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

[silentstriker]

It's crazy that I always hear 'Oh yaaaar....' even when India are not playing. They are clearly saying 'oh ya...' but I have to do a double take every time.

 

[grecian]

I agree with Uppercut that people just forget all the ranting and raving about how bad the batting is before a transformative innings that there was during all of this Bazball era. What I think was frustrating about that period today was how the players didn't seem overtly comfortable with what they're doing or have a great mind-set for it. So we weren't even scoring runs from it.

We watch IPL, and England on good pitches in ODI's and we see the point, the way they go after certain bowlers with certain shots that is natural to the batsman's game. Here Duckett can't hook the ball, so don't ****ing do it. Brook was trying to slog the ball to the on-side and ended up looking like a tail-ender, thankfully he calmed down and we may see a vital innings in the morning, it's already ok in terms of runs.

Look the ODI set-up has worked bloody hard at becoming number 1 in the World with detailed plans, if we want to do the same with Tests we have to work out are plans in the same way. If Pope and Duckett had just kept ducking the ball, then the Oz bowlers would have had to go back to how they were bowling, and in the end as showed at the end, you can't carry on doing that in hot and humid conditions.

Maybe one or two less days on the golf course and more practicing in the nets with an heavy ball bowled at their heads.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with Uppercut that people just forget all the ranting and raving about how bad the batting is before a transformative innings that there was during all of this Bazball era. What I think was frustrating about that period today was how the players didn't seem overtly comfortable with what they're doing or have a great mind-set for it. So we weren't even scoring runs from it.

We watch IPL, and England on good pitches in ODI's and we see the point, the way they go after certain bowlers with certain shots that is natural to the batsman's game. Here Duckett can't hook the ball, so don't ****ing do it. Brook was trying to slog the ball to the on-side and ended up looking like a tail-ender, thankfully he calmed down and we may see a vital innings in the morning, it's already ok in terms of runs.

Look the ODI set-up has worked bloody hard at becoming number 1 in the World with detailed plans, if we want to do the same with Tests we have to work out are plans in the same way. If Pope and Duckett had just kept ducking the ball, then the Oz bowlers would have had to go back to how they were bowling, and in the end as showed at the end, you can't carry on doing that in hot and humid conditions.

Maybe one or two less days on the golf course and more practicing in the nets with an heavy ball bowled at their heads.

But............ the vibes maaaaaaan.

 

[Cricket CoachDB]

I agree with Uppercut that people just forget all the ranting and raving about how bad the batting is before a transformative innings that there was during all of this Bazball era. What I think was frustrating about that period today was how the players didn't seem overtly comfortable with what they're doing or have a great mind-set for it. So we weren't even scoring runs from it.

We watch IPL, and England on good pitches in ODI's and we see the point, the way they go after certain bowlers with certain shots that is natural to the batsman's game. Here Duckett can't hook the ball, so don't ****ing do it. Brook was trying to slog the ball to the on-side and ended up looking like a tail-ender, thankfully he calmed down and we may see a vital innings in the morning, it's already ok in terms of runs.

Look the ODI set-up has worked bloody hard at becoming number 1 in the World with detailed plans, if we want to do the same with Tests we have to work out are plans in the same way. If Pope and Duckett had just kept ducking the ball, then the Oz bowlers would have had to go back to how they were bowling, and in the end as showed at the end, you can't carry on doing that in hot and humid conditions.

Maybe one or two less days on the golf course and more practicing in the nets with an heavy ball bowled at their heads.

Ah but Duckett said just now that if they had ducked then the Aussies would have won! 2nd arrogant interview of the evening. Pig-headedly inflexible.

 

[loterry1994]

I agree with Uppercut that people just forget all the ranting and raving about how bad the batting is before a transformative innings that there was during all of this Bazball era. What I think was frustrating about that period today was how the players didn't seem overtly comfortable with what they're doing or have a great mind-set for it. So we weren't even scoring runs from it.

We watch IPL, and England on good pitches in ODI's and we see the point, the way they go after certain bowlers with certain shots that is natural to the batsman's game. Here Duckett can't hook the ball, so don't ****ing do it. Brook was trying to slog the ball to the on-side and ended up looking like a tail-ender, thankfully he calmed down and we may see a vital innings in the morning, it's already ok in terms of runs.

Look the ODI set-up has worked bloody hard at becoming number 1 in the World with detailed plans, if we want to do the same with Tests we have to work out are plans in the same way. If Pope and Duckett had just kept ducking the ball, then the Oz bowlers would have had to go back to how they were bowling, and in the end as showed at the end, you can't carry on doing that in hot and humid conditions.

Maybe one or two less days on the golf course and more practicing in the nets with an heavy ball bowled at their heads.

Both teams kind of lost it a bit with how they batted. Yes they both got to good scores but could have been in better positions. Firstly like you said with England if they played that hour of short stuff more smarter they could still be like 2 down at stumps with No Lyon bowling the rest the test now they might not get a lead even.

For Aus they batted a bit reckless the end of yesterday and couldn’t get to like 450-500 today which would have helped them a lot

 

[Uppercut]

I didn’t have a problem with Brook giving himself room to hit down the ground. The risk-reward is pretty good when you know the short ball is coming. He might play and miss a few but there aren’t too many ways to get out.

Green came back with a length ball that he played and missed, and it was probably one too many. But that’s at least forcing the bowler to adjust.

Trying to milk singles kinda plays into Australia’s hands. Repeatedly executing a difficult and physically dangerous shot for one run is what they want. Trying to clear the men in the deep is also insane. I like just getting out of the way a lot and seeing if they can bowl short for as long as you can duck. But if England hate that idea then I prefer trying to punish the lack of mid-on and mid-off to the other options.

 

[kevinw]

The Aussie bumpers weren't dangerous. It wasn't Michael Holding fizzing past your nose. It was just 85-90mph into the chest, the stuff batters deal with all the time. If the field is set back, you play it off your hip/chest for a single if you can, duck if it's higher. The risk/reward wasn't worth it. Just play out ten overs at 2-3rpo whilst they tire in the absence of Lyon to give them a rest.

 

[TimAngas]

Thank god for Todd Murphy. If Lyon was out for multiple tests and we hadn't seen Murphy... I would be shitting my pants right now.

 

[grecian]

I didn’t have a problem with Brook giving himself room to hit down the ground. The risk-reward is pretty good when you know the short ball is coming. He might play and miss a few but there aren’t too many ways to get out.

Green came back with a length ball that he played and missed, and it was probably one too many. But that’s at least forcing the bowler to adjust.

Trying to milk singles kinda plays into Australia’s hands. Repeatedly executing a difficult and physically dangerous shot for one run is what they want. Trying to clear the men in the deep is also insane. I like just getting out of the way a lot and seeing if they can bowl short for as long as you can duck. But if England hate that idea then I prefer trying to punish the lack of mid-on and mid-off to the other options.

Yeah you maybe right with that, but as it came admidst a whole lot of **** other options and he looked so awful doing it, it wasn't fun.

but as you say, we lost a Test to Wagner-ball, they need to just leave it, **** if they've "won" that battle. It isn't sustainable it knackers their bowlers, just lay-off the kool-aid on this one thing.

 

[greg]

I think there was an element in all this of England not wanting to concede that the opposition had a ready made option to (temporarily at least) put a stop to the flow of runs and the speed England are trying to score them.

However what what missing was recognising quite how unsubtle the Aus tactic was.

When England use this bowling tactic they generally try to make it like “body line” to the extent possible within the rules. The original body line of course was designed around trapping the batsmen in a choice between defensive play risking a close ring of leg side fielders or attacking play flirting with 2 or 3 fielders in the deep. It targeted the chest/neck area because that was the hardest to take evasive action from.

So England employ both close fielders and deep fielders, just limited of course by the “two behind square on the leg side rule”. And bowl at the body trying to force the batsman to play.

Australia didn’t do that. They just had men in the deep on the boundary. And bowled high. Evasive action was eminently possible at no risk. And “defensive“ play similarly carried little risk and probably guaranteed runs. Hooking into the deep with 3-4 men out was brainless and far too risky for the reward. Duck the high ones and drop the others into the leg side for runs and Aus would have had to bring 1 or 2 men in. And then taking on the men on the boundary, whilst still risky, would have been a far more even contest. As it was England we’re taking enormous risks and mostly only had singles to show for it.

 

[greg]

As pointed out above, at least Brook, whilst looking like a slogger, seemed to be mostly trying to hit the ball where there were no/fewer fielders. Ie. Offside and straight.

(Isn’t that was Fingleton did in 1932/3?)

 

[Woodster]

I’m really conflicted by England’s ‘Bazball’ approach, while I was frothing at the mouth with some of the strokeplay from Crawley and Duckett, and then Pope while they were getting us into what looked like a commanding position with their super-positive style, I was equally bamboozled and annoyed at the brainless period against the short ball.

It looks a simple thing to rectify as Stokes showed when he came out and played with calm and let the bouncers go and the game returned to something like normal Test cricket. Or are we trying to avoid that?

Like I’m sure most people recognise, surely there are moments within a Test match where England should be able to modify their approach and play the situations better. Or are we expecting too much? Isn’t the whole point of this England side that we attack when few other countries would and look to exert pressure back on the opposition in the most unlikely scenarios?! That’s what has brought us some very unlikely wins in recent times. I just don’t know but I am genuinely excited to see how it all pans out.

 

[Yeoman]

As pointed out above, at least Brook, whilst looking like a slogger, seemed to be mostly trying to hit the ball where there were no/fewer fielders. Ie. Offside and straight.

(Isn’t that was Fingleton did in 1932/3?)

Strangely enough I also thought of 1932/33 when at Lord’s today however it was Bradman who I recall reading stepped away to leg and hit to the offside as Brook did today.
On the frequently discussed point of how this fits into ‘Bazball’ it struck me that, while the first two partnerships scored quickly, they did so without taking undue risk, by playing normal cricket shots with perhaps simply a more positive attitude than is usual. It struck me that this attitude was however their undoing when Australia pitched short. It would have been better to tap the ball down for singles or even just sway out of the way and tire the Lyon-less attack.

 

[slowfinger]

I still think this is the early days of Bazball, where the 'positive mindset' just hasn't quite matured into a full understanding of the game. I think their understanding of being positive and knowing how and when to take risks, etc, will get better as long as they don't keep making the same mistakes.

Stokes batting today being an example of that

 

[slowfinger]

But if I see Pope give it away in the 40's again I will go ****ing ballistic I swear

 

[Bahnz]

I’m 100% fine with taking on the shortball every ball if the batsmen are confident with the shot. England tried the same tactic against Blundell and Mitchell last summer and it usually just resulted in a flood of runs for 5 or 10 overs until the bowlers changed tack. I guess England should’ve adjusted their tactics after Root’s wicket given he’s the player you’d back to execute that strategy the best, but overall I think it’s more a case of poor execution rather than poor approach.

 

[Bahnz]

Another benefit about Bazball for the bazballers is that it almost completely eliminates the 2nd new ball as a significant factor in a team’s bowling plans. Normally if Australia ran up 400 and had a team 4 down after 60 overs, they’d be looking to utilise the new ball to capitalise in the morning and achieve a 100ish first innings lead. Here England will be close to 400 by the time it’s taken (if they’re still batting of course)

 

[Bahnz]

Bairstow wasn't hooking the ball with 3 men out on the boundary waiting for the miscue ball after ball. He played himself in and by and large played proper cricket shots.

Yeah this is exactly what happened at the Trent Bridge last year. Henry tried this exact tactic, Bairstow went after it every ball, and he killed a close contest stone dead in about 10 overs.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

But if I see Pope give it away in the 40's again I will go ****ing ballistic I swear

It's weird he struggles so much in Tests when in domestics he's often a dodgy starter but his whole thing is he goes huge when set.

 

[grecian]

Yeah this is exactly what happened at the Trent Bridge last year. Henry tried this exact tactic, Bairstow went after it every ball, and he killed a close contest stone dead in about 10 overs.

the point we're getting at is if you are great at the shot go for it, but Duckett for one looked hopeless at it.