Any cricket lovers on here?
Comments
-
Phew, when cricket is like that it's right up there with the very best for entertainment.0
-
What a series. Yes, we will all be disappointed as England should really have won it, but the cricket across all five Tests has had everything.
When Test cricket is like this, I really don't understand why anyone would prefer T20, it just doesn't compare in anyway.
Also fully vindicates England's approach, at their best I think they have been far superior to Australia, just a shame that selections and sloppiness cost them in the first two tests.0 -
It's nice for Broad and Bairstow to get Carey out to finish it off.0
-
But are the selections and sloppiness an inherent part of Bazball because without it you don’t have a no blame culture?MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:What a series. Yes, we will all be disappointed as England should really have won it, but the cricket across all five Tests has had everything.
When Test cricket is like this, I really don't understand why anyone would prefer T20, it just doesn't compare in anyway.
Also fully vindicates England's approach, at their best I think they have been far superior to Australia, just a shame that selections and sloppiness cost them in the first two tests.
I see no other reason not to do the blindingly obvious and drop Bairstow and Anderson.0 -
But are the selections and sloppiness an inherent part of Bazball because without it you don’t have a no blame culture?
I'd say yes to a degree. I think we all agreed on here that Bairstow should have been dropped and his mistakes contributed to defeat in the first two tests.
I think the 'sloppiness' I mentioned occurred for a number of reasons; mistakes by players wrongly selected, poor decision making (particulary when batting), and just general poor play (Root's inability to hold a catch in the previous test being one example).
I think the first two are probably an inherent consequence of Bazball, the third is purely down to individual players.
I would argue though that England's best in this series was a level above Australia's best. When the approach works we have the players to take the game away from opponents in a session. Australia were steady and capitalised on England's errors but it never felt like they were a better side than England, to me at least.0 -
Yeah who needs sandpaper when you have the umpire in your pocket, eh? 😄bobmcstuff said:
While Woakes is still moving it I would probably not change it. Probably. This ball seems to be newer than 80 overs anyway, it looked a lot newer than the one they swapped it for.Pross said:Big decision on the new ball now
Cummins gone!! Mo!Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Most pundits put Root's catching problems down to Bairstow's failings, for instance he should not have been going for anything on the keeper's side. The factthat he had to meant his focus was not purely to him and to one side.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:But are the selections and sloppiness an inherent part of Bazball because without it you don’t have a no blame culture?
I'd say yes to a degree. I think we all agreed on here that Bairstow should have been dropped and his mistakes contributed to defeat in the first two tests.
I think the 'sloppiness' I mentioned occurred for a number of reasons; mistakes by players wrongly selected, poor decision making (particulary when batting), and just general poor play (Root's inability to hold a catch in the previous test being one example).
I think the first two are probably an inherent consequence of Bazball, the third is purely down to individual players.
I would argue though that England's best in this series was a level above Australia's best. When the approach works we have the players to take the game away from opponents in a session. Australia were steady and capitalised on England's errors but it never felt like they were a better side than England, to me at least.
Bazball is about playing the odds and if you keep firing away then each batsman will hit a match winning innings in the course of the series. If you wanted to stand on the opponents throat when he is down then you would pick the likes of Foakes to guarantee 100 runs from the tail.
When you are 250 ahead in the 3rd innings with three wickets down and it is the start of day 3 then you could set out to bat all day and be 600 ahead and still have two days to go. Instead we play like we have a train to catch and trow away winning positions
0 -
I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.0
-
Have to agree, but he's also part of the reason we lost the first 2. It showed that he wasn't truly match fit at the beginning of the series. The few CC games he played were nowhere near the level needed but was all that was available.Pross said:I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.
0 -
no reason why he could not have been stood down until he was match fitTashman said:
Have to agree, but he's also part of the reason we lost the first 2. It showed that he wasn't truly match fit at the beginning of the series. The few CC games he played were nowhere near the level needed but was all that was available.Pross said:I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.
1 -
But sticking with cymbal hands was the ultimate expression of Bazball loyalty and they decided that sending a powerful message was more important than winning the Ashes.Pross said:I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.
I find it incredibly frustrating as I believe there is plenty of scope for Bazball to evolve, I console myself with the thought that pretty much the same player won 1 in 17 tests pre-Baz.0 -
The idea that Bazball is all about providing entertainment and not worrying about the result was surely proved a lie when they bowled 50 overs of bouncers at Lords.0
-
I don't disagree, I would rather have had a specialist keeper and possibly Bairstow as a batsman if his form justifies it. I was really just observing that for the stick he was getting he has improved and did well in the final Test with the ball swinging all over the shop after passing the bat at times.surrey_commuter said:
But sticking with cymbal hands was the ultimate expression of Bazball loyalty and they decided that sending a powerful message was more important than winning the Ashes.Pross said:I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.
I find it incredibly frustrating as I believe there is plenty of scope for Bazball to evolve, I console myself with the thought that pretty much the same player won 1 in 17 tests pre-Baz.0 -
I actually thnk Stokes is so thick that when he bowls 10 overs of bouncers at tailenders that he see it as a vindication when halfway through the 11th over he gets a wicket.kingstongraham said:The idea that Bazball is all about providing entertainment and not worrying about the result was surely proved a lie when they bowled 50 overs of bouncers at Lords.
Bairstow costs you 2 tests so in the 4th you let him bat for 80 mins to prove yourself right.
Jimmy gets a wicket per test and yet you still give him the new ball in the 5th and will keep going until he is no longer available0 -
I think that is one selection that hasn't had the criticism it deserves, possibly as there isn't such an obvious alternative as there was for Bairstow. The strange thing is that his selection is quite anti-Bazball as he is great at constraining batsmen but not at getting them out anymore.surrey_commuter said:
I actually thnk Stokes is so thick that when he bowls 10 overs of bouncers at tailenders that he see it as a vindication when halfway through the 11th over he gets a wicket.kingstongraham said:The idea that Bazball is all about providing entertainment and not worrying about the result was surely proved a lie when they bowled 50 overs of bouncers at Lords.
Bairstow costs you 2 tests so in the 4th you let him bat for 80 mins to prove yourself right.
Jimmy gets a wicket per test and yet you still give him the new ball in the 5th and will keep going until he is no longer available0 -
I think the criticism of Anderson is very harsh. He's been England's best bowler in most series over the past few years. I don't think he bowled that well at the Oval, but he could easily have got a lot more wickets over the series.0
-
maybe, but he is 41 and got less wickets than Root so how long do you give him to regain his wicket taking ways?TheBigBean said:I think the criticism of Anderson is very harsh. He's been England's best bowler in most series over the past few years. I don't think he bowled that well at the Oval, but he could easily have got a lot more wickets over the series.
0 -
I think Woakes was a very obvious replacement in the early tests and I thought Tongue was very unlucky to miss out or recall Robinson (he may have been quietly dropped for being a bit too racist)Pross said:
I think that is one selection that hasn't had the criticism it deserves, possibly as there isn't such an obvious alternative as there was for Bairstow. The strange thing is that his selection is quite anti-Bazball as he is great at constraining batsmen but not at getting them out anymore.surrey_commuter said:
I actually thnk Stokes is so thick that when he bowls 10 overs of bouncers at tailenders that he see it as a vindication when halfway through the 11th over he gets a wicket.kingstongraham said:The idea that Bazball is all about providing entertainment and not worrying about the result was surely proved a lie when they bowled 50 overs of bouncers at Lords.
Bairstow costs you 2 tests so in the 4th you let him bat for 80 mins to prove yourself right.
Jimmy gets a wicket per test and yet you still give him the new ball in the 5th and will keep going until he is no longer available0 -
Another couple of series. If he's happy to go bowl on flat Indian pitches, then let him.surrey_commuter said:
maybe, but he is 41 and got less wickets than Root so how long do you give him to regain his wicket taking ways?TheBigBean said:I think the criticism of Anderson is very harsh. He's been England's best bowler in most series over the past few years. I don't think he bowled that well at the Oval, but he could easily have got a lot more wickets over the series.
I also think with Broad's retirement, it makes it quite a bit easier to keep him in the side. At the moment, England have two quicks that are always broken in Archer and Wood, so it is only really Woakes that looks like he should be in the team. But then he never seems to do well on tour.
Choosing a wicketkeeper that can catch is likely to be helpful though.
0 -
I think the criticism is mainly that he doesn't make the batsmen play him and they've faced him so much now that they know to just leave those teasing deliveries. With all that experience you would think he could change tactics a bit and force the batsmen to play at more of his deliveries. I wonder if he is now considering retiring or if he'll be one of those that gets retired by others. That said, it maybe just the Aussies had a plan on how to deal with him and he could go to India and take a load of wickets.TheBigBean said:I think the criticism of Anderson is very harsh. He's been England's best bowler in most series over the past few years. I don't think he bowled that well at the Oval, but he could easily have got a lot more wickets over the series.
0 -
I expect Jimmy to quietly retire on a damp evening in late September.TheBigBean said:
Another couple of series. If he's happy to go bowl on flat Indian pitches, then let him.surrey_commuter said:
maybe, but he is 41 and got less wickets than Root so how long do you give him to regain his wicket taking ways?TheBigBean said:I think the criticism of Anderson is very harsh. He's been England's best bowler in most series over the past few years. I don't think he bowled that well at the Oval, but he could easily have got a lot more wickets over the series.
I also think with Broad's retirement, it makes it quite a bit easier to keep him in the side. At the moment, England have two quicks that are always broken in Archer and Wood, so it is only really Woakes that looks like he should be in the team. But then he never seems to do well on tour.
Choosing a wicketkeeper that can catch is likely to be helpful though.
I can’t see Archer playing red ball cricket again.
Woakes should be kept for home series.
We will have a very inexperienced attack for India but English cricket has never got the hang of blooding rookies0 -
I agree - he was decent in the last two tests. A bit chicken and egg really as he seems to have played himself into form, I would suggest the Ashes isn't the right place to be doing that!Pross said:I thought Bairstow improved quite a bit with both bat and gloves in the last two tests. That we won one and would probably have one the other but for rain probably isn't a coincidence.
My analogy - it's like the Tour where some riders come in hot and some come in a bit undercooked, England came in a bit undercooked and Australia came in a bit hot. I thought the Ireland test wasn't good enough of a warmup for England, but asking the Aussies to play the WTC final first probably was a lot, especially for the fast bowlers (Cummins played all 6 certainly).0 -
Bairstow was decent by the end of the series, and bats in the right way for this team. I think he pretty much single handedly cost us the first 2 tests though. Obviously other people made mistakes too but the Carey/Bairstow comparison is night and day from those 2 tests and they were both quite close games so it would have only taken a few more catches. Bairstow was also pretty decent during his previous stint as keeper by the end.TheBigBean said:
Choosing a wicketkeeper that can catch is likely to be helpful though.
I liked the side with both Foakes and Bairstow though.
0 -
Problem if you go for Bairstow purely as a batsman is who do you drop?0
-
If you assume he refuses to bat anywhere other than lower order then it has to be Brook but not everyone will think that is a good idea.Pross said:Problem if you go for Bairstow purely as a batsman is who do you drop?
0 -
I think Bairstow wouldn't be getting so much love if Root hadn't taken that catch.0
-
Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit0
-
So many gimmicks - we have had an on-field interview with a fielder and a camera on the keeper's head so far.Tashman said:Now all that Test nonsense is out of the way, we can at least start to focus on the Nottingham Fizzy Prawn Snacks vs Southampton Bear Munchies. Proper Creeekit
Plus some gormless explanations of the powerplay which probably don't help a new viewer at all - best just ignored I think.0 -
I think what cricket really needed was something to make it more confusing.0
-
Quite. Every replay of the catch reminded me of the wicketkeeping problem.kingstongraham said:I think Bairstow wouldn't be getting so much love if Root hadn't taken that catch.
0
