The ashes 2023

[when_you're_smiling]

17 minutes ago, Stinkenzo said:

This is Bazball. You can't support Bazball but then criticise that we don't adapt to the situation

Bazball or not, In any walk of life, if someone sets a trap for you, don’t just walk into it.

 

 

[RowlattsFox]

Odds on everyone looking silly as we smash a 300plus chase????  

 

 

[Lionator]

We’re completely trapped here. Whether they intended to or not, the Aussies have realised that we can’t middle every short ball for 6, and that if they’re patient, they’ll get wickets. The obvious remedy is to be more patient and just leave the short balls, they can’t bowl that way forever. But that contradicts everything that got this team to this position.

 

It’s the first key test of ‘Baz Ball’. If we cannot adapt, we will fail. 

Edited 30 June 2023 by Lionator

[Voll Blau]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is a point that needs to be made more often.

There's a difference between "playing old school" and adapting to situations though. Crawley and Duckett didn't throw the bat at everything early on yesterday and then got their rewards, with both playing some really attractive strokes. We then swung at everything yesterday but didn't adapt when we needed to.

 

The Bazball philosophy may have given players like that confidence they wouldn't have had before, but now it just seems to be hindering them and leading to a one-dimensional form of play that oppositions can work out pretty quickly. It's all well and good taking the pressure off players by letting them play their natural game, but ultimately there's no way they'll shrug this off if we're playing dead rubbers by the fourth Test.

Edited 30 June 2023 by Voll Blau

[purpleronnie]

Poo, I predicted a collapse leaving us 100+ behind...so close.

[ealingfox]

It's not just the failing on the pitch. All the talking they've done and the way they've conducted themselves is now making them look stupid, totally embarrassing behaviour.

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

Odds on everyone looking silly as we smash a 300plus chase????  

 

 

 

This seems to be the pattern generally with Bazball. There's massive peaks and troughs and when you have a terrible innings everyone panics and starts ranting and then the next innings you'll absolutely smash it and win. It's a bit bonkers. 

 

This Australia bowling attack is surely the biggest test of it though isn't it? 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

This and that aren't the only 2 options possible. You know this, so why keep making a dishonest point?

Is there an actual example of a third option that exists beyond the theoretical, then?

 

It's ask very well and good to say that they could attempt to switch between differing styles of play, but there's no way of knowing of that would be any more effective than what is happening now.

 

I keep making the point, dishonest or no, because so many people seem bound and determined to criticise and point out a "better way" with no actual evidence for it being better.

 

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

There's a difference between "playing old school" and adapting to situations though. Crawley and Duckett didn't throw the bat at everything early on yesterday and then got their rewards, with both playing some really attractive strokes. We then swung at everything yesterday but didn't adapt when we needed to.

 

The Bazball philosophy may have given players like that confidence they wouldn't have had before, but now it just seems to be hindering them and leading to a one-dimensional form of play that oppositions can work out pretty quickly. It's all well and good taking the pressure off players by letting them play natural game, but ultimately there's no way they'll shrug this off if we're playing dead rubbers by the fourth Test.

This is fair, but as per above I'm honestly not sure a third way would do any better, for a variety of reasons.

 

And honestly the way everyone loses their collective shit every time there's a collapse just reminds me of the matchday threads in the main forum, and not in a good way.

[ealingfox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is there an actual example of a third option that exists beyond the theoretical, then?

 

It's ask very well and good to say that they could attempt to switch between differing styles of play, but there's no way of knowing of that would be any more effective than what is happening now.

 

I keep making the point, dishonest or no, because so many people seem bound and determined to criticise and point out a "better way" with no actual evidence for it being better.

 

This is fair, but as per above I'm honestly not sure a third way would do any better, for a variety of reasons.

 

And honestly the way everyone loses their collective shit every time there's a collapse just reminds me of the matchday threads in the main forum, and not in a good way.

 

Yes, a very obvious and famous one straight off the bat. England, 2005 Ashes. A potent combination of aggression, innovation and traditional Test cricket tactics which turned over a better Australia team than this.

Edited 30 June 2023 by ealingfox

[Stinkenzo]

17 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Bazball or not, In any walk of life, if someone sets a trap for you, don’t just walk into it.

 

 

Bazball.

[coolhandfox]

Oh, dear.  

 

Bowlers need to get us out of trouble here. 

[trabuch]

Regardless of our batting - I love watching Broad v Warner.

 

[deejdeej]

Broad trying to raise the atmosphere at Lords and all you can see In the background is... 

[coolhandfox]

This is only going one way unless England can get them 3 or 4 down before they get 50+ 

[StanSP]

Australia are just a different beast to play Bazball against. 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yes, a very obvious and famous one straight off the bat. England, 2005 Ashes. A potent combination of aggression, innovation and traditional Test cricket tactics which turned over a better Australia team than this.

... in which we got our arses handed to us in the first Test and needed a freak injury to the opposition leading strike bowler along with a dodgy umpiring decision to win and not lose the second, likely along with the series. It's a famous series, but that's mostly because it was that close and we were only marginally the better team, fortunately (and through fortune) when it mattered.

 

I do see the point, however, and adaptation of style is important. But at the same time, I'm not going to rush to judge and/or abandon a strategy that has been mostly successful so far simply because it hasn't worked for a Test and a half (and that's being generous, the batters were not to blame for the first test loss, the bowlers not cleaning them up when eight down were IMO).

[AjcW]

Still think the biggest issue is the completely unneccesary selection changes rather than the style.

 

- Foakes should be playing, bairstow had no right to be selected for the Ashes as a starter in my opinion

- We should have picked a frontline spinner in this test

- We need a clear 'we need to stop picking the bowling pensioners' succession plan, wood should have been in for Jimmy this test

 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Bazball or not, In any walk of life, if someone sets a trap for you, don’t just walk into it.

 

apparently you do because if you don't, the trap setter is seen to have won ..... i kid you not - that's what has been said about yesterday

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Still think the biggest issue is the completely unneccesary selection changes rather than the style.

 

- Foakes should be playing, bairstow had no right to be selected for the Ashes as a starter in my opinion

- We should have picked a frontline spinner in this test

- We need a clear 'we need to stop picking the bowling pensioners' succession plan, wood should have been in for Jimmy this test

 

apparently wood wasnt considered fit enough to get through two innings

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Still think the biggest issue is the completely unneccesary selection changes rather than the style.

 

- Foakes should be playing, bairstow had no right to be selected for the Ashes as a starter in my opinion

- We should have picked a frontline spinner in this test

- We need a clear 'we need to stop picking the bowling pensioners' succession plan, wood should have been in for Jimmy this test

 

Bairstow is too good a batter to leave out IMO, solution would have been drop Crawley, have Bairstow open and then bring in Foakes at 7.

[purpleronnie]

Aussies still in first gear, depressing.

[AjcW]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Bairstow is too good a batter to leave out IMO, solution would have been drop Crawley, have Bairstow open and then bring in Foakes at 7.

There's many permiatations as to how we could get Foakes in, the simple fact is he should be in and should be WK.

 

JB will be judged at the end of the series on what you have said though, 1 good innings out of 3 so far isn't a bad start, be interesting to see how he carries on.

For me he has been out of action for far too long in test cricket to be thrown into an Ashes series from the off (and with Dual responsibility.)

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, AjcW said:

There's many permiatations as to how we could get Foakes in, the simple fact is he should be in and should be WK.

 

JB will be judged at the end of the series on what you have said though, 1 good innings out of 3 so far isn't a bad start, be interesting to see how he carries on.

For me he has been out of action for far too long in test cricket to be thrown into an Ashes series from the off (and with Dual responsibility.)

This!

 

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Bairstow is too good a batter to leave out IMO, solution would have been drop Crawley, have Bairstow open and then bring in Foakes at 7.

If Stokes had decent knees we would be fine, he could bowl more. 

 

You could have him. two other bowlers and a spinner, plus the extra batsman. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, AjcW said:

There's many permiatations as to how we could get Foakes in, the simple fact is he should be in and should be WK.

 

JB will be judged at the end of the series on what you have said though, 1 good innings out of 3 so far isn't a bad start, be interesting to see how he carries on.

For me he has been out of action for far too long in test cricket to be thrown into an Ashes series from the off (and with Dual responsibility.)

 

6 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

This!

 

If Stokes had decent knees we would be fine, he could bowl more. 

 

You could have him. two other bowlers and a spinner, plus the extra batsman. 

Fair points both.

[mancunianfox]

I know it's easy enough to criticise bazball and losing easy wickets but at least most of the batsmen have given it a go. England's bowling, often in favourable conditions, in both of these tests has been utterly dreadful. Based on the lack of success pre-Stokes and the struggles so far in 2023 maybe bazball was just masking talent problems that the tactic alone wouldn't fix?