*Official* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

[Shady Slim]

They had boundary riders from ball one.

yeah that's my point, like that it to me was clear the field placings etc were part of the conceived plan, and not some hamfisted on the run response after they were "spooked" or whatever by bazball magic

 

[Spark]

yeah that's my point, like that it to me was clear the field placings etc were part of the conceived plan, and not some hamfisted on the run response after they were "spooked" or whatever by bazball magic

You can be "spooked" by something prematurely though.

 

[Shady Slim]

You can be "spooked" by something prematurely though.

two things; the first is hb specifically said they "were spooked and went away from their game plans"; the second is that planning for something which works and trying to find a new way to combat it is hardly "spooking" but thats just my $20

 

[Shri]

Honestly I know you all hate me for being English and supporting England

Hate is a strong word and most of us just don't care enough to do it. But you are annoying sometimes

 

[Spark]

two things; the first is hb specifically said they "were spooked and went away from their game plans"; the second is that planning for something which works and trying to find a new way to combat it is hardly "spooking" but thats just my $20

I mean we definitely did go away from our usual game plan, which is not to have five boundary riders with the new ball Day 1.

 

[honestbharani]

honestly based on that article burgey posted earlier from the sydney morning herald i don't particularly think this was the case. there was some cod ordinary bowling to be sure but poor execution and going away from your plans are different things.

we used to play against this big heavy bloke who without fail would make at least thirty or so at least, he just had an excellent eye and was better at hitting out than our bowlers were at getting him. we decided to one day spread the field as soon as he came in to bat. still made the thirty odd, but had to do it mostly with his legs. he compiled it in twice as long and he was absolutely knackered with the ball and in the field too. defensive strategy, and it seems like to a certain degree (based on that article) that cummins and co's defensive strategies weren't because they had a different plan initially and got spooked, but rather because that was the play they drawn up

Mate, when you set an 7-2 field with third man and deep cover, that is defensive field setting. When you start with 3 men on the boundary on both sides, that is just plain spooked. Australia were pretty bad this test but England were just worse, esp. right at the end, and that proved decisive IMO.

And apart from the dropped catches etc., an underrated element is that mini session where England lost like 0/2 or something in 4 or 5 overs. It was pretty unlucky for them to bat on what were a quantum count tougher conditions to bat on than it was at any other point of the test.

EDIT - And also obviously the difference between the two sides was also Khawaja who ensured there was always a set batter controlling things when Australia batted. And I feel Carey's little knock in the first innings deserves a lot of credit too. Root was almost as immense as Khawaja but he made his mistake a bit earlier than Khawaja did and I think it ended up being the difference between the sides.

 

[Gob]

Hate is a strong word and most of us just don't care enough to do it. But you are annoying sometimes

Sometimes?

 

[Shady Slim]

Mate, when you set an 7-2 field with third man and deep cover, that is defensive field setting. When you start with 3 men on the boundary on both sides, that is just plain spooked. Australia were pretty bad this test but England were just worse, esp. right at the end, and that proved decisive IMO.

And apart from the dropped catches etc., an underrated element is that mini session where England lost like 0/2 or something in 4 or 5 overs. It was pretty unlucky for them to bat on what were a quantum count tougher conditions to bat on than it was at any other point of the test.

EDIT - And also obviously the difference between the two sides was also Khawaja who ensured there was always a set batter controlling things when Australia batted. And I feel Carey's little knock in the first innings deserves a lot of credit too. Root was almost as immense as Khawaja but he made his mistake a bit earlier than Khawaja did and I think it ended up being the difference between the sides.

you're begging the question here which is that setting defensive fields as a gameplan to neutralise bazball, and that you're "spooked" are one and the same, and that's not necessarily true.

the cumster says in interviews (paraphrasing) they felt it was workable and tactical to bleed them out and stop them from running away and getting 500 days as they took in pakistan. if setting a defensive field early and playing attritional cricket here is the paper-covers-rock to bazball's rock-crushes-scissors then i don't see why that needs to have negative connontations thrown around about it, when it is clearly a tactical choice?

 

[Burgey]

And apart from the dropped catches etc., an underrated element is that mini session where England lost like 0/2 or something in 4 or 5 overs. It was pretty unlucky for them to bat on what were a quantum count tougher conditions to bat on than it was at any other point of the test.

That session probably gives a bit of an insight into how they’ll go if it’s swinging or seaming around

 

[honestbharani]

you're begging the question here which is that setting defensive fields as a gameplan to neutralise bazball, and that you're "spooked" are one and the same, and that's not necessarily true.

the cumster says in interviews (paraphrasing) they felt it was workable and tactical to bleed them out and stop them from running away and getting 500 days as they took in pakistan. if setting a defensive field early and playing attritional cricket here is the paper-covers-rock to bazball's rock-crushes-scissors then i don't see why that needs to have negative connontations thrown around about it, when it is clearly a tactical choice?

I think you are not understanding what defensive fields are. Having boundary riders on both sides of the wicket at the start of the game is not defensive, mate.

 

[honestbharani]

That session probably gives a bit of an insight into how they’ll go if it’s swinging or seaming around

To be fair to them, its one thing to see the whole game start that way in which case I expect any international batsman to at least attempt to adjust or find a way. Quite another when its a road all the time except for 15 mins where the visibility is also pretty poor.

 

[Burgey]

Watching some 94/95 highlights on Kayo. Jeez that England side was old, but Gooch was such a freak the way he seemed to get better with age.

 

[Shady Slim]

I think you are not understanding what defensive fields are. Having boundary riders on both sides of the wicket at the start of the game is not defensive, mate.

i just... it's the other side of the coin right? if bazball is built around a change of mindset and allowing certain technically limited but aggressive players to get to back themselves, and trust their natural instinct rather than trying to "put on a veneer" and defend where they'd rather attack, if working towards putting a clog on their big boundary opportunities early in the game works to bleed them out and prevent them from scoring at the rates they would like to, frustrate them, and force them to play false shots or go for one too many big shots and get out, hey, maybe it's not as entertaining to you as six guys around the bat, but maybe it's a counter strategy in the same way paper covers rock or fire type is super effective on grass type

 

[GotSpin]

Australia’s fielding positions were terrible for the most part. Can’t be defended as good decisions

 

[honestbharani]

i just... it's the other side of the coin right? if bazball is built around a change of mindset and allowing certain technically limited but aggressive players to get to back themselves, and trust their natural instinct rather than trying to "put on a veneer" and defend where they'd rather attack, if working towards putting a clog on their big boundary opportunities early in the game works to bleed them out and prevent them from scoring at the rates they would like to, frustrate them, and force them to play false shots or go for one too many big shots and get out, hey, maybe it's not as entertaining to you as six guys around the bat, but maybe it's a counter strategy in the same way paper covers rock or fire type is super effective on grass type

You are not getting it. I understand that field after they race to 50/0 in 5 overs or whatever. That is defensive as a response. Or if they see them get 25 in 3 overs and the ball is not doing a bit and then immediately switch to 1 slip, a gully and a short extra cover, a third man and a deep cover and bowl 4th to 6th stump lines. Starting with 4 boundary riders, 2 on each side for the very first ****ing ball of the innings is indeed being spooked.

 

[Shady Slim]

You are not getting it. I understand that field after they race to 50/0 in 5 overs or whatever. That is defensive as a response. Or if they see them get 25 in 3 overs and the ball is not doing a bit and then immediately switch to 1 slip, a gully and a short extra cover, a third man and a deep cover and bowl 4th to 6th stump lines. Starting with 4 boundary riders, 2 on each side for the very first ****ing ball of the innings is indeed being spooked.

maybe they talked about this and figured, actuarially, given it was a likely pancake on a sunny day, going conservative and wanting to prevent the boundaries from the very first ball was more than worth the potential tradeoff? i think at the root of the concern here is that it just vibes as wrong to start with such a conservative approach, but maybe just maybe there was a method behind the perceived madness? like you are sort of one step away from just repeating kevin pietersen intent talking points on this one

 

[the big bambino]

Clearly the fields were a tactical response to bazball. Australia don’t set them for any other opposition.

When you are trying a new field setting to counter a new batting tactic you will apply a lot of theory. It may turn out you put too many fielders out and then you adjust your tactics as they are tested in real game situations.

Australia wasn’t spooked but responding to a new batting strategy and in doing putting pressure back on to it by exploiting the desire to score as quickly as possible.

 

[honestbharani]

maybe they talked about this and figured, actuarially, given it was a likely pancake on a sunny day, going conservative and wanting to prevent the boundaries from the very first ball was more than worth the potential tradeoff? i think at the root of the concern here is that it just vibes as wrong to start with such a conservative approach, but maybe just maybe there was a method behind the perceived madness? like you are sort of one step away from just repeating kevin pietersen intent talking points on this one

Look, I just dont think its good captaincy to not give your bowlers at least a chance to take early wickets, and even worse captaincy if you are setting a field for bad balls on both sides of the wicket before even a run has been scored. If it was a strategy, it was still bad strategy. They won coz the opponent made even more mistakes, but if they think its some genius strategy I feel it may well backfire even the next game.

 

[GotSpin]

Clearly the fields were a tactical response to bazball. Australia don’t set them for any other opposition.

When you are trying a new field setting to counter a new batting tactic you will apply a lot of theory. It may turn out you put too many fielders out and then you adjust your tactics as they are tested in real game situations.

Australia wasn’t spooked but responding to a new batting strategy and in doing putting pressure back on to it by exploiting the desire to score as quickly as possible.

Spreading the field on both sides for the whole match is being spooked

 

[Shady Slim]

Look, I just dont think its good captaincy to not give your bowlers at least a chance to take early wickets, and even worse captaincy if you are setting a field for bad balls on both sides of the wicket before even a run has been scored. If it was a strategy, it was still bad strategy. They won coz the opponent made even more mistakes, but if they think its some genius strategy I feel it may well backfire even the next game.

implicitly, here you have conceded that your initial point that australia were spooked and went away from their gameplans is wrong and really your bigger gripe is perhaps that you don't like the plan that which they implemented, and think it was a bad strategy - and that is fine and your opinion! as bambino says, you might well think and it might well be that the plan was actually unwise, but it was pretty clear it was a concerted strategy, formulated in the war room to counter the type of cricket that had previously worked for england across various conditions and various teams