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

[honestbharani]

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

Dude, you are putting words in my mouth here. I think it was pretty clearly silly of them to have the fields they did and they were very clearly a response to Bazball and so they were obviously spooked by Bazball that they went away from what they would do normally.

Again, I understand if they were 100 ahead after the first innings (even then I wont agree) or something, but to do it when the game was dead even and not even a single ball was bowled shows they were spooked AFAIC. I just dont see how anything I said contradicts this.

 

[Shady Slim]

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

Dude, you are putting words in my mouth here. I think it was pretty clearly silly of them to have the fields they did and they were very clearly a response to Bazball and so they were obviously spooked by Bazball that they went away from what they would do normally.

this is the motte and bailey you're running here. you started with:

Its a good summary IMO. I think Aus were definitely spooked and went away from a lot of their game plans coz of Bazball, esp. with the ball.

and now you've moved to clearly acknowledging that no they didn't go away from their plans, they stuck to their plan it's just you think it's a bad one:

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.

Again, I understand if they were 100 ahead after the first innings (even then I wont agree) or something, but to do it when the game was dead even and not even a single ball was bowled shows they were spooked AFAIC. I just dont see how anything I said contradicts this.

but over and above this, literally the only reason we're doing this dumb "spooked" analysis is because bazball is BIG DlCK ALPHADOGG CRICKET whereas putting the boundary riders out on ball one is WEENIE HUT MEGA LOSER CRICKET, when clearly there's some evidence that perhaps the bleed em out attritional response to this new style that australia started with on day one and continued with through the match worked in their favour! winning is the most important thing

 

[the big bambino]

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

Don't agree. Not in this instance. I'd say calculated and fluid to change as it meets the test it was designed to take on. Take HB's example of waiting to see if the opposition is 0-50 after 5. But surely that is the circumstance the fields are designed to prevent. If you've decided on boundary riders why wait until then? Why not start with the deep field? If you start conventional and the batsmen pogo your opening bowlers it's probably already too late to prevent a cascading run rate. Then if you go defensive that is being spooked.

But if you begin with the deep field that is backing your plans. Most catches to a conventional slip cordon occur when batsmen are also playing conventionally. In bazball they're going hard and likely to make the ball fly, especially with modern bats. In that case your deep fielders can also become catching positions as well as run savers. I think the defensive tactic worked well enough at Edgbaston.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol this is so dumb

It's like telling a boxer that keeps his guard up and blocks a jab that they are "spooked". No, it's just good tactics. But nah you should stand there and get punched in the face to show that you're not "spooked". Lmao thankfully the Aussie team isn't as dumb as some pundits are showing themselves to be

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

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

Exactly, if X team wants to score quickly no matter the conditions then by slowing the run rate you will create a mistake because they will force the issue to live up to their Bazball tag ..That's a legitimate tactic

 

[TheJediBrah]

If it's the last 5 overs of an ODI you're probably going to have 5 men out and it's not because you're "spooked", it's because that is the high-percentage play knowing the opposition will try and go big regardless. This is the exact same thing. You know England are going to play like that, whether the men are out or not. Not having a couple men out would be just dumb cricket.

If I were to lay some criticism on Cummins and the tactics though, it would be that their bowling plans weren't tight enough on that first day. They were too both sides of the wicket. I would have preferred seeing them pick a side and stick to it if the English bats were going to try and clear the field anyway. Like stuck wide of off stump with a off-side sweepers and see what they did, though I guarantee that would have had even more people saying they were being too defensive

 

[GotSpin]

Don't agree. Not in this instance. I'd say calculated and fluid to change as it meets the test it was designed to take on. Take HB's example of waiting to see if the opposition is 0-50 after 5. But surely that is the circumstance the fields are designed to prevent. If you've decided on boundary riders why wait until then? Why not start with the deep field? If you start conventional and the batsmen pogo your opening bowlers it's probably already too late to prevent a cascading run rate. Then if you go defensive that is being spooked.

But if you begin with the deep field that is backing your plans. Most catches to a conventional slip cordon occur when batsmen are also playing conventionally. In bazball they're going hard and likely to make the ball fly, especially with modern bats. In that case your deep fielders can also become catching positions as well as run savers. I think the defensive tactic worked well enough at Edgbaston.

I’d agree with you if they had put all the deep fielders on one side

mindlessly spreading them isn’t a good tactic

 

[the big bambino]

I’d agree with you if they had put all the deep fielders on one side

mindlessly spreading them isn’t a good tactic

Maybe, but it may not stop an attacking batsman charging the bowler and innovating shots to all parts of the field irrespective of the line being bowled.

 

[Burgey]

Crawley's bold Lord's prediction: 'We'll win by, I don't know, 150 runs?'

The opener says that the Lord's pitch will suit England more than the slow, dry surface they encountered at Edgbaston

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol "making the pitch more Australian, like the pitches we always lose 5-0 or 4-0 on, will make us win"

 

[GotSpin]

Maybe, but it may not stop an attacking batsman charging the bowler and innovating shots to all parts of the field irrespective of the line being bowled.

That would be a great tactic then though
Forcing batsmen to invent shots

 

[Spark]

Maybe, but it may not stop an attacking batsman charging the bowler and innovating shots to all parts of the field irrespective of the line being bowled.

In that case you have to take your hat off and say well played, but it's demanding the batsman take a lot more risk than easy singles either side of the wicket would be.

 

[Gnske]

What is actually going on with England players in the media this series?

I feel like I'm being gaslit with every last article telling me what I saw didn't actually happen.

 

[weeman27bob]

What is actually going on with England players in the media this series?

I feel like I'm being gaslit with every last article telling me what I saw didn't actually happen.

I don't think you've seen any articles like that, you're just making it up.

 

[Gnske]

I don't think you've seen any articles like that, you're just making it up.

You, Ollie Robinson and an Auschwitz camp guard walk into a bar.

 

[Shri]

You, Ollie Robinson and an Auschwitz camp guard walk into a bar.

weeman the odd one out?

 

[Qlder]

No doubt Anderson and Broad have excellent longevity, but how about Lyon where this will be his 100th consecutive test, first bowler ever to do so

To add to script, only needs 5 wkts to get to 500

 

[chunksafc]

I've cut and paste this bit from the ESPN article as I can't quite believe what I'm reading...

That's why we took [this loss] better than other losses perhaps, because it was great for the game. I think Sky had record viewing figures, Test Match Special had record listening figures, so this week was a great week for cricket and that's what we're all about.

"We're not about results. We always talk about that. We're not about winning or losing: we're about entertainment. Of course, we're there to win and it helps our brand and what we're trying to do. If we win, we get more traction.

"But I don't think we've lost anything this week other than a game of cricket, which is [the first in] a five-match series. But other than that, we've gained a lot of respect. We gained lots of support and I think it's great for the game.

I've put the bits in bold that really stand out for me, yes I get the argument that the ECB need test cricket to be entertaining, that people playing the game are slightly down, but ffs come on. Top level sport is about winning, always has been and always will be.

Entertaining losers will get you so far, but it won't take hold like a series win will.

If we lose the next 2 tests and the ashes are gone, then any momentum bazball gives is gone imo, fans won't accept "but we played exciting cricket, aren't we different"

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

What is actually going on with England players in the media this series?

I feel like I'm being gaslit with every last article telling me what I saw didn't actually happen.

Early signs of Stockholm syndrome towards the Bazball methodology perhaps ...

 

[Son Of Coco]

What is actually going on with England players in the media this series?

I feel like I'm being gaslit with every last article telling me what I saw didn't actually happen.

They don't need to practice, such was their domination of the last match, so they are all pursuing their journalism careers.

It is a bit weird though. I am not sure we really need a rash of articles all telling us the same thing.