The ashes 2023

[kenny]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

A million percent. They would do it to win, and there'd have been more use doing it to Stokes than Bairstow. 

I reckon they had studied each player in detail and had set a plan for bairstow based upon his typical behaviour at the end an over. They then went for a short ball to give Carey the best chance of the stumping.

 

I suspect it was a calculated plan from before the test that probably wouldn't work on another player.

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

 

 

 

This seems a bit pathetic 

Seem to get fined each time though.

 

What can be done to stop it ?

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Lionator said:

All this debate is covering up the cracks that England have been mostly rubbish this series. Utterly reckless at times and if it wasn't for individual brilliance by Root and Stokes in the first two games, they'd have been hammered both times. We can still win this series 3-2 but it's going to take a lot of brave selection decisions which I don't think Stokes and McCullum will make as well as a lot more nuance with shot selection. Go hard against bad balls, but only hit it when it's there to be hit. 

...and if it wasn't for the bowlers not seeing off the eighth wicket pair when they really should in the first test and one half hour of insanity in the first innings in the second, England could be 2-0 up.

 

I think the idea that the margin between the performance of the two teams is big and England are somehow drawing themselves closer through superb individual performances is erroneous. The numbers will say in black and white that both matches were pretty close, anyway.

 

Get Foakes in ASAP, but I'm not having the clamour for wholesale changes in personnel and style - they're not warranted and it's incredibly reactionary.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

8 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Seem to get fined each time though.

 

What can be done to stop it ?

Deduct sides runs, or just lower the over rate in the day and get on with it. Sides aren't bothered about the cash as its absolute pittance (for them).

Edited 4 July 2023 by Chocolate Teapot

[when_you're_smiling]

9 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Which of course they would have declined because the ball was dead. Right?

Not if he was intending a stumping it wouldn’t be.

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

The umpire wouldn’t call ‘over’ in the middle of Carey in action throwing at the stumps though.

 

Carey doesn’t wait around, he straight away throws the ball and if he’d missed, there’s the (small) potential England could have run an over throw. 

This is very important in the context -

carey effectively collected and threw in one movement - if the umpire calls over before the ball strikes the stumps then what happens ??  
 

Wondering if England will pretend to brush this away now and play normally - waiting for their moment to exact revenge at some point in the next three tests  - be it the same kind of dismissal or a mankad 

Of course stokes saying that he wouldn’t want to win like that does make this a difficult approach. (Unless he says afterwards that it was all part of the same deceit) 

[filbertway]

I don't think it would have mattered had Bairstow been out or not.

 

Stokes likely doesn't get massively pumped up and go beast mode and they'd both probably have gotten out in a stupid way for much less runs than Stokes managed alone.

 

As @leicsmac says, the key is to try and harness that feeling and use it over the next 3 tests. A bit like when Watford played the Deeney day video and we massacred them.

[Lionator]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...and if it wasn't for the bowlers not seeing off the eighth wicket pair when they really should in the first test and one half hour of insanity in the first innings in the second, England could be 2-0 up.

 

I think the idea that the margin between the performance of the two teams is big and England are somehow drawing themselves closer through superb individual performances is erroneous. The numbers will say in black and white that both matches were pretty close, anyway.

 

Get Foakes in ASAP, but I'm not having the clamour for wholesale changes in personnel and style - they're not warranted and it's incredibly reactionary.

The problem is, I don’t think the Aussies have been that impressive either. Khawaja aside, their batting has been below expectations and Hazelwood has looked out of sorts with the ball. I don’t think the second test was that close at all, the Aussies were always ahead of the game from the first day. The first one, we blew it.

[when_you're_smiling]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

This is very important in the context -

carey effectively collected and threw in one movement - if the umpire calls over before the ball strikes the stumps then what happens ??  
 

Wondering if England will pretend to brush this away now and play normally - waiting for their moment to exact revenge at some point in the next three tests  - be it the same kind of dismissal or a mankad 

Of course stokes saying that he wouldn’t want to win like that does make this a difficult approach. (Unless he says afterwards that it was all part of the same deceit) 

He can’t/shouldn’t call over because it should be clear that the wicketkeeper’s side doesn’t believe the ball is dead.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

He can’t/shouldn’t call over because it should be clear that the wicketkeeper’s side doesn’t believe the ball is dead.

Yes I know he shouldn’t but what if he does - is it like football where if the ball is in motion when the whistle blows is relevant.  If the umpire calls over whilst the ball is in motion but hasn’t yet reached the stumps, does that make it dead? 

[when_you're_smiling]

48 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Yes I know he shouldn’t but what if he does - is it like football where if the ball is in motion when the whistle blows is relevant.  If the umpire calls over whilst the ball is in motion but hasn’t yet reached the stumps, does that make it dead? 

As I understand it yeah, it’s dead as soon as he calls over. 

[Lcfc-1992]

Pope out of the series. No replacement called up. Could of been an opportunity to get Foakes back in

[Lako42]

6 minutes ago, Lcfc-1992 said:

Pope out of the series. No replacement called up. Could of been an opportunity to get Foakes back in

even lighter with the bat now 

[purpleronnie]

[trabuch]

13 minutes ago, Lcfc-1992 said:

Pope out of the series. No replacement called up. Could of been an opportunity to get Foakes back in

Bairstow's keeping hasn't been great. It was slightly better in the last test, but it was terrible in the first. I would welcome Foakes back behind the stumps. I reckon it will make a difference to our bowlers too. (not unlike how defenders tend to play better when you haven't got a walking disaster in goal).

The Aussies are the ones being whiney about this now. Maybe they are worried about what the Headingly crowd are going to do.

[Lionator]

The idiocy of not picking Foakes here. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, trabuch said:

Bairstow's keeping hasn't been great. It was slightly better in the last test, but it was terrible in the first. I would welcome Foakes back behind the stumps. I reckon it will make a difference to our bowlers too. (not unlike how defenders tend to play better when you haven't got a walking disaster in goal).

The Aussies are the ones being whiney about this now. Maybe they are worried about what the Headingly crowd are going to do.

With any luck, the Headingley crowd will give them just cause for worry.

 

I want an absolute bearpit, maximum hostility, zero decorum.

 

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

The problem is, I don’t think the Aussies have been that impressive either. Khawaja aside, their batting has been below expectations and Hazelwood has looked out of sorts with the ball. I don’t think the second test was that close at all, the Aussies were always ahead of the game from the first day. The first one, we blew it.

I think England had a couple of chances in the second test.

 

How much of that Aus underperformance is due to their own mistakes and how much is it to do with the England team actually matching them? Difficult to say, I guess.

 

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The idiocy of not picking Foakes here. 

Seriously. This is tailor made for him, if it wasn't already.

[Raj]

Year was 1981. Krishnamachri Srikanth was making his test debut at Mumbai against England. After playing a ball Srikanth nonchalantly strolled outside his crease as was his habit. John Embury fielding nearby ran him out. The English players had a hearty laugh at Srikanth and ridiculed him for making school boy error.
#SpiritOfCricket

[leicsmac]

Broad:

 

"I am not saying that the MCC members shouting at players was right, but having toured Australia four times I certainly do not think hostile behaviour towards away teams is unusual."

 

Quite.

[Bert]

52 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

even lighter with the bat now 

You’d imagine that Woakes and Ali will come in to extend the tail. 
 

I’d go for: 

 

Crawley

Duckett

Lawrence 

Root

Brook

Stokes

Bairstow

Ali

Woakes

Broad

Wood

 

[AKCJ]

Cannot believe they're still refusing to select Foakes.

 

I can't help but feel like the squad is so invested in this Bazball that they're feeling the need to constantly double down on it. As if they're constantly shouting "oh you think this is brave and stupid?! Just you wait!!".

 

Bring Foakes in, push Bairstow up the order and see how you go.

 

For me, the team at Headingly should be;

 

1. Crawley

2. Duckett

3. Bairstow

4. Root (vc)

5. Brook

6. Stokes (c)

7. Foakes (wk)

8. Ali

9. Broad

10. Robinson

11. Wood

 

That's beyond attacking enough to fulfil the Bazball ideology, the tail is long to account for the loss of Pope and it still keeps a solid middle order in case the opening 3 fail to deliver.

[filbertway]

Again, I know very little about cricket, but Bairstow looks like a poor wicket keeper. The amount of drops when it's literally his only job are crazy. Add to that that his batting hardly seems to be consistently top notch. He can't be the best option we have surely?

[Lcfc-1992]

18 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Again, I know very little about cricket, but Bairstow looks like a poor wicket keeper. The amount of drops when it's literally his only job are crazy. Add to that that his batting hardly seems to be consistently top notch. He can't be the best option we have surely?

Must be based on his form before his injury, which is a massive risk having not played for so long and then coming back into an Ashes series. They didn’t even let him bat in the one warm up game against Ireland. 

[oxford blue]

Just to comment on last two posts - I fully agree with AKCJ regarding Foakes (as I have said previously) - he should be in the team. Not sure about including Ali - isn't his finger problem likely to flair? Also, could we really drop the best bowler at Lords(Tongue)?

Yes, Bairstow does miss too many chances and I also think byes (26 in last test) would be reduced with a better wicketkeeper. I am sure his best moment of the series will be carting the the JSO protester off the pitch at Lords.

[RowlattsFox]

Fact is they want Bairstow in the team but not at the top of the order. They feel his biggest strength is fast scoring towards the end of an innings, and to be honest I agree with them, despite it not working so far. If they pick Foakes then they drop Bairstow which on current form would be fair. 

 

Woakes for Anderson, similar bowling skill set but adds to the batting. Wood for Robinson.