The International Cricket Thread

[Monty]

Paul, do you worry you've dug yourself in a bit here? Even Geoff Lemon on the Graun's OBO, who yesterday was defending the approach in spite of it all, described Brook's dismissal as 'the stupidest bit of cricket I've ever seen'.

[olaftab]

Mind numbingly shocking this morning.
Without a spinner in the team there is no chance no of getting them out for a chaseable total.

[PaulWinch again]

This was always my worry with Bazball. A disciplined, quality attack would be too good for it unless you can adapt a bit. We simply haven’t.

I genuinely don’t really think this was “Bazball”, maybe a result of muddled interpretation of it. But I severely doubt Bazball is about getting bombed out in a stupid fashion.

Also this isn’t what England were doing last year, there were ebbs and flows.

[Villafirst]

England all out 325. From 188/1 that's pathetic all brought about by that mad hour yesterday afternoon. Unless there's a dramatic turnaround that Ashes gone I feel. Bazball doesn't work against a quality bowling attack like Australia have. All the more annoying having been in commanding positions in both Tests. England have gifted the Ashes to Australia.

[PaulWinch again]

England all out 325. From 188/1 that's pathetic all brought about by that mad hour yesterday afternoon. Unless there's a dramatic turnaround that Ashes gone I feel. Bazball doesn't work against a quality bowling attack like Australia have. All the more annoying having been in commanding positions in both Tests. England have gifted the Ashes to Australia.

“Bazball” can work fine, because when England have been playing well they’ve played well aggressively. They just played badly from the afternoon onwards.

[simboy]

A batting collapse!  At least we have retained that aspect of the pre McCullen era.

[OzVilla]

This was always my worry with Bazball. A disciplined, quality attack would be too good for it unless you can adapt a bit. We simply haven’t.

I genuinely don’t really think this was “Bazball”, maybe a result of muddled interpretation of it. But I severely doubt Bazball is about getting bombed out in a stupid fashion.

Also this isn’t what England were doing last year, there were ebbs and flows.

This attack is far better though. Far more disciplined. You need to pick you’re moments and England just don’t seem capable.

[paul_e]

Paul, do you worry you've dug yourself in a bit here? Even Geoff Lemon on the Graun's OBO, who yesterday was defending the approach in spite of it all, described Brook's dismissal as 'the stupidest bit of cricket I've ever seen'.

Honestly no I don't, I think there were a couple of genuinely poor shots in there (Brook and Bairstow) but I can't agree that if we'd just let them bowl short and not tried to score we'd somehow be in a far better situation. That's all I'm getting at really, Brook went for 50 having scored that many by taking on the bowling, yes he went having played an awful shot that he got completely wrong but why can't it just be a poor shot? His attitude is responsible for both a pretty important 50 and a soft dismissal, in much the same way that Stokes attitude was responsible for a disappointing 17 and a well worked dismissal. So why is it that Brook is the one being criticised? As I say I just think people are in Favour of Bazball whilst it works but show they're 'real' opinions on it when it doesn't.

[taylorsworkrate]

I just wish I could understand how Stokes is being praised for his 'sensible' 17 but Brook, Duckett, Crawley and Pope are all brainless and have 'given the test away' despite putting the best part of 250 runs on between them.

Because with a bit more guile, they could've got more?

Or, as Stokes showed, they could've scored far fewer and then been done by a good delivery. My problem with all of the wailing on this thread right now is the absolute certainty you all seem to have that if we'd just not played hook shots we'd have been looking a big first inning lead and have won the game easily.

Yep it’s only Stokes who’s actually been got out.

They really need to reflect. Because this is two games where we’ve just handed the initiative to them.

They could have a blinding bowling innings or the tail could wag, but the percentages are really against it.

How many bonus runs do we get because he was 'got out' instead of giving his wicket away?

Of course nothing is a certainty, but yesterday, at 190/1 with the pitch doing absolutely nothing, the sun shining and their world class spinner going off with an obviously bad injury, England were undeniably in a very strong position. There was so much time left in the game and a bowling side can only go with that short ball tactic for a limited time before the bowlers get tired as it takes so much out of you. 45 minutes of sensible cricket, knowing and adapting to the match situation was what was so clearly called for. See out that spell and then what do Australia do? What tactic do they turn to then without their matchwinning spinner available? Instead we played right into their hands. A big issue with our approach was what was the reward? The occasional single weighed up against the inevitability of eventually miscuing a hook was all that was on offer for us.

I'd be furious with a village team for playing the way we have from yesterday evening onwards. This is the ashes and the players seem more concerned with how their approach looks than actually winning it.

[Risso]

Paul, do you worry you've dug yourself in a bit here? Even Geoff Lemon on the Graun's OBO, who yesterday was defending the approach in spite of it all, described Brook's dismissal as 'the stupidest bit of cricket I've ever seen'.

Honestly no I don't, I think there were a couple of genuinely poor shots in there (Brook and Bairstow) but I can't agree that if we'd just let them bowl short and not tried to score we'd somehow be in a far better situation. That's all I'm getting at really, Brook went for 50 having scored that many by taking on the bowling, yes he went having played an awful shot that he got completely wrong but why can't it just be a poor shot? His attitude is responsible for both a pretty important 50 and a soft dismissal, in much the same way that Stokes attitude was responsible for a disappointing 17 and a well worked dismissal. So why is it that Brook is the one being criticised? As I say I just think people are in Favour of Bazball whilst it works but show they're 'real' opinions on it when it doesn't.

Well for most England cricket fans, the Ashes is the pinnacle of the sport, and we'd like to win it. The team just need to inject a bit of intelligence into the attacking mindset.

[Monty]

Paul, do you worry you've dug yourself in a bit here? Even Geoff Lemon on the Graun's OBO, who yesterday was defending the approach in spite of it all, described Brook's dismissal as 'the stupidest bit of cricket I've ever seen'.

Honestly no I don't, I think there were a couple of genuinely poor shots in there (Brook and Bairstow) but I can't agree that if we'd just let them bowl short and not tried to score we'd somehow be in a far better situation. That's all I'm getting at really, Brook went for 50 having scored that many by taking on the bowling, yes he went having played an awful shot that he got completely wrong but why can't it just be a poor shot? His attitude is responsible for both a pretty important 50 and a soft dismissal, in much the same way that Stokes attitude was responsible for a disappointing 17 and a well worked dismissal. So why is it that Brook is the one being criticised? As I say I just think people are in Favour of Bazball whilst it works but show they're 'real' opinions on it when it doesn't.

Fair enough, I just don't think that's what's going on. Brook built his reputation on solid scoring without making a lot of mistakes, just taking on 100% of the balls that are there to be taken on. This morning and yesterday he legitimately could've been out 7 times, all from flailing around.

It seems far from obvious to me that the runs we got were achieved with the same approach that cost us wickets. There weren't a lot of big ol' boundaries once the Aussies put the field back (in fact, zero sixes!). They nurdled some runs and then got out with hideous lurches, over and over again. It was stubborn to the point of idiocy.

[PaulWinch again]

“Bazball” isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a cult that you’re either for or against. It should be about being front footed, aggressive, and innovative. All of which I am for. I’m against failing to read the game and engineering a position that puts you behind in the game.

[paul_e]

Paul, do you worry you've dug yourself in a bit here? Even Geoff Lemon on the Graun's OBO, who yesterday was defending the approach in spite of it all, described Brook's dismissal as 'the stupidest bit of cricket I've ever seen'.

Honestly no I don't, I think there were a couple of genuinely poor shots in there (Brook and Bairstow) but I can't agree that if we'd just let them bowl short and not tried to score we'd somehow be in a far better situation. That's all I'm getting at really, Brook went for 50 having scored that many by taking on the bowling, yes he went having played an awful shot that he got completely wrong but why can't it just be a poor shot? His attitude is responsible for both a pretty important 50 and a soft dismissal, in much the same way that Stokes attitude was responsible for a disappointing 17 and a well worked dismissal. So why is it that Brook is the one being criticised? As I say I just think people are in Favour of Bazball whilst it works but show they're 'real' opinions on it when it doesn't.

Well for most England cricket fans, the Ashes is the pinnacle of the sport, and we'd like to win it. The team just need to inject a bit of intelligence into the attacking mindset.

but what does that 'intelligence' look like because by the definition you all seem to have decided on Stokes was intelligent, that's why I made the trite comment about bonus runs. If Pope had connected better with his would his 'brainless' shot have turned into an intelligent 6 to put pressure on the short ball game? If Brook had got through his shot quicker and he'd smashed it through cow corner would it still have been brainless? Why wasn't Stokes being brainless when, by not taking on the short ball, he let them bring in a couple of slips and then got caught by one of them?

[edgysatsuma89]

For me the common sense percentage points just need to be upped a little bit and I think that's generally all people are asking for. I get all the arguments though, it's a balancing act, it's just not one we are quite nailing.

[Risso]

but what does that 'intelligence' look like because by the definition you all seem to have decided on Stokes was intelligent, that's why I made the trite comment about bonus runs. If Pope had connected better with his would his 'brainless' shot have turned into an intelligent 6 to put pressure on the short ball game? If Brook had got through his shot quicker and he'd smashed it through cow corner would it still have been brainless? Why wasn't Stokes being brainless when, by not taking on the short ball, he let them bring in a couple of slips and then got caught by one of them?

It's not just one or two players though Paul, it's been the majority of dismissals in all of our innings so far. The way we went after the short stuff yesterday was such an obvious trap and we fell for it hook, line and sinker. I don't want to see Boycott style defensive play, but they just need to not throw their wickets away, like the majority have. Of course people are still going to get out even when playing well, but generally the longer you stick around, the more you score, as Australia are showing. A good example was the innings at Edgbaston when Stokes played within himself to see the team through to the break, then got going after that. It was a rational thing to do, and it mostly worked.