd spent the last 50 years crossing it.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Can’t figure out if this intentionally a one-sided view that you hope turns out to be true or you genuinely believe it?!

Australia were underdone, as were England and I expect both teams to make less mistakes as the series wears on. Root, Bairstow, Brook, Anderson, Stokes, Moeen, etc, have all played minimal (or zero) red ball cricket in recent weeks and while that wasn’t startlingly obvious for some, it did throw up some unsurprising issues for others.

England are not as good as Australia, I think most people will agree with that, however, I’m not convinced the gap is entirely as wide as you really hope it is. This is going to be a tight series, England will continue to play their way and some days will go horribly and other days will feel like a very very long day in the field for Cummins and co.

You talk about England’s struggles with the bat and yes, before this new era we were so Root reliant and we’ve transformed almost overnight with simply a freedom given, the removal of fear with a change of mindset into a team opponents won’t like setting any less than 400 in a final innings! I don’t know how this has happened but it’s the ‘genius’ of Baz and Stokes!

I can only assume in your final summing up that there is still some bitterness there towards England because we’re playing the type of cricket you just wish your boys had the balls to do! It won’t be successful all the time and how long it can continue to be successful is open to debate. It still needs tinkering with while we fully get used to playing the type of Test cricket no one has ever braved. Can it work against the very best teams, so far yes, but Australia may be a different proposition. With your defensive boundary riders out in the first few overs and steady accumulators in Khawaja, Smith, Labuschagne, etc, who are super-effective, but it still grates that they will not get people in through the gates or have people outside of cricket talking about cricket again! Instead ‘Bazball’ continues to get the headlines, bravery a word formally associated with Australia is now used more for England’s approach to Test cricket. You are the best side, but part of you wishes you were more like us!

Damn, taking it hard

 

[Spark]

Yeah, I don't quite get Woodster's opinion.

I have no doubt that 'Bazball' can be successful, and it has, but it needs to be played according to the situation. The declaration was ridiculous, the batting against Lyon naive.

But they made mistakes and still should've won the game. For all the talk about Aus being underdone etc (they literally played a competitive game last week), England seem like the team who can improve more on what they've done here. They can bring in Wood who can make a big difference to the bowling line up, and maybe also a spinner who can bowl without getting injured.

Aus look utterly reliant on Cummins, if England can see him off and gradually make him bowl more overs than he wants to, then by the end of the series he could be on his knees.

I mean there is the minor matter of two blokes averaging 50+ (though I don't think Marnus is quite at that level away from home) who did diddly squat in this game. Both sides have significant areas of improvement to target as far as I'm concerned. It may be that this series simply comes down to who makes the fewest decisive mistakes as key moments, because there were plenty to go around. Which is also why the one player who made virtually no mistakes given how long he batted was also clearly the standout player in the game even if he didn't exactly seize the day or whatever the buzzword is.

 

[Burgey]

Hey @Burgey what did you really think of Harry Brook this test?

Extremely clean ball striker. I was interested to see how he went second dig because he was under a bit of pressure when he came in and looked a bit shook, but Lyon bowled that trash over to him and let him get going. To his credit he put the bad balls away.

The interest for me in him and a lot of the England guys is seeing how they go when they're under the pump. There was a lot of justified talk wrt Stokes' field settings through the game and they were terrific, then at the end when it went to the wire, they reverted to fairly bog standard tactics with the new ball.

It's easy to play with a **** load of freedom when you're in front and when you're so new to it you haven't had the self doubt and struggles everyone eventually has, but it's how you react under ball aching pressure which sets you apart. I don't know how he'll go if and when he gets on decks against Cummins et al with a bit in them, but he's a heck of a natural talent.

 

[Molehill]

I mean there is the minor matter of two blokes averaging 50+ (though I don't think Marnus is quite at that level away from home) who did diddly squat in this game. Both sides have significant areas of improvement to target as far as I'm concerned. It may be that this series simply comes down to who makes the fewest decisive mistakes as key moments, because there were plenty to go around. Which is also why the one player who made virtually no mistakes given how long he batted was also clearly the standout player in the game even if he didn't exactly seize the day or whatever the buzzword is.

You could counteract that by saying the fella who's been generally rubbish in England and was dropped on the last Tour got the MOTM.

Not saying Aus can't improve too, but felt like England made the more mistakes over the last 5 days.

Having said that, losing Leach is looking like a massive blow for the team and not sure how they fix the spinner issue.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I don't quite get Woodster's opinion.

I have no doubt that 'Bazball' can be successful, and it has, but it needs to be played according to the situation. The declaration was ridiculous, the batting against Lyon naive.

But they made mistakes and still should've won the game. For all the talk about Aus being underdone etc (they literally played a competitive game last week), England seem like the team who can improve more on what they've done here. They can bring in Wood who can make a big difference to the bowling line up, and maybe also a spinner who can bowl without getting injured.

Aus look utterly reliant on Cummins, if England can see him off and gradually make him bowl more overs than he wants to, then by the end of the series he could be on his knees.

For Cummins, substitute Broad. I mean Aus played one game since February. Hazlewood hasn't played since about December and he out bowled Anderson easily. The English blokes have all had the first part of their home season getting ready.

Isn't the whole point of the McCullum way that you play the same way and with #intent no matter the situation? How are a number of those guys meant to clam up and play conservatively when they've been picked precisely because they play the very opposite way to that? This is a website patronized by a stack of people who love cricket and watch it closely. I find it pretty astonishing those same fans would somehow be surprised that a group of players whose reason for being picked is they go balls to the wall pop one in the air playing extravagantly or run past it, and say "oh no, we made so many mistakes" in a surprised tone of voice. What do you expect to happen?

Ponting summed it up best when Pietersen was blowing a load over Root's second knock, saying how he owned the ground, he dominated etc etc. and Ponting just said "yeah, but he's out, and he made 40." That's the price you buy it at, and it's why the best test players and teams never just play at one pace. They adapt to the conditions, the state of the game and the opposition. Root can do that because he's quality. As is Stokes. The rest of them though?

For example, Duckett is literally a left handed test opener who doesn't leave the ball. He hasn't got the temperament to block out a session under leaden skies with the ball jagging around against top class bowling. He will have his arse handed to him this series. Crawley's limitations are so well known they're even acknowledged by English fans on CW who otherwise seem strangely aroused by the rest of the line up giving it a larrup no matter the consequences. If Pope gets a start Aus just brings on Lyon and he's back in the shed in no time. Brook is untested against the moving ball and an attack of this quality too. Bairstow's in excellent form but they've made the idiotic mistake of giving him the gloves, and you could see the ghosts of failures past in his eyes by the end of the game.

Bowling wise, Broad is great, Robinson good and Anderson looked woeful. The less said about Moeen the better - a tough call up and it went pear shaped.

Meanwhile, Cummins is returning to himself, Haze has had a run and both Starc and Neser are waiting in the wings for a crack. But the biggest difference in this series may yet be Lyon. There's a yawning gap between him and what England has. Check out the difference in the overs bowled by the two teams' quicks this test. That **** adds up. He will bowl bulk overs. He'll get knocked around at times for sure, but if they go at him the way they did this test he may well end up POTS.

In any event, it's done.

 

[Molehill]

For Cummins, substitute Broad.

Isn't the whole point of the McCullum way that you play the same way and with #intent no matter the situation? How are a number of those guys meant to clam up and play conservatively when they've been picked precisely because they play the very opposite way to that? For example, Duckett is literally a left handed test opener who doesn't leave the ball. He hasn't got the temperament to block out a session under leaden skies with the ball hooping against top class bowling.

And that's why I don't really have issue with how Duckett got out in either innings. That's what he's been picked to do and it maybe he gets found out by the world's best in this series (it's not like we have alternative options either). But against Lyon it feels like they could be a bit smarter. Even Root (a man who had never been stumped before) had a rush of blood against him. There were too many cheap wickets to average deliveries. At least those who got out to Cummins knew they got good ones.

 

[Woodster]

No. I'd rather my boys back themselves to be able to play at different tempos according to the state of the conditions, the game and the opposition. Because that's how you become then remain a really good side.

Mate, I’m not disagreeing England probably need to choke it back at times when it’s not favourable to an extent.

 

[Woodster]

Did England get massive sellout crowds when they came to Pakistan?

I’m sure you understand the point

 

[Burgey]

But against Lyon it feels like they could be a bit smarter. Even Root (a man who had never been stumped before) had a rush of blood against him. There were too many cheap wickets to average deliveries. At least those who got out to Cummins knew they got good ones.

Yeah this is a fair point well made. I guess my issue is whether a number of them can do it differently. We know Root can, of course.

 

[chunksafc]

As an Englishman, I'm don't fully buy into "Bazball" is saving test cricket. I and most of my friends would still watch the test series, probably more would if it wasn't hidden behind an expensive TV subscription.

Tickets pretty much sold out at all the grounds, despite the astronomical price of them. Would they sell out if it was "normal" cricket, I'd guess yes as it's the ashes.

I'm fully behind the positive play, the unusual tactics but there also has to be balance. It we "bazball" to a 4-0 series defeat I don't think many will be happy because it was entertaining, in every sport it ultimately comes down to results and "bazball" will be judged on results imo.

I enjoyed both Kawajah's knocks in the test as much as I enjoyed Roots in the first innings and whilst a casual might prefer Roots innings on a highlights package they won't stick around to watch if we dont win games

 

[the big bambino]

England made a point of telling how they've planned for Marnus and Smith to an extent I think they let Usman slip under them. They probably don't rate Usman in England or given him enough credit for the batsman he's become. I think Robinson's reaction represented the team's frustration with Usman's form and the assumptions they made about him being all wrong.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah, I don't quite get Woodster's opinion.

I have no doubt that 'Bazball' can be successful, and it has, but it needs to be played according to the situation. The declaration was ridiculous, the batting against Lyon naive.

But they made mistakes and still should've won the game. For all the talk about Aus being underdone etc (they literally played a competitive game last week), England seem like the team who can improve more on what they've done here. They can bring in Wood who can make a big difference to the bowling line up, and maybe also a spinner who can bowl without getting injured.

Aus look utterly reliant on Cummins, if England can see him off and gradually make him bowl more overs than he wants to, then by the end of the series he could be on his knees.

You’re talking like England are the finished article or that they should be?! They’ve completely transformed the way they bat and maybe as things progress they will tinker with it and find the right tempo at various stages.

Yes I’m sure you’d rather England return to the rabbit on the headlights approach when a quality spinner comes on and takes 4-49 rather than 4-149!

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

tinker with it and find the right tempo at various stages.

This is way harder than it sounds unless you're an A-tier player imo, particularly If you've been brought into the team to "play your shots mate".

 

[Woodster]

This is way harder than it sounds unless you're an A-tier player imo, particularly If you've been brought into the team to "play your shots mate".

Exactly! Which is why it’s preposterous to expect a batting line-up that was failing to sort all their problems out by going on the attack! It takes time, but the attitude is to be positive and it’s a massive improvement!

 

[Prince EWS]

You’re talking like England are the finished article or that they should be?! They’ve completely transformed the way they bat and maybe as things progress they will tinker with it and find the right tempo at various stages.

Yes I’m sure you’d rather England return to the rabbit on the headlights approach when a quality spinner comes on and takes 4-49 rather than 4-149!

He's English, dude. Not everyone who criticises elements of the strategy is jealous.

 

[Woodster]

He's English, dude. Not everyone who criticises elements of the strategy is jealous.

I presumed he was English??

 

[Whitefish]

Hi all - New forum member here. I've been reading this thread throughout the test and it has really added to the enjoyment of the whole thing, so thank you everyone!

As an England supporter I am generally a fan of Stokes as captain. However, what I find off-putting is the ambivalence at the heart of his approach.

On the one hand, he sometimes says, 'we are hyper-aggressive because we want to win at all costs, and will therefore take higher risk options if they increase our chances of winning, even if they also increase our chances of losing'. That is a totally respectable approach and I am on board for it. If you understand the first-day declaration in that spirit then I think you can respect the idea of it, even if you think it was a bad call. Similarly, dropping Foakes as wicket-keeper was (I think) a bad call if your main aim is to win games. But I can respect the thought process. I agree with the strategy, even if I disagree with some of the tactics.

On the other hand, he often says, 'we aren't results-orientated, and our primary aim is to entertain; if that means losing, so be it'. He (and others) then point to the fifth day drama as evidence that this approach is working. I really dislike this approach. We all love dramatic finishes, but the drama has to develop organically. If Stokes is making captaincy decisions to create drama, then the whole thing feels a bit artificial and detracts from the experience. If Stokes declared on day-one because he is 'not results orientated', then it is not a decision I can respect, and I can understand why people view it as arrogant and performative. It also feels dishonest to me, because I can't believe that all these elite sportspeople are not bothered whether they win or lose.

I am not much of a fan of T20 cricket, and a big part of the reason for that is that the drama does feel confected. A lot of T20 games turn on extremely fine margins, but that is because the format of the game is designed to create those fine margins. As such, I can't get too excited about last-ball drama in T20. Stokes wants to 'save test cricket', but if he is doing it by confecting drama, then he is making it more like T20. Lots of people love T20 so maybe that is fine, but it doesn't appeal to me.

I rationalise all of this for myself by believing that Stokes is genuinely trying to win, and the stuff about not being results-orientated is a front to try and remove pressure from the team. But if so I wish he would just be clear about it and say, 'our goal is to win every game, and that will sometimes mean that we take high risk options. I also believe that we play at our best when we are not afraid to lose, so as a team we are developing a culture where we are not afraid of failure'. If he said that I would feel less ambivalent about the whole thing.

Anyway, thanks again for the thread! Looking forward to the rest of the summer.

 

[Molehill]

You’re talking like England are the finished article or that they should be?! They’ve completely transformed the way they bat and maybe as things progress they will tinker with it and find the right tempo at various stages.

Yes I’m sure you’d rather England return to the rabbit on the headlights approach when a quality spinner comes on and takes 4-49 rather than 4-149!

No one said they were the finished article. It's a massive improvement on where they were, doesn't mean they can't get smarter still. If they want to win this series they need to put some serious overs into the legs of Cummins, best way to do that is not give cheap wickets to Lyon.